[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Again, I am not asking you why you do not celebrate “Christmas” or “Easter”. I am asking you why you don’t commemorate His birth or resurrection. You avoid this question by using the terms Christmas and Easter. The birth and resurrection, again, ARE NOT PAGAN! Why then do you not commemorate them?
[/quote]
What would someone do to celebrate these events, devoid of all pagan elements? [/quote]
You tell me. You have obviously found a way to celebrate His death without pagan elements.
[/quote]
You do realize the Bible has given the celebration in the Bible to copy, right?
You are telling me that I should celebrate Christ’s Death and Resurrection, and then want me to find my own way of doing it? All with ZERO Biblical support? Is that correct?[/quote]
If you don’t feel any spiritual desire to honor your Savior’s birth and resurrection, then no.
However, I believe The Holy Spirit will guide you and show you the correct way.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?[/quote]
Who?
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?[/quote]
Who?
[/quote]
dmaddox
Evangelicals start with the assumption that Scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. This is aboslutely incorrect.
Jesus gave the original deposit to the disciples long before the Scripture was ever penned. The Catholic Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.
Which brings up a good question for evangelicals: show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?[/quote]
Who?
[/quote]
dmaddox[/quote]
Oh that is right. You guys dont beleive in the physical Resurrection of Jesus, so the resurection did not happen. Without the physical ressurrection of Jesus then what he did on the cross means nothing.
If you guys beleive in the literal interpretation of the Bible how do you explain when Jesus asked Thomas to touch his hands and side? To me that seems like a physical resurrection.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]
There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.
Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]
I can’t believe that people believe that the Catholic church started in the first century with the apostles and followers of Jesus. It’s a HISTORICAL FACT that the Roman Catholic church started with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I guess people who have faith in the Catholic church deny this just like they deny clear scripture that refutes just about all Catholic doctrine. Faith can be a good thing and a bad thing.
Now as far as the Christian congregation being built on a man named Peter this is completely FALSE. Unfortunately, Matthew 16:18 does cause some confusion but Jesus DID NOT say “you are Peter and on YOU I will build my congregation.” He said “you are Peter and on THIS ROCK MASS I will build my congregation.” Jesus was talking about himself as being the Rock Mass. No where is Peter identified as the Rock Mass or the Christian congregation being built on him. Jesus however is. I know that the Greek word for Peter which is Petros means piece of rock and Petra, the word Jesus used for ROCK MASS means MASS OF ROCK. But we don’t have to go as far as trying to identify the Greek words, all we have to do is turn to other parts of the Bible to see who clearly is identified as the congregation being built on.
First of all none of the apostles thought Jesus was talking about Peter when Jesus made that statement because later at Luke 22:24 the apostles argued over who was the greatest among them. If the Christian congregation was going to be built on Peter then there would not have been any disputing as to which one was the greatest. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19 & 20 clearly shows this when it states:
“Certainly, therefore, you are no longer strangers and alien residents, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and you have been built up upon the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, while CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF IS FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE.”
That verse clearly shows that the apostles are equal founding members but Jesus is the foundation corners stone. In ancient construction the cornerstone was laid first and was the most important stone in the building of a solid foundation. Peter even identifies Jesus as the ROCK MASS on which the congregation is being built at 1 Peter 2:7 & 8 which states:
“It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, the identical stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense. These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.”
Paul similarly wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:3 which states:
“and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”
The Bible is clear that Peter was not the Rock Mass that the congregation was built on, Jesus is. Jesus was referring to himself as the Rock Mass when he was talking to Peter. The Bible is clear that the apostles including PETER are equal parts of the foundation on which the congregation or church was built. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is clearly the head of the congregation.
The whole Catholic church is built on this false teaching. Can you see how bad a false teaching can be? They wrongly believe that Jesus built the Christian congregation on Peter and that they can trace the Popes back to Peter. So they believe that the Pope should be the leader and put in an elevated position. This is clearly wrong. Even though the Bible is clear as to who the Christian congregation is built on peoples faith will cause them to either not understand the scriptures I wrote above or cause them to deny these scriptures. Again, faith can be a good thing but it can also being a very bad thing.
[/quote]
Every thing you wrote above is completely false.
