Where does the Pope get his authority?

[quietthinker]

No, not according to Scripture.

No, not according to Scripture. The woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, the mother of Jesus. According to Luke 1:28, the angel addresses her as kecharitomene in the original Greek. This word, in the grammatical sense it was used, means she was born in such a manner as to be without sin from the first moment of her existence (her conception), permanently thereafter.

I find your interpretation that the Woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, wanting.

These visions John has of both Women are metaphors. I would see them representative as two opposing sides/ views of a global conflict.....one which ultimately have to do with how the character of God is seen. One side see's God as generous, patient and forgiving, the other, exacting, tight fisted/ greedy and vindictive/ revengeful......one who requires his pound of flesh.

 

[Aunty Jane]

No, not according to Scripture.

According to scripture the woman in Revelation is no literal woman, but true to the symbolic nature of the Revelation, we can see what she is not. The Revelation was about the future, not the past. By the time John wrote Revelation, Jesus had fully completed his mission and had returned to his Father in heaven.

No, not according to Scripture. The woman in Rev. 12 is Mary, the mother of Jesus.

There is no way that this is Mary. First of all she is pictured in heaven giving birth to her “male child” (12:4)….Mary delivered Jesus on earth.
Then the child is “caught up to God and to his throne” and the woman fled for her own life to a place of safety provided by God for a set period of time. (12:5-6)

Then there was a war in heaven, and Michael and his angels evicted the devil and his demons out of heaven, to the vicinity of the earth to live out the remaining time that God had allowed them. (12:7-12)

The devil is then pictured as persecuting the woman on earth but it cannot be Mary because she has long been dead. Was it prophesied that she would be resurrected to the earth? Please find me the scripture that says so.

God gave the woman wings of an eagle to flee from the devil’s attack on her, so she was in a place of God’s protection whilst the defeated devil went off to wage war with “the rest of her children“ …..so how this fits with what you suggested is beyond all comprehension…..it shows how little Bible study you do as you swallow down the cool-ade given you to drink without question.

According to Luke 1:28, the angel addresses her as kecharitomene in the original Greek. This word, in the grammatical sense it was used, means she was born in such a manner as to be without sin from the first moment of her existence (her conception), permanently thereafter.

Since I cannot find that word in Greek scripture, perhaps you can enlighten all of us as to its origin?

Mary went to the Temple after Jesus’ birth to offer a “sin offering” according to God’s law, because she was a daughter of Adam, who had inherited sin like all others. (Rom 5:12) Mary was not sinless, nor was she immaculately conceived…nor did she ascend bodily to heaven. She is NEVER called a “queen”.

The scriptural argument you offer is full of holes that only a wicked imagination could fill the way your church does to prop up beliefs that the first Christians never heard of.

Adoration of Mary is nothing more than thinly disguised mother goddess worship, adopted by an apostate church not too long after the apostles died, and Christianity was no longer protected from the apostasy that Christ and the apostles foretold. The “weeds” flourished thereafter……”the church” pretends that it never happened. Students of God’s word can clearly see that it did. It’s the reason why the RCC kept the scriptures to themselves….feeding their flocks absolute pagan nonsense that no one could check the validity of in the Bible for themselves. The Beroeans were commended for doing so. (Acts 17:11)

How can you all be so blind?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Where does the Pope get his authority?​

From the Roman Catholic Religious system. They (The college of Cardinals) elected him to be the CEO, and so he is.

 

[Brakelite]

1 Corinthians has NOTHING to do with obeying your elders and it doesn't cancel out that command. None the less, thanks for your opinion.

