1 Timothy 3:15:==

[Bill_Pick]

Its Cathloic and here is why

You need to remember first of all that at the time St. Paul wrote this there was only one Church – the Catholic Church. There was no such thing as a Christian that was not Catholic. So when St. Paul refers to the Church he is referring to the Catholic Church – the only church in existence. When we talks about the believers he is talking about fellow Catholics – the only kind of Christian in existence at the time. And, that Church was headed by the successor to St. Peter. It was a fellowship of believers under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

Here, St. Paul says the the Church, under the leadership of the Pope, is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is not that pillar and foundation, but the Church.

We must remember that the New Testament did not exist for decades after the Resurrection of Jesus. And even when the Apostles started to write down the letters that we now consider to be Scripture, the faithful were reading all sorts of documents in their Masses. The Bishops in the 4th Century had to decide which of these circulating manuscripts were really Scripture and which were not.

So it was not until the 4th Century that the faithful really knew what constituted the New Testament. It was Catholic Bishops who decided this. One of the tests they applied to these manuscripts was whether or not the manuscript taught the faith that match when the Church was already teaching orally.

Bottomline: the Church did not come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church and was a written form of what the Church had been teaching orally for hundreds of years. In fact, the New Testament is a Catholic document of the faith. It was written by Catholics, vetted by Catholics, and declared inerrant and infallible Scripture by Catholics.

So why does the Catholic Church think that this verse refers to the Catholic Church? Because the Catholic Church was the only Church at the time, and Jesus established His Church upon Peter as Prime Minister and thus the only true Church in the fullness of the faith is that church, that group of people, who are loyal and obedient to the successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. This was ordained by God personally and no one has a right to contradict God.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

When we talks about the believers he is talking about fellow Catholics – the only kind of Christian in existence at the time. And, that Church was headed by the successor to St. Peter. It was a fellowship of believers under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

Was Peter in Rome at the time the letter was written?

Also does the inferring that the letter referred to the “successor to St. Peter” suggest that Peter died before Paul?

 

[heiscominginthe]

Its Cathloic and here is why

You need to remember first of all that at the time St. Paul wrote this there was only one Church – the Catholic Church. There was no such thing as a Christian that was not Catholic. So when St. Paul refers to the Church he is referring to the Catholic Church – the only church in existence. When we talks about the believers he is talking about fellow Catholics – the only kind of Christian in existence at the time. And, that Church was headed by the successor to St. Peter. It was a fellowship of believers under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

Here, St. Paul says the the Church, under the leadership of the Pope, is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is not that pillar and foundation, but the Church.

We must remember that the New Testament did not exist for decades after the Resurrection of Jesus. And even when the Apostles started to write down the letters that we now consider to be Scripture, the faithful were reading all sorts of documents in their Masses. The Bishops in the 4th Century had to decide which of these circulating manuscripts were really Scripture and which were not.

So it was not until the 4th Century that the faithful really knew what constituted the New Testament. It was Catholic Bishops who decided this. One of the tests they applied to these manuscripts was whether or not the manuscript taught the faith that match when the Church was already teaching orally.

Bottomline: the Church did not come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church and was a written form of what the Church had been teaching orally for hundreds of years. In fact, the New Testament is a Catholic document of the faith. It was written by Catholics, vetted by Catholics, and declared inerrant and infallible Scripture by Catholics.

So why does the Catholic Church think that this verse refers to the Catholic Church? Because the Catholic Church was the only Church at the time, and Jesus established His Church upon Peter as Prime Minister and thus the only true Church in the fullness of the faith is that church, that group of people, who are loyal and obedient to the successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. This was ordained by God personally and no one has a right to contradict God.

Here, St. Paul says the the Church, under the leadership of the Pope, is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is not that pillar and foundation, but the Church.

Jesus is the head of the Church, not the Pope. And there is nothing in scripture regarding to the church having a pope. Also, not one place in scripture is the church called anything other then the church. The word catholic cannot be found in any of the writings of the apostles.

As for the bible not being the foundation or head of the church, it is written that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. To disregard the bible is not of Christ. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church, for he is the Word of God, for the written Word is spirit.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I post this in error but being you answer let me explain some things to you, You are right the word pope was not in use at the time but Peter was doING what the pope is doing now feeding Jesus sheep,and you are right again the word CATHLOIC did come unto being until about 100ad It was called UNIVERSAL mT18:17-18 mT 16:18-19 FEEL hIS SHEEP jN 21:17

 

[ejb21]

Jesus is the head of the Church, not the Pope. And there is nothing in scripture regarding to the church having a pope. Also, not one place in scripture is the church called anything other then the church. The word catholic cannot be found in any of the writings of the apostles.

