Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Peterlag]

Lol...Hold on Peter...HOLD ON!

When you speak you speak from God's perspective????

But in post #302 you said, "What I post is my opinion." And post #167 you said, "my evidence is my opinion." And in post #635 you said When I speak it's my opinion.

Sooooo which one is it? Are you posting your opinion or God's perspective?

Now I can see why @RedFan said you are a cross-examiner's dream witness!

I never said what you are saying I said. The context is when so many others on here speak it's the Word of God. When I speak it's my opinion. That's not me saying it. It's them. They say they believe the Word of God not my opinion. They call what I post my opinion. Understand.

 

[Adrift]

I have been doing this a long time so I'm an expert at it. Expert enough to know that the Catholics have never been right about anything. If you want to know the truth of the Bible. Then just look at what the Catholics teach and then do the opposite and you will probably be right on with the correct teaching of the Bible.

Yes. That may even be an understatement. I was born into a Catholic family and, as a child I was forced to attend Catechism. While in Viet Nam I studied the bible, so, I naturally left the Catholic church when I got back home. The Catechism was replete with untrue biblical add-ons.

 

[Peterlag]

Lol...OK Peter (the expert), thank you. I acknowledge your Catholic rant and I suspect the Catholic Church is wrong about everything, that is until YOU say it is right. But we are getting sidetracked and we should get back to talking about the subject at hand; EW Bullinger.

What do you think about this statement from Harry A. Ironside about the great scholar EW Bullinger:

Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands, it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.

Curious Mary

I thought the pope was the subject here. I believe Bullinger's definitions are very accurate. Is there a word that he gives a definition on that you find to be wrong?

 

[Peterlag]

Yes. That may even be an understatement. I was born into a Catholic family and, as a child I was forced to attend Catechism. While in Viet Nam I studied the bible, so, I naturally left the Catholic church when I got back home. The Catechism was replete with untrue biblical add-ons.

Thanks for the support. I know enough of the Scriptures to know I'm correct. Folks often attack me personally as they are still doing tonight because they cannot win a debate on this subject with me.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Sooooo after reading your 230+ words in this response and the 800+ words in your last response you still haven't flat out said that you don't think you should follow God's example and rest one day a week. I suspect that you don't feel comfortable writing those words, but you believe them.

You seem to have an obsession with counting words for some reason….What I post is not about how many words there are….have you taken note of the content at all?
The Bible is a big book, not explainable in 50 words or less….

However, reading between the lines here is what I think you are saying: You will not follow the example that God gave you, but you have no problem with other people following God's example by taking 1 day out of 7 off to rest.

I’m sorry, but it appears that you are somewhat illiterate with that kind of “between the lines” reading…..
It is not about following the example that God gave me…..it is a matter of understanding what the Sabbath in Genesis is, compared to the Sabbath law given to Israel…..two different sabbaths based on the same principle….only one was a command, and it was given exclusively to Israel…..making Moses the first of God’s prophets to observe the Sabbath.…

No one seems to be able to come up with any scriptural proof that Adam, Noah, Elijah or Abraham ever observed a weekly Sabbath. Were they not imitating the example of God the Father?

Ephesians 5:1 in part says become imitators of God. Your JW men have interpreted that to mean that "God’s appealing qualities can motivate Christians to imitate the One who best exemplifies such qualities." and that "Christians should imitate Jehovah “as beloved children.” A child cannot imitate a grown parent perfectly. Nevertheless, the child’s sincere efforts are sure to make a parent happy." Do you want to make Jehovah happy and imitate Him or not?

This is the apostle Paul speaking…the very one who wrote that ‘Christ ended the Law’. (Col 2:13-14; Romans 7:6; Rom 10:4)….no Gentile Christian was ever commanded to observe the Jewish Sabbath. Gentile proselytes were under Jewish Law because they were converts to Judaism…Christians were not.

We can certainly imitate the faith of those who followed the example of the Christ, who himself was taught by his God and Father.….which does indeed make our God happy…..what does not make him happy is when we “go beyond what is written” (1 Cor 4:6) to introduce ideas that appeal to us…..that is the devil’s playground.
Your rather transparent appeal makes me laugh…am I an immature child to swallow such obvious emotional blackmail? Good grief….what a hallmark of Catholic thinking…..

Correction Jane!

For JEHOVAH WITNESSES, a religion founded 1,800 years after the death of Christ, there are no Holy Days.

For a religion founded by a pagan Roman Emperor 400 years after the death of the apostles, there are many “unholy days” and a plethora of “unchristian” teachings in Roman Catholicism….all adopted like lost puppies……I know who put them up for adoption…..do you?

Where will I find a “Pontiff” presiding over “the church” in the first century? The title “Pontifex Maximus” is a pagan Roman title given to the high priest of Rome’s false religion….nothing to do with original Christianity.