Read it again. The head of every man is Christ. That includes me. It included Paul. He didn't say the head of any man is another man. The church only has authority so long as Christ is in the church. Jesus declared the house of Israel desolate, which in due time resulted in its destruction in 70ad. Yet that was the church of that time. Jesus even said earlier regarding the Pharisees, "do as they say, but don't do as they do". Their rejection of Jesus after 3 and 1/2 years resulted in Jesus leaving them to the master they had chosen. Now please understand this. The early apostolic church has Jesus in their midst in the form of the holy Spirit. Pentecost and the days following was evidence of that. All they had to do was preach Jesus, and as He said, "if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me". The gospel continued to be preached for several centuries, and in that time the church grew as far as Britain to the west and China to the east, and everywhere in between. How was that possible in the midst of rampant paganism? Jesus in the midst. Jesus as the head of the church. The elders facilitated missions, they were appointed as local heads and had hundreds of bishops under them, but Jesus always remained as the Head of the church. Did you know that Baghdad was the centre of Christianity in the East for centuries before Rome even knew they existed?
In Rome however, it was a very different story. What the bishops of Rome did was the same as what Protestant bishops and pastors are doing today. They sought the favour of the emperor and the king's and queens of the fledgling European nations. Why did they do this? Possibly in the beginning for good reasons. After Constantine abandoned they place, some sort of civil rule was necessary, and the bishop seemed an obvious choice. But history reveals that the more they courted politics, the more they neglected Jesus. Just as Israel did. Just as protestants are doing today. History repeats. And as the neglected Jesus, the holy Spirit ceased to be a power in the church, and it was discovered they were less effective in growth and in establishing the church. It became their church, and no longer Christ's church. And they them made up the lack of spiritual power by using political power, legislation to enforce doctrine, and persecution and war to enforce obedience. Clovis, the king of the Franks, loved and revered in Catholicism as the first son of the Catholic church was a warmonger and killer, but was successful in establishing the "Catholic" church, but not by the spirit of God and uplifting Jesus, no. Perhaps in name yes, but in practicality, no. It was by washing way in anyone opposed to Rome in the name of squashing heresy. This Jesus did not do, nor did He inspire such actions then.
Mary. What has Jesus done for you in your life? How has He led you and changed your life for the better? Who is the most important person in your life Mary? Jesus? Or someone else?

 

[Brakelite]

And, historically, there was but one Christian Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, the Catholic Church.

Not quite. The church in the East and early Celtic church, and the Waldensian churches were around for centuries, some persecuted by Rome, and the rest called "heretics" because
A. They resisted Rome's claims of spiritual authority over them and
B. They disagreed with the fanciful permutations of Apostles practise and doctrine that Rome was forcing on the churches, such as Easter, Sunday sacredness, and the Roman version of the trinity.
Baghdad was a massive centre of Christianity for centuries, being the headquarters of the eastern Assyrian church, with branches as far as China and India. They were not "Catholic" in the sense of a nominal title, but they were certainly catholic in the sense of unity and purpose.
Even Patrick wasn't Catholic until Rome invented fables and myths in order to claim him well after his death. Same with the churches he established, and those Celtic headers who followed in his steps. Dinooth, Aiden, Columba, Columbanus and others. Augustine came to attempt to bring this Celtic church under the authority of the popes, but they politely refused, happy to fellowship, but retaining their independence. Not good enough for Rome though. Rome became Satan's vehicle for their destruction, and hundreds of years of war, conflict, persecution throughout great Britain since bears testimony to Rome's true motives. Now, it's just political. It's about political independence. I wonder now if Jesus has anything to do with either side, particularly now that ecumenism has brought a deceiving spirit into the English Christin community. In the name of love and unity and peace and safety, they are joining hands. But the goal for Rome doesn't stop there. It's about authority. Coercion. Even tyranny. Over everyone. All for the so called "common good". Centuries old agenda is finally coming to fruition for the leopard-like beast that is awaking from her slumber.

 

[Marymog]