As for the bible not being the foundation or head of the church, it is written that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. To disregard the bible is not of Christ. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church, for he is the Word of God, for the written Word is spirit.

I think Bill was pretty clear that Jesus established and built His Church. Bill was also clear that Jesus would build His Church upon Peter. While you are correct that “pope” is not mentioned in Scriptures, neither is “Trinity”. But there is an Old Testament reference to “key” and Jesus did give to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to “bind and loose”.

You can find that Old Testament reference in Isaiah 22. To get the full context you could probably start with v15 and following thru to v25. It’s an interesting read.

 

[NDfan]

I think Bill was pretty clear that Jesus established and built His Church. Bill was also clear that Jesus would build His Church upon Peter. While you are correct that “pope” is not mentioned in Scriptures, neither is “Trinity”. But there is an Old Testament reference to “key” and Jesus did give to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to “bind and loose”.

You can find that Old Testament reference in Isaiah 22. To get the full context you could probably start with v15 and following thru to v25. It’s an interesting read.

Keep in mind the keys referred to in Isaiah refer solely to the line of kings established by GOD starting with Saul down to all the descendants of David and those established when the kingdom was split. Installing a king was GOD’s response to the Jews demand for a king and was never part of any GODLY plan. Remember Jesus told us HIS kingdom was not of this world so trying to justify Matthew 16 as an establishment of a Davidic Kingdom is complete “skupula”. The Davidic kingdom was only of this world and has nothing to do with the kingdom of GOD. Moreover Peter was not solely given the power of binding and loosing as this power is extended to the church universal. If one examines what the true power of binding and loosing is then Matthew 16 and 18 make more sense.

 

[ejb21]

Keep in mind the keys referred to in Isaiah refer solely to the line of kings established by GOD starting with Saul down to all the descendants of David and those established when the kingdom was split. Installing a king was GOD’s response to the Jews demand for a king and was never part of any GODLY plan. Remember Jesus told us HIS kingdom was not of this world so trying to justify Matthew 16 as an establishment of a Davidic Kingdom is complete “skupula”. The Davidic kingdom was only of this world and has nothing to do with the kingdom of GOD. Moreover Peter was not solely given the power of binding and loosing as this power is extended to the church universal. If one examines what the true power of binding and loosing is then Matthew 16 and 18 make more sense.

Keep in mind also that the New Covenant is the perfection of the Old Covenant.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I started this thread in error it was for a answer for another thread on another board and it has 7 post as of now,but it up to yor guy now so I will say bye

 

[ejb21]

I started this thread in error it was for a answer for another thread on another board and it has 7 post as of now,but it up to yor guy now so I will say bye

Okay. Take care.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I started this thread in error it was for a answer for another thread on another board and it has 7 post as of now,but it up to yor guy now so I will say bye

In the words of Homer:

D’OH! :doh2:

 

[Louie1983]

Keep in mind the keys referred to in Isaiah refer solely to the line of kings established by GOD starting with Saul down to all the descendants of David and those established when the kingdom was split. Installing a king was GOD’s response to the Jews demand for a king and was never part of any GODLY plan. Remember Jesus told us HIS kingdom was not of this world so trying to justify Matthew 16 as an establishment of a Davidic Kingdom is complete “skupula”. The Davidic kingdom was only of this world and has nothing to do with the kingdom of GOD. Moreover Peter was not solely given the power of binding and loosing as this power is extended to the church universal. If one examines what the true power of binding and loosing is then Matthew 16 and 18 make more sense.

Hi NDfan,

The power to forgive and retain sin was given to the church, you are correct here! but Jesus put Peter as the head of the church! He unmistakenly and undeniably did this and there are many scripture passages as well as thousands of early church father quotes that support this. After Jesus ascended into heaven Peter himself appointed bishops (he appointed james as the bishop of jerusalem) and taught infallibly ( he decided the matter in regards to circumcision). These are all powers of a bishop, i know you might say that the other apostles might have had these same powers but Jesus DID NOT say that to all the apostles that:
1, What ever sins you forgive are forgiven, whatever sins you retain are retained
2, Jesus only called Peter the rock (kepha) - not the apostles.
3, Jesus only ever tells Peter to feed my sheep. Not the apostles
4, Peter on numerous occasions throughout the bible acts as Jesus representative.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Hi NDfan,

The power to forgive and retain sin was given to the church, you are correct here! but Jesus put Peter as the head of the church! He unmistakenly and undeniably did this and there are many scripture passages as well as thousands of early church father quotes that support this. After Jesus ascended into heaven Peter himself appointed bishops (he appointed james as the bishop of jerusalem) and taught infallibly ( he decided the matter in regards to circumcision). These are all powers of a bishop, i know you might say that the other apostles might have had these same powers but Jesus DID NOT say that to all the apostles that:
1, What ever sins you forgive are forgiven, whatever sins you retain are retained
2, Jesus only called Peter the rock (kepha) - not the apostles.
3, Jesus only ever tells Peter to feed my sheep. Not the apostles
4, Peter on numerous occasions throughout the bible acts as Jesus representative.