Before all the apostles died, there was already a 2nd generation of leaders exercising authority in the Catholic Church. They are called elders, or bishops, and they are always identified seperately from the apostles (Acts 15:2,4,6,22). They were other leaders, called prophets, who were not considered to be bishops, for example, Judas and Silas (Acts 15:22,32). They were at the service of the bishops and apostles (Acts 15:22). When you add the office of deacon from elsewhere in the New Testament, it is not difficult to notice the top-down hierarchy already in place in the early Catholic Church by the time the apostles died.
The “historical fact” that the Roman Catholic Church started in the 4th century is just another lie in a long list of lies that Evangelicals use to slander the Catholic Church.
In regards to Mt 16:13-20, Jesus was clear that he said was for Peter alone. This is the only time that Jeseus uses the words “blessed are you”. Mary is the only other person addressed in this way in the entire New Testament. In Mt 16:18-19, Jesus’s words are all addressed to the second person singular. There could be no mistaking what Jesus said was meant for Peter alone. All the apostles would have power and responsibility, but Peter’s would be special. Jesus is very clear: the Aramaic word for “rock” is Kepha, translated to Cephas in English. That this name for Peter is used elsewhere lends further support to Catholic understanding of this passage (Jn 1:42, Cor 1:12, 3:22, 4:5, 15:5, Gal 2:9-14).
Evangelicals start their study of salvation with the Pauline epistles. They relegate all the rest of the Bible, including the teaching of Jesus, to be a footnote to Paul.
Catholics unashamedly start with the Gospels and base all of their soteriology on the Jesus’ teaching and look at the rest of the New Testament as an expansion on Jesus, which must be understood in the light of his teachings.
When you study the Bible in this manner it becomes apparent how absurd the teachings of the modern Evangelical movement are.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]
There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.
Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]
I can’t believe that people believe that the Catholic church started in the first century with the apostles and followers of Jesus. It’s a HISTORICAL FACT that the Roman Catholic church started with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I guess people who have faith in the Catholic church deny this just like they deny clear scripture that refutes just about all Catholic doctrine. Faith can be a good thing and a bad thing.
Now as far as the Christian congregation being built and a man named Peter this is completely FALSE. Unfortunately, Matthew 16:18 does cause some confusion but Jesus DID NOT say “you are Peter and on YOU I will build my congregation.” He said “you are Peter and on THIS ROCK MASS I will build my congregation.” Jesus was talking about himself as being the Rock Mass. No where is Peter identified as the Rock Mass or the Christian congregation being built on him. Jesus however is. I know that the Greek word for Peter which is Petros means piece of rock and Petra, the word Jesus used for ROCK MASS means MASS OF ROCK. But we don’t have to go as far as trying to identify the Greek words, all we have to do is turn to other parts of the Bible to see who clearly is identified as the congregation being built on.
First of all none of the apostles thought Jesus was talking about Peter when Jesus made that statement because later at Luke 22:24 the apostles argued over who was the greatest among them. If the Christian congregation was going to be built on Peter then there would not have been any disputing as to which one was the greatest. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19 & 20 clearly shows this when it states:
“Certainly, therefore, you are no longer strangers and alien residents, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and you have been built up upon the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, while CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF IS FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE.”
That verse clearly shows that the apostles are equal founding members but Jesus is the foundation corners stone. In ancient construction the cornerstone was laid first and was the most important stone in the building of a solid foundation. Peter even identifies Jesus as the ROCK MASS on which the congregation is being built at 1 Peter 2:7 & 8 which states:
“It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??the identical stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, and Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.”
Paul similarly wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:3 which states:
“and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”
The Bible is clear that Peter was not the Rock Mass that the congregation was built on, Jesus is. Jesus was referring to himself as the Rock Mass when he was talking to Peter. The Bible is clear that the apostles including PETER are equal parts of the foundation on which the congregation or church was built. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is clearly the head of the congregation.
The whole Catholic church is built on this false teaching. Can you see how bad a false teaching can be? They wrongly believe that Jesus built the Christian congregation on Peter and that they can trace the Popes back to Peter. So they believe that the Pope should be the leader and put in an elevated position. This is clearly wrong. Even though the Bible is clear as to who the Christian congregation is built on peoples faith will cause them to either not understand the scriptures I wrote above or cause them to deny these scriptures. Again, faith can be a good thing but it can also being a very bad thing.