Read it again. The head of every man is Christ. That includes me. It included Paul. He didn't say the head of any man is another man. The church only has authority so long as Christ is in the church. Jesus declared the house of Israel desolate, which in due time resulted in its destruction in 70ad. Yet that was the church of that time. Jesus even said earlier regarding the Pharisees, "do as they say, but don't do as they do". Their rejection of Jesus after 3 and 1/2 years resulted in Jesus leaving them to the master they had chosen. Now please understand this. The early apostolic church has Jesus in their midst in the form of the holy Spirit. Pentecost and the days following was evidence of that. All they had to do was preach Jesus, and as He said, "if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Me". The gospel continued to be preached for several centuries, and in that time the church grew as far as Britain to the west and China to the east, and everywhere in between. How was that possible in the midst of rampant paganism? Jesus in the midst. Jesus as the head of the church. The elders facilitated missions, they were appointed as local heads and had hundreds of bishops under them, but Jesus always remained as the Head of the church. Did you know that Baghdad was the centre of Christianity in the East for centuries before Rome even knew they existed?
In Rome however, it was a very different story. What the bishops of Rome did was the same as what Protestant bishops and pastors are doing today. They sought the favour of the emperor and the king's and queens of the fledgling European nations. Why did they do this? Possibly in the beginning for good reasons. After Constantine abandoned they place, some sort of civil rule was necessary, and the bishop seemed an obvious choice. But history reveals that the more they courted politics, the more they neglected Jesus. Just as Israel did. Just as protestants are doing today. History repeats. And as the neglected Jesus, the holy Spirit ceased to be a power in the church, and it was discovered they were less effective in growth and in establishing the church. It became their church, and no longer Christ's church. And they them made up the lack of spiritual power by using political power, legislation to enforce doctrine, and persecution and war to enforce obedience. Clovis, the king of the Franks, loved and revered in Catholicism as the first son of the Catholic church was a warmonger and killer, but was successful in establishing the "Catholic" church, but not by the spirit of God and uplifting Jesus, no. Perhaps in name yes, but in practicality, no. It was by washing way in anyone opposed to Rome in the name of squashing heresy. This Jesus did not do, nor did He inspire such actions then.
Mary. What has Jesus done for you in your life? How has He led you and changed your life for the better? Who is the most important person in your life Mary? Jesus? Or someone else?

Read ALL of Scripture AGAIN Brakelite instead of the cherry-picked passages that support what YOU believe! Christ established a Church with CLEAR authority led by men who enforce that authority. If you refuse to listen to The Church, you are to be treated like a pagan/tax collector (Matthew 18:17). That passage doesn't say Jesus decides if you are to be ex-communicated, it says The Church (overseers/elders) decides. That is why Scripture says, "obey those that rule over you and submit yourselves to them for they watch out for your soul". Scripture says, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. That passage doesn't say decrees that Jesus put upon you. It says Apostles and elders, MEN who ruled over them. Jesus said to the Apostles about the Apostles; He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. You are literally telling me NOT to do what Scripture tells me to do. In my book that is blasphemy. I know it's a waste of time to continue to quote all the passages that destroys your teachings so I will end it there and answer your questions. Thank you for your opinions none the less....

Your opinion that Baghdad was the center of Christianity has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about, and it wasn't established until 762AD. Constantine helped to recognize Rome as the center of Christianity in 312AD so your opinion is bizarre to say the least. The Constantinian basilica was built in 326 over what is believed to be the tomb of Saint Peter. Between 318 and 322 C.E. the construction of the first church - St. Peter's Basilica - began.

Jesus is the most important person in my life HOWEVER that doesn't nullify what Scripture says and ONCE AGAIN has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Scripture says, faith comes by hearing the word of God. God gives us his Spirit by believing what we hear and those who are of faith are blessed (Galatians 3). I didn't hear the word of God from God or Jesus. I heard it from other men. Men of The Church who have rule over me....just like Scripture says. Men of The Church who are worthy of double honor....just like Scripture says. Men of The Church who watch out for my soul....just like Scripture says. Men of The Church whom I am to obey....just like Scripture says. Shortly after Jesus died and the Apostles were still alive THE APOSTLES (men) were in charge. The people came to MEN for answers, guidance, healing etc. Those men held a meeting at a Council in Jeresleum and those me determined what all Christians FOREVER are going to do. What happened to the married couple that held back a money offering to The Church Brakelite?

ONCE AGAIN, notice how I have given multiple passages from Scripture to show you that The Church is what Scripture says it is; The pillar and foundation of Truth! You believe YOU are the pillar and foundation of Truth. And you......well, you.......ONCE AGAIN have repeated your opinions about 1 cherry picked passage from Scripture.

I feel bad for you that you haven't found a Church led by men who rule over you that you can trust with your soul that you can go to to settle your difference with your brother. I have found that Church and you are asking me to ignore Scripture and ignore that Church.

I feel like repeating Scripture over and over and over again to destroy what your men have taught you is a waste of my time.....Maybe not. Only God knows.

Mary

 

[RedFan]

Good grief! How was he trying to dupe his followers? Were angels who materialized in Bible times trying to dupe God’s servants as well? It was forbidden to Jews to communicate with spirits because demons could impersonate the dead and feed satan’s lie to Eve that we don’t really die.
The witch of Endor supposedly called up the spirit of dead Samuel, but it was demon impersonating him.
It involved divination which was against God’s law. (Deut 18:9-12) Saul himself was instrumental in ridding the land of spirit mediums.

