Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
peter the pope
Was Saint Peter the first pope?
Question: "Was Saint Peter the first pope?"Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18; Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behindMatthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10;16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.
The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18; Christ built His church upon Peter.
But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behindMatthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10;16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.
Friday, April 27, 2012
(catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com) Patrick j Miron "vs" every 1 else (The Bible IS A CATHOLIC BOOK
Re: Catholic Questions Re: Hi Every One...
My friend this is a very incorrect and incomplete acessment:
The Bible IS A CATHOLIC BOOK; indeed it is the CC that "birthted the bible". And the bible existed for more than ONE THOUSAND YEARS in its complete and written form within the womb of the CC before Luther and the KJ bible cam unto the scene.
The CC ALONE HAS botht he original and complete bible and our POPES..
God Bless you,
patrick68
______________________---------------------________________-------------____
commentary p1saint
______________________---------------------________________-------------____
commentary p1saint
this could be true if you think that the CC started with the Apostle Paul, or really with Constantine in 325 ad.
or perhaps with the Geneva bible, but remember it was against the law for centuries for any one but the clergy religious members to have a bible.
this is in contrast to DEU 6;6-7 where God YAHWEH commands that the parents speak the old testament statutes and rules all the time to their children
Deuteronomy 6
New International Version (NIV)
Love the Lord Your God
6 These are the commands, decrees and laws the Lord your God directed me to teach you to observe in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, 2 so that you, your children and their children after them may fear(A) the Lord your God as long as you live(B) by keeping all his decrees and commands(C) that I give you, and so that you may enjoy long life.(D
It is possible that patrick66 did not receive that instruction from his parents, his mentor Alvin Glombowski, or the Teachers at Boysville of Michigan, or at the School, Thomas More ..
nor did it make an impression with the kids he grew up with ..
obviously the OT scripture was taught to the early Christians and disciples of the Jewish Catholic religion, which is what the origin of the church Jesus started. The apostle Paul really started the information for the Roman catholic church to be preached to the Gentiles.
And As the Apostle Paul said to theGalatians Catholic church "
No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called(M) you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel(N)—7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion(O) and are trying to pervert(P) the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you,(Q) let them be under God’s curse!(R)
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted,(S) let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people?(T)If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
...>
To: catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:18 AM
Subject: Catholic Questions Re: Hi Every One...
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 7:18 AM
Subject: Catholic Questions Re: Hi Every One...
"The First Sing" makes the difference: there are Pope for "Catholic" and Bible for "Protestant".
--- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, caring_n_sharing007 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Can some one brief me about the difference of a Catholic Cristine & an Protestant Cristine.
> Just major Differences please.
The Catholic church and( Patrick j. Miron ) the various Protestant churches attempt to lure each other into a strange circular argument regarding the doctrinal debate over "Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura" (the bible alone).
Scripture & Tradition of God Vs Tradition of Men Over Scripture
The Catholic church and (Patrion j Miron)
and the various Protestant churches attempt to lure each other into a strange circular argument regarding the doctrinal debate over "Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura" (the bible alone).
The Catholic faction gets Protestants arguing against all traditions rather than just the inventions of men; and more specifically, the inventions of the Catholic Church. The argument is really against traditions of men that are not supported by the written word of God.
The Catholics will not regard scripture because they are pushing so hard on the point of traditions that they attempt to prove traditions by traditions, or extrabiblical writings, rather than with scripture. The Protestants won't consider the oral transmission of God's word because they push the written text only. The circle is a dizzying spiral that leads to nowhere fast. Who do you believe? We should always believe God's own testimony.
Why? because He is infallible and True. [Numbers 23:19 ]"God is not a man, that he should lie...." [Heb 6:18] "... it was[ and is] impossible for God to lie..."
The apostle Peter had learned this and his words recorded in the bible's book of The Acts of The Apostles 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.The Bible and tradition both teach that our convictions are not to be based upon human wisdom but upon the power of God and His spirit which He gives to those who obey Him! The problem is not that human (carnal) wisdom is always wrong but that human wisdom is clearly fallible and is not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. Hence our doctrinal convictions should not be based upon human wisdom. The apostle Paul warned against such and we see that he knew this because of the written word of God.
1Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. ... 1Co 3:18 ¶ Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. We will endeavor to build 'line upon line' to show the truth of the matter, to build you up in the Word, and to strengthen you in Christ.
Tradition
Tradition is mentioned in the bible and its seen in two very different contexts. The two forms of tradition illustrated in the bible consist of :
1.) The traditions of men - which nullify scriptures or are not supported by the holy writ.
2.) The traditions from God which are in accord with, and recorded in, scripture.
Let us take a look at the word translated into the English bible as "tradition."
Strong's # 3862 paradosis: par-ad'-os-is from 3860; transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law:--ordinance, tradition.
Notice that the greek word "paradosis" may also be translated as "ordinances", "precept ", or "law" rather than "tradition". Also we acknowledge the absence of any indication that this automatically means "oral" transmission of a precept and determine rightly that this may also include "written" transfer of tradition or law as well.
Tradition of Men
The scriptures hold warnings against any traditions, customs, precepts, or laws that are in opposition to, contradictory to, that nullify (or do away with) God's commands as written in the scriptural record. These customs, rituals, practices are inventions and traditions of men -- alone, apart from God. We must be cautious of the emptiness of the traditions of men passed down through time ... even those from our own forefathers or elders.
1 Peter 1:18-19, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Matthew 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
We see that Jesus and His early disciples warned strongly against any tradition or law that caused any transgression or nullification of God's laws.
Tradition of God
This truth is further supported in the scripture and we can see in 2Thessalonians 3:6 ¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition [paradosis i.e. law or ordinance] which he received of us. 7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
Now the "traditions" of the apostles was what? Why the same tradition they learned from both the scriptures and the Lord Jesus Christ [Y'shua Messiah], of course! Are the ways of God outlined in the Old Testament? Are they not adhered to, and even expounded upon, by Jesus in the New Testament? Yes, of course they are.
We show you that the apostles taught these precepts both verbally and written, as any good preacher would do today, speaking of a scripture(s) (or a precept outlined in scripture) and then expounding upon it. The scripture is what gave credence to the speaker. The spoken words had to be in accord with the scripture or the person was not to be listened to. We see that Paul taught these precepts verbally and by written letters of faith (epistle). We also take note that both forms of transmission carried the same data!
2Thessalonians 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions [paradosis i.e. law or ordinance]which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
There weren't scriptural rules and then also different rules transmitted orally. These were the same precepts taught by either method to some individuals - and both to others. One did not supercede or contradict the other. One did not contain information that the other didn't. Paul wrote that they should obey the 'paradosis' whether you heard it, or read it, or heard it read. God's word is true whether spoken or written. Thanks be to Him that the spoken words of God that we needed to know, along with the spoken words of the prophets, were written down into the scrolls that would later comprise the Old Testament. Thanks also to Him for the spoken words of Jesus and the apostles that also were preserved in written form.
1Corinthians 11:1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [paradosis i.e. tradition], as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
ScriptureProverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Is it alright to add traditions to God's word? The traditions of Christ and the apostles are things that would be recorded in scripture would they not? Would the four different gospel writers fail to make a mention of such things beyond what is faithfully written. Paul, Peter, James, and Jude all fail to mention things added to the word of God so can this assertion have any validity? What principle would have these men learned on the subject having only the Old Testament scrolls to discern things by?
Isa 8:16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
That didn't mean to the oral testimony; it meant to the written inscribed testimony of God's prophets and the Law which was already there in writing. We see that the scriptures are explained to be a sort of measuring tool. Let us see what else Christ and His disciples would have believed.
Deuteronomy 4:1 ¶ Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments, which I teach you, for to do them, that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers giveth you. 2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
There it is! The same principle again ... DO NOT ADD TO GOD'S WORD! It's an extremely serious thing for any human, in his or her own wisdom, to subtract from or to add anything to the Word of God. Is this an admonishment to believe the bible only? Is this “sola scriptura”?What do the heavenly angels believe?
Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. 9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book:worship God.
We see that the angels considered themselves to be "fellowservants" of the apostles and of the prophets and groups them into a category of people "which keep the sayings of this BOOK." Even the (unnamed in scripture) angel only expounded the words of the scriptural writings to Daniel. This is what it means to PREACH or PROPHESIZE.