Were there priests officiating at an opulent Christian temple or cathedral?…..dressed in very distinctive garments and with fancy hats and titles?
Why is the bread offered in the shape of the sun?
When did God change the Catholic sabbath to Sunday? That was not the day of the Jewish Sabbath.
Were there images of Mary or the baby Jesus…..or even a dead Jesus on a cross in their church buildings?
Where will I find Mary given equal, if not more importance than Jesus himself in the Bible?
And where do both of them eclipse the Father in importance?
Where does it say to pray to the “saints” or to Mary as mediatrix, when Jesus was the only mediator appointed by God?
Where is the infant baptism…the holy water…..the catechism….the liturgy….purgatory….or hellfire?

I can’t seem to find a trace of any of them mentioned in the Bible…..so do you really want to start this conversation?

 

[Brakelite]

Can YOU explain why you would make such a historically-bankrupt statement?
Everything you claimed is nonsense

Well, not quite. According to you I was at least half right. You haven't quoted any popes from the first 5 centuries or so quoting Matthew in support of succession, papal primacy etc.
And your early church influencers had issues. Not only did they disagree with each other on some issues, they also disagreed with the church. And Tertullian, wow. One winners why anyone would listen to him regarding any topic after hearing his views on sexuality and marriage.
So, while I admit that yes, they referenced Matthew 16 in their view of apostolic succession, from what I read of their views that did not necessarily mean the one church centred in Rome, with one person as spokesman, had complete authority in spiritual matters over other churches, and certainly not over individuals.
And Tertullian's interest in the Montanists tells me he would agree with me concerning the downhill spiral even in his time that the church was experiencing morally and doctrinally.
So. Where are we? The fact remains that no popes referenced Matthew 16 in support of papal supremacy, and nor did those church fathers you quoted. Sure, they used that verse in support of having authority in deciding doctrine, but none of them actually agreed with the church's concept that such authority gave the church the right to persecute and excommunicate those who happened to disagree with the church. Even Tertullian had some reservations over the church's concept of what the trinity is, as do many today. Does that make me historically bankrupt and everything a say equalling nonsense? Not by a long stretch. But then BoL, you always have been given to hyperbole in denigrating others who you object to.

 

[Marymog]

You seem to have an obsession with counting words for some reason….What I post is not about how many words there are….have you taken note of the content at all?
The Bible is a big book, not explainable in 50 words or less….

Jane,

First off, I don't count the words. Google docs does that for me.

Second off, it's not an obsession. You are probably only the 3rd person in the 7 years I have been on this forum that I have pointed out the excessive number of words they used to NOT answer a simple yes or no question. The word count is evidence of your bloviating.

Third off, I didn't ask you to explain the bible. I didn't ask you to explain why you believe what you believe. I asked you a very simple yes or no question.

And finally, YES I have taken note of the content of your posts. See how easy that was? You asked a YES or NO question and I answered it with one word.

 

[Marymog]

I’m sorry, but it appears that you are somewhat illiterate with that kind of “between the lines” reading…..

Jane,

Let me see if I understand what's going on here. I ask you a simple YES or NO question. In 2 different responses and almost 1,000 words later you didn't answer the question! I then point out WHAT IS VERY OBVOIOUS and state a VERY COMMON SAYING in the English language in situations like this, that I have to read between the lines of those 1,000 words to find your answer, and you suggest that I am illiterate?????

What is happening here is that you are attempting to be-little ME when YOUR words are the PERFECT DICTIONARY EXAMPLE of causing someone to read between the lines. But, I suspect it makes you feel good to be-little me instead of taking responsibility for your actions.

But that is what vituperative, contumelious, invective people do. There is no reading between the lines of that statement.........

 

[Marymog]

No one seems to be able to come up with any scriptural proof that Adam, Noah, Elijah or Abraham ever observed a weekly Sabbath. Were they not imitating the example of God the Father?

Thanks Jane.

The Sabbath was made for man(kind), and not man for the Sabbath.

 

[Marymog]

This is the apostle Paul speaking…the very one who wrote that ‘Christ ended the Law’. (Col 2:13-14; Romans 7:6; Rom 10:4)….no Gentile Christian was ever commanded to observe the Jewish Sabbath. Gentile proselytes were under Jewish Law because they were converts to Judaism…Christians were not.

You crack me up Jane. Partially quoting Scripture to fit what your men have taught you and leaving out the parts that are 1 verse later that destroys your men's teachings: Col 2:16: So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

Paul wrote Colossians 20 years after the crucifixion of Christ. That means for the 20 years prior to him writing that Christians were being judged for the Sabbath day they were keeping, which was Sunday, the Day of the Lord. How do we know it was Sunday Jane? Scripture and historical Christian writings say so.

 

[Marymog]

We can certainly imitate the faith of those who followed the example of the Christ,

Oh Jane, Jane Jane!!! A feeble attempt to change the subject?

Ephesians 5:1 doesn't say we should "imitate the faith of those who followed the example of Christ." It says be imitators of God!!

Let's talk about what that passage says instead of what you want to twist it into.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

For a religion founded by a pagan Roman Emperor 400 years after the death of the apostles, there are many “unholy days” and a plethora of “unchristian” teachings in Roman Catholicism….all adopted like lost puppies……I know who put them up for adoption…..do you?

Where will I find a “Pontiff” presiding over “the church” in the first century? The title “Pontifex Maximus” is a pagan Roman title given to the high priest of Rome’s false religion….nothing to do with original Christianity.