Materializing in a body of flesh was a way to prevent them from breaking God’s law, as well as comforting them in the knowledge of his resurrection, which up until that time, was entirely fleshly. Jesus was “the firstborn from the dead”……not that he was the first human to be resurrected but the first to experience a resurrection “in the spirit”, paving the way for his elect to also experience such a resurrection to heavenly life in the future.

Well, I don't share your view about Jesus lacking his true physical body. Neither did Aquinas.

He wasn't trying to dupe his followers! If he didn't have his true physical body but wanted it to appear that way, then he would have been trying to dupe them.

 

[Augustin56]

Not quite. The church in the East and early Celtic church, and the Waldensian churches were around for centuries, some persecuted by Rome, and the rest called "heretics" because
A. They resisted Rome's claims of spiritual authority over them and
B. They disagreed with the fanciful permutations of Apostles practise and doctrine that Rome was forcing on the churches, such as Easter, Sunday sacredness, and the Roman version of the trinity.
Baghdad was a massive centre of Christianity for centuries, being the headquarters of the eastern Assyrian church, with branches as far as China and India. They were not "Catholic" in the sense of a nominal title, but they were certainly catholic in the sense of unity and purpose.
Even Patrick wasn't Catholic until Rome invented fables and myths in order to claim him well after his death. Same with the churches he established, and those Celtic headers who followed in his steps. Dinooth, Aiden, Columba, Columbanus and others. Augustine came to attempt to bring this Celtic church under the authority of the popes, but they politely refused, happy to fellowship, but retaining their independence. Not good enough for Rome though. Rome became Satan's vehicle for their destruction, and hundreds of years of war, conflict, persecution throughout great Britain since bears testimony to Rome's true motives. Now, it's just political. It's about political independence. I wonder now if Jesus has anything to do with either side, particularly now that ecumenism has brought a deceiving spirit into the English Christin community. In the name of love and unity and peace and safety, they are joining hands. But the goal for Rome doesn't stop there. It's about authority. Coercion. Even tyranny. Over everyone. All for the so called "common good". Centuries old agenda is finally coming to fruition for the leopard-like beast that is awaking from her slumber.

Rather than anti-Catholic lies, why don't you do some objective historical research? I would start with the Early Church Fathers, those closest in time to Jesus and the Apostles and see how they believed and acted. They were clearly Catholic. In fact, St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained and appointed by St. Peter, the Apostle, referred to the "Catholic Church" in his letter to the Smyrnaean's somewhere between 107-110 A.D.

Any other group could not have been Christian unless they received the faith through the Catholic Church, since that's the one Christ founded. Unless you're claiming Christ came back or sent an angel to tell them something different than was always taught from the beginning?

 

[Augustin56]

According to scripture the woman in Revelation is no literal woman, but true to the symbolic nature of the Revelation, we can see what she is not. The Revelation was about the future, not the past. By the time John wrote Revelation, Jesus had fully completed his mission and had returned to his Father in heaven.

There is no way that this is Mary. First of all she is pictured in heaven giving birth to her “male child” (12:4)….Mary delivered Jesus on earth.
Then the child is “caught up to God and to his throne” and the woman fled for her own life to a place of safety provided by God for a set period of time. (12:5-6)

Then there was a war in heaven, and Michael and his angels evicted the devil and his demons out of heaven, to the vicinity of the earth to live out the remaining time that God had allowed them. (12:7-12)

The devil is then pictured as persecuting the woman on earth but it cannot be Mary because she has long been dead. Was it prophesied that she would be resurrected to the earth? Please find me the scripture that says so.

God gave the woman wings of an eagle to flee from the devil’s attack on her, so she was in a place of God’s protection whilst the defeated devil went off to wage war with “the rest of her children“ …..so how this fits with what you suggested is beyond all comprehension…..it shows how little Bible study you do as you swallow down the cool-ade given you to drink without question.


Since I cannot find that word in Greek scripture, perhaps you can enlighten all of us as to its origin?

Mary went to the Temple after Jesus’ birth to offer a “sin offering” according to God’s law, because she was a daughter of Adam, who had inherited sin like all others. (Rom 5:12) Mary was not sinless, nor was she immaculately conceived…nor did she ascend bodily to heaven. She is NEVER called a “queen”.

The scriptural argument you offer is full of holes that only a wicked imagination could fill the way your church does to prop up beliefs that the first Christians never heard of.