[/quote]
Amen the bible is consistently and abundantly clear about who the rock is.[/quote]
Do some research. You are incorrect.
I am not sure how this is ambiguous…
Mt. 16:18-19
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Man, their is an incredible amount of misinformation about Catholicism! The lies have taken on a life of their own. If you seek the truth you will realize we are not far apart, but very close.[/quote]
It’s ambiguous because Jesus did not clearly state in that verse as to who the Rock Mass is. He does not state that Peter is the Rock Mass. Did you read my post? I listed several scriptures that clearly identify Jesus as the Rock Mass and the Christian congregation being built on him. All of the apostles are equal parts of the foundation but Jesus is the chief cornerstone.
You want research here ya go.
Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually referred to as Saint Augustine, at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. . Langes Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Matt 16:18, ftn, pg 296) quotes Augustine as saying: The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, On this rock I will build my church, is that Peter had said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Translated and edited by P.� Schaff, 1976.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?[/quote]
Who?
[/quote]
dmaddox[/quote]
Oh that is right. You guys dont beleive in the physical Resurrection of Jesus, so the resurection did not happen. Without the physical ressurrection of Jesus then what he did on the cross means nothing.
If you guys beleive in the literal interpretation of the Bible how do you explain when Jesus asked Thomas to touch his hands and side? To me that seems like a physical resurrection.[/quote]
You have gone completely off topic. We were talking about commemorating Jesus’ death, and that it was command BY Jesus to commemorate. That was the topic. For clarity:
Honest_lifter:
I know this is a short reply, but I will do a longer one at lunch.
I do consider myself a Christian. By the way, are you making sure, as a Christian, that you are following first all the things that we have been commissioned specifically to do? Things such as preaching the Bible’s message throughout the earth and observing the memorial of Christ’s death?
These are some things that would take priority over any celebration of Christ’s birth or resurrection.
Dmaddox:
I have to jump in on this one just to clarify. Are you saying that Jesus’ death is more imporatant than his resurrection?
Honest_Lifter:
Which one was commissioned by Jesus to be observed, Death or Resurrection?
Dmaddox:
Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying. Go figure.
You never answered the question, and I also don’t understand your point.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Interesting that HH titled the thread as such.
Here is a link with some info on the religions of our founding fathers
Looks like they were mostly Episcopalian/Anglican.
Just something to ponder over.[/quote]
At the time, the view was that the Pope wanted to take over the world. There was heavy prejudice against Catholics. Can you even imagine a Founding Father being Catholic, which was considered to be one notch above being black, at the time?
The USA is slowly being dominated by those who form a large bloc and adhere to a set of moral principles…hence the thread.
[/quote]
Anti-Catholic bias is the oldest prejudice in the country’s history and is still alive and well. Just read some of the teachings of morons like John Hagee and Jack Chick:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?[/quote]
Who?
[/quote]
dmaddox[/quote]
Oh that is right. You guys dont beleive in the physical Resurrection of Jesus, so the resurection did not happen. Without the physical ressurrection of Jesus then what he did on the cross means nothing.
If you guys beleive in the literal interpretation of the Bible how do you explain when Jesus asked Thomas to touch his hands and side? To me that seems like a physical resurrection.[/quote]
You have gone completely off topic. We were talking about commemorating Jesus’ death, and that it was command BY Jesus to commemorate. That was the topic. For clarity:
Honest_lifter:
I know this is a short reply, but I will do a longer one at lunch.
I do consider myself a Christian. By the way, are you making sure, as a Christian, that you are following first all the things that we have been commissioned specifically to do? Things such as preaching the Bible’s message throughout the earth and observing the memorial of Christ’s death?
These are some things that would take priority over any celebration of Christ’s birth or resurrection.
Dmaddox:
I have to jump in on this one just to clarify. Are you saying that Jesus’ death is more imporatant than his resurrection?
Honest_Lifter:
Which one was commissioned by Jesus to be observed, Death or Resurrection?
Dmaddox:
Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying. Go figure.