Daniel10:21 But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
Read another warning from the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John the apostle:
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This is not some kind of minor, trivial point of theological dispute! God says in His word, more than once, that your faith is not to rest in human wisdom. That people should not use human wisdom or reasoning to tamper with His Word! You are not to add your own thoughts in “your wisdom” or to ‘correct’ or subtract from His thoughts. It's a very serious thing to violate this principle. If a tradition is not recorded in the bible then is it not indeed an addition?Our example in all things is the Lord Jesus Christ. Whenever Messiah did not directly appeal to His own inherent authority, He clinched His arguments with His opponents by saying, "It stands written!" or "Have you not read?" The Gospels reveal that Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard. His statements speak for themselves:
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
The strongest evidence for the authority of the Bible is the fact that Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute. When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed as we previously read, "Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition..." (Mark 7:13). Later, when Jesus was tested by the Sadducees concerning the resurrection we read of His position on the weight of the scriptures:
Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
When confronted with the devil's temptations, Christ responded three times with the phrase, "It is written" (Matt. 4:4-10). Clearly, Jesus accepted Scripture as the supreme authority and subjected Himself to it (Luke 24:44). And, as followers of Christ, we should follow His righteous example. His example alone should be witness enough for any Christian to believe that the scriptures are called the Word of God and carry His authority.Jesus clearly told us that status in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture:
Mt 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
In the New Testament, the "spirit of error" was to be identified by comparing whatever the prophets are saying to the teaching of the Apostles. In I John 4:6, the Apostle John says, "He who knows God hears us!" That's the standard; what we have taught! In I Corinthians 14:37, Paul says, "If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord." And yet, even the Apostles called for the Church to test their own instruction according to the written revelation of God, according to the Scriptures which were in hand.Scriptural Exposition
Jesus EXPOUNDED on Scriptures - as did the apostles. This was not ADDING to the word that which is not already there but only a clearer detailed amplification of the authority already recorded in the scriptures. The promulgaters of extra-biblical traditions are ADDING some things that are not found in the scriptures at all. It is THEY that need to heed the warnings of tampering- be it adding or subtracting - with the indelible word of God.
We see that Jesus did not add tradition outside of what was recorded but that He made the scriptures to be understood by His disciples.
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. .... Lu 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. Lu 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Jesus opened the scripture through His expert exegesis of the written word found in the Old Testament scriptures.
Lu ke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
Let us read together some more testimony of our Savior.
John 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
The scriptures needed to be searched as they testified to who was the Messiah. The word also needed to be adhered to in action from a sincere heart. Christ said that He was not adding to what Moses wrote but was the living subject of what Moses wrote - a living exposition of scriptures ... The Word.Paul said more than once "what saith the scripture?" when proving his doctrinal points. We see Paul using the scriptures - not traditions - to teach Jews AND Gentiles on the sabbath days.
Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
We see the faithful Bereans proving all things, testing the spirits, trying the doctrines by doublechecking all the disciples told them in comparison to the scriptures - not with any extra-biblical traditionsI was a protestant for many years who converted to Catholicism. These are the major differences as I see them:
Re: Hi Every One...
I think there are some language and grammar issues here, but I feel the need to
chime in if I'm understanding this question and response correctly. To suggest
that Catholics have the Pope while protestants have the Bible is really
inaccurate.
The Catholic Church is the original Christian church that Jesus Christ founded.
Nearly all the beliefs of the Catholic Church, including the Pope, the
Sacraments, veneration of Mary, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
Confession (Reconciliation), etc. were accepted by Christians for the first 1500
years after Christ's time on earth. You can read the writings of early
Christians like St. Justin Martyr (2nd Century) to verify this. See this link
for more: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm.
The protestant reformation in the 16th century raised some serious issues in the
church - not in terms of belief but in administration and corruption. After many
years, this led to a split in Christianity which required changes in belief
(such as denying the authority of the Pope since protestants would no longer
obey that authority).
Once that first split was complete (the Lutheran church), many other protestant
churches split from that, and the beliefs became more and more varied. At last
count there are some 30,000 different protestant faiths, all with slightly
different beliefs (although in some cases the specifics of their beliefs are
unclear).