Adoration of Mary is nothing more than thinly disguised mother goddess worship, adopted by an apostate church not too long after the apostles died, and Christianity was no longer protected from the apostasy that Christ and the apostles foretold. The “weeds” flourished thereafter……”the church” pretends that it never happened. Students of God’s word can clearly see that it did. It’s the reason why the RCC kept the scriptures to themselves….feeding their flocks absolute pagan nonsense that no one could check the validity of in the Bible for themselves. The Beroeans were commended for doing so. (Acts 17:11)

How can you all be so blind?

How can you be so prideful to think that your personal interpretation of Scripture is infallible? That the buck stops with you? You know better than the Apostles and their successors in interpreting Scripture? The truth is, anything you interpret that is contrary to what has always been taught is in error.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Well, I don't share your view about Jesus lacking his true physical body. Neither did Aquinas.

He wasn't trying to dupe his followers! If he didn't have his true physical body but wanted it to appear that way, then he would have been trying to dupe them.

Were the angels who appeared to God’s servants in human form, duping them too? God sent them after all….so why did they appear as completely human, able to eat and drink?

Or were they preserving God’s law concerning communication with spirits? Wicked spirits seek to deceive us humans….appearing in human form shows that the spirits are not wicked. God denied them that ability after the flood….so Jesus appearing in human form meant that Jesus had been raised from the dead as Jews understood resurrection. It was not until Pentecost and the outpouring of Jehovah’s spirit that they fully discerned the spiritual nature of Christ’s resurrection, as well as their own.

 

[Aunty Jane]

How can you be so prideful to think that your personal interpretation of Scripture is infallible? That the buck stops with you? You know better than the Apostles and their successors in interpreting Scripture? The truth is, anything you interpret that is contrary to what has always been taught is in error.

I am not prideful…I am confident…big difference.
It is not my personal Interpretation at all, but shared by a global brotherhood who all believe as I do…and we shun all Catholic doctrines as complete departures from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
Those differences have been clearly identified in this thread and others. Scripture has been provided to prove that the RCC is a product of the foretold apostasy, which they pretend never happened that early. It was beginning whilst the apostles were still alive…..so it happened very early in Christian history. Ignore it all at your peril.

Please point out what I said that was “unscriptural” as opposed to “non-Catholic”. There is a big difference there too because the Jews had done the exact same thing by adopting tradition as a substitute for scripture. (Matt 15:7-9) The Jews had their Talmud…Catholics have their catechism…..all man made, and far from God’s original word.

You seem to have no idea where your doctrines come from….do some research…it’s all there for anyone who wants to see the difference between the two…scripture and tradition. Those who are thoroughly indoctrinated will never see past their indoctrination and the fear that doing so imposes upon those who cannot progress past their unchristian roots.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[Adrift]

I didn't hear the word of God from God or Jesus. I heard it from other men. Men of The Church who have rule over me...

That's scary. I'm glad your "leader men" didn't tell you that a spaceship was coming to take you to Valhalla. Just think. People are dead becaused they trusted Jim Jones as their "church leader". Then there are those many terrible Popes that, at times, led the Catholic Church. I hear the Word of God by reading the Scriptures. I respect that the pastor of my church is the leader of his church, but I only digest his word when it is validated by Scriptures. Peace and love.

 

[Brakelite]

But, I think you’re coming from a false assumption of HOW the Church teaches

That's quite possible. I make no pretensions to being infallible or omniscient.

It’s not a “Our way or the highway” situation. Tradition and Magisterial teaching are never at “odds” with Scripture or are they ever presumed to be “above” Scripture.

Mmmm. That's how rabbinical Judaism justified their traditions to Jesus. In fact, the Catholic system of passing on tradition and giving it authority is a direct parallel to apostatised Israel. The seat of Moses became the seat of Peter.

EVERY teaching in the Catechism is backed up with Scriptural support in the form of footnotes. The Pope doesn’t pull things out of “thin air”. He simply defines a belief held by the Church.