You never answered the question, and I also don’t understand your point.[/quote]
Lets make this clear. Without the Physical Resurrection of Jesus then there is no difference between you, me, or any human, and Jesus Christ. If you do not beleive this statement then you are not a Christian. Feel free to call yourself a Jehovah’s Witness all you want, all Christians on this page will be ok with that, just do not call your self a Christian.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]
There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.
Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]
I can’t believe that people believe that the Catholic church started in the first century with the apostles and followers of Jesus. It’s a HISTORICAL FACT that the Roman Catholic church started with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I guess people who have faith in the Catholic church deny this just like they deny clear scripture that refutes just about all Catholic doctrine. Faith can be a good thing and a bad thing.
Now as far as the Christian congregation being built and a man named Peter this is completely FALSE. Unfortunately, Matthew 16:18 does cause some confusion but Jesus DID NOT say “you are Peter and on YOU I will build my congregation.” He said “you are Peter and on THIS ROCK MASS I will build my congregation.” Jesus was talking about himself as being the Rock Mass. No where is Peter identified as the Rock Mass or the Christian congregation being built on him. Jesus however is. I know that the Greek word for Peter which is Petros means piece of rock and Petra, the word Jesus used for ROCK MASS means MASS OF ROCK. But we don’t have to go as far as trying to identify the Greek words, all we have to do is turn to other parts of the Bible to see who clearly is identified as the congregation being built on.
First of all none of the apostles thought Jesus was talking about Peter when Jesus made that statement because later at Luke 22:24 the apostles argued over who was the greatest among them. If the Christian congregation was going to be built on Peter then there would not have been any disputing as to which one was the greatest. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19 & 20 clearly shows this when it states:
“Certainly, therefore, you are no longer strangers and alien residents, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and you have been built up upon the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, while CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF IS FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE.”
That verse clearly shows that the apostles are equal founding members but Jesus is the foundation corners stone. In ancient construction the cornerstone was laid first and was the most important stone in the building of a solid foundation. Peter even identifies Jesus as the ROCK MASS on which the congregation is being built at 1 Peter 2:7 & 8 which states:
“It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??the identical stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, and Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.”
Paul similarly wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:3 which states:
“and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”
The Bible is clear that Peter was not the Rock Mass that the congregation was built on, Jesus is. Jesus was referring to himself as the Rock Mass when he was talking to Peter. The Bible is clear that the apostles including PETER are equal parts of the foundation on which the congregation or church was built. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is clearly the head of the congregation.
The whole Catholic church is built on this false teaching. Can you see how bad a false teaching can be? They wrongly believe that Jesus built the Christian congregation on Peter and that they can trace the Popes back to Peter. So they believe that the Pope should be the leader and put in an elevated position. This is clearly wrong. Even though the Bible is clear as to who the Christian congregation is built on peoples faith will cause them to either not understand the scriptures I wrote above or cause them to deny these scriptures. Again, faith can be a good thing but it can also being a very bad thing.
[/quote]
Amen the bible is consistently and abundantly clear about who the rock is.[/quote]
Do some research. You are incorrect.
I am not sure how this is ambiguous…
Mt. 16:18-19
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Man, their is an incredible amount of misinformation about Catholicism! The lies have taken on a life of their own. If you seek the truth you will realize we are not far apart, but very close.[/quote]
It’s ambiguous because Jesus did not clearly state in that verse as to who the Rock Mass is. He does not state that Peter is the Rock Mass. Did you read my post? I listed several scriptures that clearly identify Jesus as the Rock Mass and the Christian congregation being built on him. All of the apostles are equal parts of the foundation but Jesus is the chief cornerstone.
You want research here ya go.
Augustine (354-430� C.E.), usually referred to as â??Saint Augustine,â?? at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. . Langeâ??s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Matt 16:18, ftn, pg 296) quotes Augustine as saying: â??The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, â??On this rock I will build my church,â?? is that Peter had said: â??Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.â?? On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.â??â??Translated and edited by P.� Schaff, 1976.
[/quote]
Agree to disagree. There is overwhelmingly evidency that Jesus was specifically talking about Peter.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?[/quote]
Who?
[/quote]
dmaddox[/quote]
Oh that is right. You guys dont beleive in the physical Resurrection of Jesus, so the resurection did not happen. Without the physical ressurrection of Jesus then what he did on the cross means nothing.