As Christians we all believe that the books of the Bible were divinely inspired.
Practically speaking, the early Catholic Church debated and discussed which
books would be admitted for about 400 years. Finally, around 410 we have the
first recorded official list of the New Testament appearing in a letter from
Pope Innocent I, and there is no evidence that the books were debated from that
point on.
So while God provided the Bible for us, the authority of the Catholic Church in
the early centuries helped affirm those books for all of us and end any debate
as to which books should be included. Ironic, then, that protestants would
attack the Catholic Church over the Bible which the Church played an important
role in developing.
Bottom line: the Bible is very important to Catholics, as it is to all
Christians.
I was a protestant for many years who converted to Catholicism. These are the
major differences as I see them:
REAL PRESENCE: Catholic believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
(communion). This belief is supported strongly in scripture and was the belief
of all Christians prior to 1500. Most protestant faiths today believe communion
is a symbolic memorial, nothing more. (Some notable exceptions such at Lutherans
believe in a Real Presence although some details vary.)
AUTHORITY OF THE POPE & CHURCH: The split away from the Catholic Church required
that protestants deny the authority of the Pope in order that they have the
freedom to develop their own church and beliefs.
VENERATION OF MARY: The Mother of Christ was held in very high regard by early
Christians and remains so in the Catholic Church. Most protestant faiths have
lost this tradition.
SCRIPTURE VS TRADITION. Having denied the authority of the Catholic Church, many
protestant faiths put 100% authority to scripture as a foundation of their
faith. The Catholic Church has always maintained the importance of Holy
Scripture but also recognizes Holy Tradition - basically the teachings of Christ
and records of Christian history which were passed down orally from one
generation to the next. In fact, it is from these Traditions that many of the
Scriptures were written (in many cases, years after Christ walked the earth). An
example of this would be the Assumption of Mary - early Christians believed that
Mary was taken up to heaven body and soul to recognize her important role in
Christ's mission. This was never written down in Holy Scripture, perhaps because
it is not really relevant to our salvation, perhaps because it was never debated
among Christians. Still, it is interesting. Many things like that exist to form
a deeper, more meaningful faith than what you'd get from Holy Scripture alone.
Keep in mind - Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition cannot conflict with each other
since they both come from the same source - Jesus Christ.
Other traditions of the Catholic Church. I put this as a small "t" - these are
traditions like prayers and practices that in many cases have been practiced by
Christians for thousands of years but have been lost in many protestant faiths.
This includes prayers like the Rosary, appreciation of the saints, recognition
of Lent and Advent (still recognized in some protestant faiths), sign of the
cross, etc. Again, these things help create a deeper faith and connect us to the
universal Church around the Earth and throughout history.
There you go... I haven't posted in months but just unloaded lots of info. That
should give us something to talk about!
God bless!
Jon
Proof for Catholicism in St. Justin Martyr's First Apology 152ad
hhhhh
h
h
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1004052  United States01/06/2011 11:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Dino-B.C. (OP) User ID: 1205394  Canada01/06/2011 11:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Who doubts that Catholicism didn't exist back then? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1004052Agree. One thing that we Catholics and Protestants can agree on is there was only meant to be one church in perfect union under Christ. This is the way it was for centuries. A fantastic book to read is "The early Church Fathers" sold at Amazon and elsewhere. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1004052 United States01/06/2011 11:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Dino-B.C. (OP) User ID: 1205394 Canada01/07/2011 12:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No thanks, i don't affiliate myself with any organised religion. The bible is my religion. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1004052I was merely insinuating that the catholic church existed back then, but under the name "roman empire" Have a nice day.. My friend the bible does not contain everything we believe. The bible states: "There are several things I have to tell you, but I have thought it best not to trust them to PAPER and INK. I hope instead to visit you and talk to you PERSONALLY so that our joy may be complete" 2 John 1:12. Also: "....hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15. |
| Dino-B.C. (OP) User ID: 1205394 Canada01/07/2011 12:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Friday, April 20, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Education at Boysville of Michigan / Thomas more High School, remember it's a sin to masterbate, now if you can only do somethin about those "Night -time-Dreams"!!Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)