Okay. It seems I did understand how the church taught after all. You more or less quoted the catechism verbatim. Scripture is interpreted through the lens of tradition. Both are equally inspired, the unwritten words of Jesus taught to Peter comes down infallibly through succession to the modern day Peter sitting on his throne. As for the assurance, it not being "our way or the highway" situation, that may be where I don't understand. Official empirical sanction was granted the Pope (hence the Revelation statement concerning authority coming from the dragon and granted the beast) in the 6th century by Justinian to search out and punish heretics. That being the case, and the ensuing practise in all countries where the church had political power or influence, many hundreds of thousands experienced first hand the literal "our way or the highway" approach to teaching the gospel.

As for the Bereans - yes, they searched the Scriptures for evidemce of what they were bein taught by the Churh. However, they ultimately believed the Church, who told the ideneity of the man, Jesus of Nazareth.

Hold on. I think we need to put a couple of things into context. Paul was travelling around Asia preaching a radically new way of doing religion. Some believed him and were convinced by the conviction of the holy Spirit that what Paul was teaching was truth. I know this, because the holy Spirit convicting people of truth, whether it be through a pastor or priest at a pulpit, or directly through reading scripture, is the only way by which anyone can be convinced of the gospel. No-one is convinced of the truth of the gospel and the salvation offered through the blood of Jesus, without the holy Spirit. It isn't up to the church to convince anyone. It isn't the church, or anyone else, that is the source of our salvation. A faulty conduit at best, and at worst, a purveyor of heresy and less and fairy tales. And the Catholic church has been known to swing like a pendulum from one of the above to the other, depending on who's in charge, and who they're talking to. The church would not have known the identity of the Messiah and the meaning of His ministry to mankind without being taught through scripture, first the OT and the numerous prophecies that pointed directly to Jesus such as Daniel 9 and Micah 5 and Isaiah 53 and many more. The story of the gospel is not about the church, it's about Jesus. And it was Jesus who taught the two worried, even frightened disciples on the road to Emmaus. Jesus didn't tell them to go and see Peter for the answers to their fears and questions. He opened up the scriptures, and
KJV Luke 24:25-27
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[Augustin56]

I am not prideful…I am confident…big difference.
It is not my personal Interpretation at all, but shared by a global brotherhood who all believe as I do…and we shun all Catholic doctrines as complete departures from the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.
Those differences have been clearly identified in this thread and others. Scripture has been provided to prove that the RCC is a product of the foretold apostasy, which they pretend never happened that early. It was beginning whilst the apostles were still alive…..so it happened very early in Christian history. Ignore it all at your peril.

Please point out what I said that was “unscriptural” as opposed to “non-Catholic”. There is a big difference there too because the Jews had done the exact same thing by adopting tradition as a substitute for scripture. (Matt 15:7-9) The Jews had their Talmud…Catholics have their catechism…..all man made, and far from God’s original word.

You seem to have no idea where your doctrines come from….do some research…it’s all there for anyone who wants to see the difference between the two…scripture and tradition. Those who are thoroughly indoctrinated will never see past their indoctrination and the fear that doing so imposes upon those who cannot progress past their unchristian roots.

You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Your perspective is skewed. Catholic doctrine is none other than the original doctrine handed to the Apostles by Christ, who then handed it on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for almost 2000 years now.

The only "unscriptural" thing you might find about Catholic doctrine is that it doesn't agree with your man-made, incorrect interpretation. The Catholic Church has never changed one doctrine it received in the Deposit of Faith from Christ. Not one, not ever. Any perceived contradiction between your interpretation of Scriptures and Catholic doctrine is error on your part, plain and simple.

 

[Brakelite]

Read ALL of Scripture AGAIN Brakelite instead of the cherry-picked passages that support what YOU believe! Christ established a Church with CLEAR authority led by men who enforce that authority. If you refuse to listen to The Church, you are to be treated like a pagan/tax collector (Matthew 18:17). That passage doesn't say Jesus decides if you are to be ex-communicated, it says The Church (overseers/elders) decides. That is why Scripture says, "obey those that rule over you and submit yourselves to them for they watch out for your soul". Scripture says, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. That passage doesn't say decrees that Jesus put upon you. It says Apostles and elders, MEN who ruled over them. Jesus said to the Apostles about the Apostles; He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. You are literally telling me NOT to do what Scripture tells me to do. In my book that is blasphemy. I know it's a waste of time to continue to quote all the passages that destroys your teachings so I will end it there and answer your questions. Thank you for your opinions none the less....