If you guys beleive in the literal interpretation of the Bible how do you explain when Jesus asked Thomas to touch his hands and side? To me that seems like a physical resurrection.[/quote]
You have gone completely off topic. We were talking about commemorating Jesus’ death, and that it was command BY Jesus to commemorate. That was the topic. For clarity:
Honest_lifter:
I know this is a short reply, but I will do a longer one at lunch.
I do consider myself a Christian. By the way, are you making sure, as a Christian, that you are following first all the things that we have been commissioned specifically to do? Things such as preaching the Bible’s message throughout the earth and observing the memorial of Christ’s death?
These are some things that would take priority over any celebration of Christ’s birth or resurrection.
Dmaddox:
I have to jump in on this one just to clarify. Are you saying that Jesus’ death is more imporatant than his resurrection?
Honest_Lifter:
Which one was commissioned by Jesus to be observed, Death or Resurrection?
Dmaddox:
Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying. Go figure.
You never answered the question, and I also don’t understand your point.[/quote]
Lets make this clear. Without the Physical Resurrection of Jesus then there is no difference between you, me, or any human, and Jesus Christ. If you do not beleive this statement then you are not a Christian. Feel free to call yourself a Jehovah’s Witness all you want, all Christians on this page will be ok with that, just do not call your self a Christian.[/quote]
You still didn’t answer my question. Were we commissioned by Jesus to observe Christ’s death?
Here is your post below.
Honest_Lifter:
I do consider myself a Christian. By the way, are you making sure, as a Christian, that you are following first all the things that we have been commissioned specifically to do? Things such as preaching the Bible’s message throughout the earth and observing the memorial of Christ’s death?
These are some things that would take priority over any celebration of Christ’s birth or resurrection.
Am I wrong that you said this, that Jesus’ Death is more important that Christ’s birth or ressurection? I wanted clairity of your statement, and you never gave it. Now you are changing your question to where does it state to observe Christ’s death.
You make all this very frustrating by making claims and then changing your story.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
OK, and what is your point?[/quote]
Wow. Seriously? I have read enough of your posts to know you are more intelligent than that. That point is crystal clear to ANY person claiming to call themselves Christian, which you have done.
[/quote]
Tell me the point then.[/quote]
The post you made that statement in IS the point.[/quote]
I don’t understand. If you care to elaborate, feel free.
[/quote]
dmaddox wrote: Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying.
I’m not sure what you don’t understand about this statement. There isn’t any elaborating to do. What about this do you not understand?
[/quote]
What does he want me to do about that?[/quote]
Who?
[/quote]
dmaddox[/quote]
Oh that is right. You guys dont beleive in the physical Resurrection of Jesus, so the resurection did not happen. Without the physical ressurrection of Jesus then what he did on the cross means nothing.
If you guys beleive in the literal interpretation of the Bible how do you explain when Jesus asked Thomas to touch his hands and side? To me that seems like a physical resurrection.[/quote]
You have gone completely off topic. We were talking about commemorating Jesus’ death, and that it was command BY Jesus to commemorate. That was the topic. For clarity:
Honest_lifter:
I know this is a short reply, but I will do a longer one at lunch.
I do consider myself a Christian. By the way, are you making sure, as a Christian, that you are following first all the things that we have been commissioned specifically to do? Things such as preaching the Bible’s message throughout the earth and observing the memorial of Christ’s death?
These are some things that would take priority over any celebration of Christ’s birth or resurrection.
Dmaddox:
I have to jump in on this one just to clarify. Are you saying that Jesus’ death is more imporatant than his resurrection?
Honest_Lifter:
Which one was commissioned by Jesus to be observed, Death or Resurrection?
Dmaddox:
Without his Resurrection his death would have been no different than you or I dying. Go figure.
You never answered the question, and I also don’t understand your point.[/quote]
Lets make this clear. Without the Physical Resurrection of Jesus then there is no difference between you, me, or any human, and Jesus Christ. If you do not beleive this statement then you are not a Christian. Feel free to call yourself a Jehovah’s Witness all you want, all Christians on this page will be ok with that, just do not call your self a Christian.[/quote]
You still didn’t answer my question. Were we commissioned by Jesus to observe Christ’s death?[/quote]
Were we commissioned to not observe/celebrate/mediate upon his birth? What’s your point?