Were there priests officiating at an opulent Christian temple or cathedral?…..dressed in very distinctive garments and with fancy hats and titles?
Why is the bread offered in the shape of the sun?
When did God change the Catholic sabbath to Sunday? That was not the day of the Jewish Sabbath.
Were there images of Mary or the baby Jesus…..or even a dead Jesus on a cross in their church buildings?
Where will I find Mary given equal, if not more importance than Jesus himself in the Bible?
And where do both of them eclipse the Father in importance?
Where does it say to pray to the “saints” or to Mary as mediatrix, when Jesus was the only mediator appointed by God?
Where is the infant baptism…the holy water…..the catechism….the liturgy….purgatory….or hellfire?

I can’t seem to find a trace of any of them mentioned in the Bible…..so do you really want to start this conversation?

Lol Jane. Would you care to address what I said? Or are you wanting to start a whole new conversation/debate?

You stated, "For Christians, there are no “holy days”!!

I then called you out on that false statement and said, Correction Jane! For JEHOVAH WITNESSES, a religion founded 1,800 years after the death of Christ, there are no Holy Days.

What I stated is a FACT. And since you didn't (couldn't) refudiate that FACT it appears to me that you are acknowledging that what you said is FALSE!

But that's just me reading between the lines......

Sooooo to answer your question, NO, I don't want to start an entire new conversation when you can't even stay focused on this one.

See how I answered your question with a simple NO instead of writing 1,000 words and never answering it?

 

[Adrift]

The Pope is merely a traditional construct of the Catholic church. According to Catholic tradition, Saint Linus (d. c. 67 - 80) was the second bishop of Rome, succeeding the first "pope," Saint Peter, after Peter's martyrdom, ..........ad nauseum

 

[Behold]

The Pope is merely a traditional construct of the Catholic church. According to Catholic tradition, Saint Linus (d. c. 67 - 80) was the second bishop of Rome, succeeding the first "pope," Saint Peter, after Peter's martyrdom, ..........ad nauseum

Here is what Paul said about the Catholic's "1st Pope"..

Galatians 2

""""But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. ""

as we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”


See that Reader?

That is Paul having to instruct "the cult of mary's" 1st Pope..., regarding what it means to not be "under the Law, but under Grace".

= "Christ is the end of the Law for Righteousness, to everyone who believes"..

= "Christ has redeemed (the born again) from the CURSE of the LAW".

 

[Marymog]

I thought the pope was the subject here. I believe Bullinger's definitions are very accurate. Is there a word that he gives a definition on that you find to be wrong?

Yes, there is a word that he gives a definition of that I, and everyone else, finds to be wrong! You mentioned it in previous posts (622, 623), and it is the word Petros on page #584 of his book! Bullinger says it means a stone, a rolling stone "in one place today and another tomorrow".

However, you allege that Bullinger called Petros (Peter) unstable.

I can't find that in Bullinger's book that you referenced. Do you have a page number?

Thanks in advance....Mary

 

[Marymog]

I never said what you are saying I said. The context is when so many others on here speak it's the Word of God. When I speak it's my opinion. That's not me saying it. It's them. They say they believe the Word of God not my opinion. They call what I post my opinion. Understand.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Marymog]

The Pope is merely a traditional construct of the Catholic church. According to Catholic tradition, Saint Linus (d. c. 67 - 80) was the second bishop of Rome, succeeding the first "pope," Saint Peter, after Peter's martyrdom, ..........ad nauseum

Hello Adrift,

How do you fulfill Hebrews 13:17?

 

[Marymog]

So. Where are we? The fact remains that no popes referenced Matthew 16 in support of papal supremacy, ...

Would it matter if any Popes did Brakelite? You would still reject what they wrote....Right?

I get it. The men of the Catholic Church do not fulfill Hebrews 13:17 for YOU. They do for @BreadOfLife and Marymog.

What men in your life fulfills Hebrews 13:17?

Curious Mary

 

[Peterlag]

Yes, there is a word that he gives a definition of that I, and everyone else, finds to be wrong! You mentioned it in previous posts (622, 623), and it is the word Petros on page #584 of his book! Bullinger says it means a stone, a rolling stone "in one place today and another tomorrow".

However, you allege that Bullinger called Petros (Peter) unstable.

I can't find that in Bullinger's book that you referenced. Do you have a page number?

Thanks in advance....Mary

Page 650. Peter was like a rolling stone... in one place today and another tomorrow. Also on page 737 we read a piece of rock; not the rock itself, which is Christ. Peter was a piece of a rock, a stone, here today and gone tomorrow.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That's odd. Now why would Protestant guys believe Peter was the first pope?

Ummmm,. maybe you should ask them . . .

John Calvin – 16th century “Reformer”

Frank E. Gaebelein – Deacon in the Reformed Episcopal Church

John A. Broadus - Ordained Baptist pastor

D. A. Carson – Baptist Professor of Theology

John Peter Lange - German Protestant scholar

J. Knox Chamblin - Presbyterian and New Testament Professor

Craig L. Blomberg - Baptist and Professor of New Testament

And on and on and on . . .