Your opinion that Baghdad was the center of Christianity has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about, and it wasn't established until 762AD. Constantine helped to recognize Rome as the center of Christianity in 312AD so your opinion is bizarre to say the least. The Constantinian basilica was built in 326 over what is believed to be the tomb of Saint Peter. Between 318 and 322 C.E. the construction of the first church - St. Peter's Basilica - began.

Jesus is the most important person in my life HOWEVER that doesn't nullify what Scripture says and ONCE AGAIN has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Scripture says, faith comes by hearing the word of God. God gives us his Spirit by believing what we hear and those who are of faith are blessed (Galatians 3). I didn't hear the word of God from God or Jesus. I heard it from other men. Men of The Church who have rule over me....just like Scripture says. Men of The Church who are worthy of double honor....just like Scripture says. Men of The Church who watch out for my soul....just like Scripture says. Men of The Church whom I am to obey....just like Scripture says. Shortly after Jesus died and the Apostles were still alive THE APOSTLES (men) were in charge. The people came to MEN for answers, guidance, healing etc. Those men held a meeting at a Council in Jeresleum and those me determined what all Christians FOREVER are going to do. What happened to the married couple that held back a money offering to The Church Brakelite?

ONCE AGAIN, notice how I have given multiple passages from Scripture to show you that The Church is what Scripture says it is; The pillar and foundation of Truth! You believe YOU are the pillar and foundation of Truth. And you......well, you.......ONCE AGAIN have repeated your opinions about 1 cherry picked passage from Scripture.

I feel bad for you that you haven't found a Church led by men who rule over you that you can trust with your soul that you can go to to settle your difference with your brother. I have found that Church and you are asking me to ignore Scripture and ignore that Church.

I feel like repeating Scripture over and over and over again to destroy what your men have taught you is a waste of my time.....Maybe not. Only God knows.

Mary

Yes, that is what I was taught as a child. Leave your brain at the door, don't think for yourself, you must obey only us, as we are your superiors. And you accuse me of cherry picking. Guess what. You go to a cherry tree for cherries. Not leaves or branches. One cherry from God's word is Truth. But you are also right that we should take all of scripture into account to make sure we are not mistaken...
KJV Luke 22:25-26
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

KJV Jeremiah 17:5
5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Your church departed from Jesus the moment it embraced emperors, kings, queens, and politicians for their aid and assistance in growing and establishing doctrine. You are right and very poignantly said, quote..."a Church with CLEAR authority led by men who enforce that authority." The moment your church united with the state, she became divorced and apostate. The moment religion became something to be forced, liberty of conscience became an endangered species, and those who chose to follow scripture as opposed to the Roman church, became targets. You are right. You are not going to convince me to follow men who do not follow Christ.
.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Your perspective is skewed. Catholic doctrine is none other than the original doctrine handed to the Apostles by Christ, who then handed it on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for almost 2000 years now.

You can say that with conviction, but the truth is, your own perspective has been skewed by a church system that became corrupted centuries before you were even born. If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.....The Catholic church had had an uninterrupted reign for 1500 years! The result of no correction during that time, resulted in doctrines that were not even close to what Christ and his apostles taught......its like they took every teaching and twisted it until it said the exact opposite.....only one evil mind could do that and "blind" people to the truth. (2 Cor 4:3-4) He is the sower of the "weeds".

The god you worship is one Jesus does not know, did not teach....and one that the Bible does not mention.

The only "unscriptural" thing you might find about Catholic doctrine is that it doesn't agree with your man-made, incorrect interpretation.

The funny thing is that all Catholic doctrine is "man made"....not a single thing that your church teaches is from Jesus or the apostles, but from those who came after the foretold apostasy had already begun....but how would you know that if you have not studied the Bible for yourself? You believe those who emulated the Pharisees and put tradition before scripture. (Matt 15:-9-12) Jesus said that their false doctrines invalidated their worship, rendering it useless.

In its teachings and practices, the RCC is so far removed from scripture so as to identify as the most 'unchristian' religion in existence. What the devil did to Judaism, he also accomplished with "the church" that fell away after the 'restraining' influence of the apostles was gone. It was foretold...and the RCC is the result, followed by those who did not purge themselves of her unholy doctrines when the Reformation broke the power of the church and gave God's word back to the people.

The Catholic Church has never changed one doctrine it received in the Deposit of Faith from Christ. Not one, not ever.