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]
There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.
Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]
I can’t believe that people believe that the Catholic church started in the first century with the apostles and followers of Jesus. It’s a HISTORICAL FACT that the Roman Catholic church started with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I guess people who have faith in the Catholic church deny this just like they deny clear scripture that refutes just about all Catholic doctrine. Faith can be a good thing and a bad thing.
Now as far as the Christian congregation being built and a man named Peter this is completely FALSE. Unfortunately, Matthew 16:18 does cause some confusion but Jesus DID NOT say “you are Peter and on YOU I will build my congregation.” He said “you are Peter and on THIS ROCK MASS I will build my congregation.” Jesus was talking about himself as being the Rock Mass. No where is Peter identified as the Rock Mass or the Christian congregation being built on him. Jesus however is. I know that the Greek word for Peter which is Petros means piece of rock and Petra, the word Jesus used for ROCK MASS means MASS OF ROCK. But we don’t have to go as far as trying to identify the Greek words, all we have to do is turn to other parts of the Bible to see who clearly is identified as the congregation being built on.
First of all none of the apostles thought Jesus was talking about Peter when Jesus made that statement because later at Luke 22:24 the apostles argued over who was the greatest among them. If the Christian congregation was going to be built on Peter then there would not have been any disputing as to which one was the greatest. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19 & 20 clearly shows this when it states:
“Certainly, therefore, you are no longer strangers and alien residents, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and you have been built up upon the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, while CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF IS FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE.”
That verse clearly shows that the apostles are equal founding members but Jesus is the foundation corners stone. In ancient construction the cornerstone was laid first and was the most important stone in the building of a solid foundation. Peter even identifies Jesus as the ROCK MASS on which the congregation is being built at 1 Peter 2:7 & 8 which states:
“It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??the identical stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, and Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.”
Paul similarly wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:3 which states:
“and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”
The Bible is clear that Peter was not the Rock Mass that the congregation was built on, Jesus is. Jesus was referring to himself as the Rock Mass when he was talking to Peter. The Bible is clear that the apostles including PETER are equal parts of the foundation on which the congregation or church was built. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is clearly the head of the congregation.
The whole Catholic church is built on this false teaching. Can you see how bad a false teaching can be? They wrongly believe that Jesus built the Christian congregation on Peter and that they can trace the Popes back to Peter. So they believe that the Pope should be the leader and put in an elevated position. This is clearly wrong. Even though the Bible is clear as to who the Christian congregation is built on peoples faith will cause them to either not understand the scriptures I wrote above or cause them to deny these scriptures. Again, faith can be a good thing but it can also being a very bad thing.
[/quote]
Amen the bible is consistently and abundantly clear about who the rock is.[/quote]
Do some research. You are incorrect.
I am not sure how this is ambiguous…
Mt. 16:18-19
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Man, their is an incredible amount of misinformation about Catholicism! The lies have taken on a life of their own. If you seek the truth you will realize we are not far apart, but very close.[/quote]
It’s ambiguous because Jesus did not clearly state in that verse as to who the Rock Mass is. He does not state that Peter is the Rock Mass. Did you read my post? I listed several scriptures that clearly identify Jesus as the Rock Mass and the Christian congregation being built on him. All of the apostles are equal parts of the foundation but Jesus is the chief cornerstone.
You want research here ya go.
Augustine (354-430�?� C.E.), usually referred to as �¢??Saint Augustine,�¢?? at one time believed that Peter was the rock-mass but later changed his view. . Lange�¢??s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Matt 16:18, ftn, pg 296) quotes Augustine as saying: �¢??The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the reason why the Lord says, �¢??On this rock I will build my church,�¢?? is that Peter had said: �¢??Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.�¢?? On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.�¢??�¢??Translated and edited by P.�?� Schaff, 1976.
[/quote]
Agree to disagree. There is overwhelmingly evidency that Jesus was specifically talking about Peter.[/quote]
Show me overwhelming evidence from the Bible that Peter was the Rock Mass that the Christian congregation was built on. I showed several scriptures to show that the Christian congregation was built on Jesus and that he was the Rock Mass and not Peter. All you showed me was that Jesus said Peter was blessed. Use the Bible to prove your doctrine.