Exactly.....once the rot was added, (and there was a lot added in the early history of "the church") they never let it go to conform to the correct teachings of the Christ....they just made up excuses for why they they departed from scripture to teach what Christ never did....the self imposed "authority" of the church changed everything right at the beginning....and they have never altered. You seem proud of that....it is its greatest shame. (or one of them)

Any perceived contradiction between your interpretation of Scriptures and Catholic doctrine is error on your part, plain and simple.

Who told you that? You can believe that if you wish, but you can fight false indoctrination only if God moves you to do so. If you love the lies, he will allow you to keep them....

"But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess 2:9-12)

We had better hope that what we have been led to believe is not deception......or the judgment will be final for us. It will mean that we are not the sort of people that God wants in his Kingdom. We cannot be told to accept what we don't want to believe.

 

[TheHC]

But everyone is not Christ like or JW like sooooooo there will always be war.

Yes, the world will have its wars… but we as Christians must be “no part / not of this world.” — John 15:19

Jesus summed it up nicely:
“Payback Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”

Our allegiance / obedience to Him, comes before anything else!

So we obey His Son’s commands @ John 13:34 & Matt.5:44.
If we incur the world’s hatred because of it - Jesus implied we would - then so be it.
I’d rather experience the world’s displeasure, than God’s.
— Revelation 2:10….”’Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.’”

Best wishes.

 

[TheHC]

LOL, YES, really! All of Christianity teaches that self-defense is in Scripture. Only your sect denies it is in Scripture and would allow your entire town to be pillaged, women raped, and children killed. Thats scary.....THANK GOD 99.9999% of Christians do not adhere to your mens teachings.

“But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one..... They said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” He replied, “It is enough.”

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. 22 But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder.

Oh, please! How sad!
You forgot the rest of what Jesus said: “all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.”
— Matt. 26:52

BTW, we (JW’s) are not pacifists; I’d protect my family to the best of my ability. I’d get us all, out of harm’s way, that would be my first option.

You know, that’s not even what we’re talking about: I would not & will not train or in some way engage in warfare!

This is your second attempt to rationalize such actions, which is really disregarding Jesus’ commands. In fact, omitting His words in order to justify what in essence is worldly thinking.

Your responses condone disobeying Christ’s command to love.
Where is your faith in God’s ability to protect His obedient servants? That’s rhetorical…. I’m done.

 

[Brakelite]

The only "unscriptural" thing you might find about Catholic doctrine is that it doesn't agree with your man-made, incorrect interpretation. The Catholic Church has never changed one doctrine it received in the Deposit of Faith from Christ. Not one, not ever. Any perceived contradiction between your interpretation of Scriptures and Catholic doctrine is error on your part, plain and simple.

So, according to you then, the Sabbath is a man made doctrine and Sunday sacredness received in the "deposit of faith" from Christ?
And earning salvation by drawing on the merits of the saints (presumably through the Vatican bank) is also a part of the deposit of faith then seeing it isn't actually in scripture.
In other words, anything Catholics believe as doctrine, if not in scripture, comes from this deposit of faith. Even the deposit of faith itself comes from the deposit of faith right? And i you don't see how dodgy that is?

 

[Brakelite]

Read ALL of Scripture AGAIN Brakelite instead of the cherry-picked passages that support what YOU believe!

CLEAR authority led by men who enforce that authority

That passage doesn't say decrees that Jesus put upon you.

"If ye love Me, keep My commandments". ", In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrine there precepts of men".

You are literally telling me NOT to do what Scripture tells me to do.

If you were following scripture, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Your opinion that Baghdad was the center of Christianity

Opinion? Everything you don't like you deduce is opinion. You have no appreciation of the size of the Assyrian church. On a global scale, it dwarfed Rome. The church councils that were held there every 5 years or so brought bishops from China, India, Syria, Africa, Asia minor, Afghanistan, Mongolia. And it didn't have to use armies to make converts... Enforcing doctrine.. So, not opinion, history. Happy to give more detail of you are interested, but it would be off topic. The point I was making is the Rome was not the only shop in town, that the church Jesus established was not confined to just one city, nor for Her appoint one man as head over His people. He was, and still is, the Head of the church. Not that counterfeit usurper that sits on a great white throne with 2 angels either side and 4 living creatures round about, pretending he is God.
If Jesus is the most important person in your life, and I'm not doubting what you say, them you don't need to be surrendering your spiritual integrity and independence to sinful mortal men who themselves do not know Jesus.