Are not all who are members of the body of Christ representing Christ? The body has many parts. Are the smallest of parts any less important to the major parts? If a part is missing, does not the body lack?

It is Christ who is the head of the body, not Peter. Peter was given the authority to be over the early church for the Jews. Now, as for the many other branches of churches, did Peter rule over them as well? Or was decisions made by way of counsels made up of deacons and bishops comprised of the apostles and others who were put in position of authority?

As for circumcision, I believe Peter had difficulty with this decision, and was rebuked by Paul for contemplating that the Gentiles should receive circumcision.If I am not mistaken.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus is the head of the Church, not the Pope. And there is nothing in scripture regarding to the church having a pope.

The two are not mutually exclusive, heis. The successor of Peter does not “replace” Christ as head of the Church, any more than King David “replaced” God as the King of Israel. He is an earthly shepherd that serves under God.

The word “pope” is not found in scripture because it is a Latinization of “papa” that was not used for centuries. However, we do see ordained deacons, presbyters, and bishops in the Scripture, as well as the Apostolic succession.

What is in scripture is having a shepherd appointed by Christ to feed and care for the sheep. This Shepherd was Peter, and Peter passed this responsibility on to his successor, and they to theirs until the present day.

Also, not one place in scripture is the church called anything other then the church. The word catholic cannot be found in any of the writings of the apostles.

This is simply a statement of ignorance, heis. I know you would like to believe that the Church is not Catholic, but this is how the Church is described in the book of Acts, and the word has been used since that time to describe the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

As for the bible not being the foundation or head of the church, it is written that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. To disregard the bible is not of Christ.

There is some faulty reasoning here that borders on idolatry. Jesus is the Word of God, but He is a person, not a book. Elevating Sacred Writings, however Holy, to His level is wrong.

The fact that the Bible cannot be head of the Church does not “disregard” it in any way. In fact, the Catholic Church created and reverences the bible. You complained on another thread that Catholics kiss statues. We kiss the Bible too! I know you think that is wrong, but for us, it is a sign of respect for what we believe.

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church, for he is the Word of God, for the written Word is spirit.

It is very Catholic of you to say this! However, the Bible cannot govern, as it has no will, or discernment. Governance requires that one be able to act, and to take responsibility for ones actions. Scripture cannot do this.

Those who try to make Scripture the final “authority” are trying to ascribe to scripture qualities it does not posess.

 

[Bill_Pick]

THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR OF TRUTH 1 Tim 3:15 and the word cathloic did not come about until about 100AD it was called universal and B4 that THE WAY

 

[guanophore]

THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR OF TRUTH 1 Tim 3:15 and the word cathloic did not come about until about 100AD it was called universal and B4 that THE WAY

I agree that the Church is the pillar and ground, that it was called “The Way”, but the term “catholic” was already in use by the time the book of Acts was written:

31 So **the church throughout all **Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied.
Acts 9:31

If you look at the Gk here it is clearly “ecclesia kath holos” (church throughout all = Catholic Church)

 

[Bill_Pick]

Can you please show me the word CATHLOIC in acts 9:31 it was the cathloic Church but we are looing for the name Cathloic and we did not get the name cathloic until about 99Ad.

 

[guanophore]

Can you please show me the word CATHLOIC in acts 9:31 it was the cathloic Church but we are looing for the name Cathloic and we did not get the name cathloic until about 99Ad.

Catholic is a transliteration of the words used in Acts 9:31 “Ekklesia Kath Holos”. It is translated “the church throughout all” or universal.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;

What is in scripture is having a shepherd appointed by Christ to feed and care for the sheep. This Shepherd was Peter, and Peter passed this responsibility on to his successor, and they to theirs until the present day.

On this I have no problem with. For there has been many who have watched over the flock of the church. Yet, I have never called one papa. I call them preacher, minister, pastor, and brother.

This is simply a statement of ignorance, heis. I know you would like to believe that the Church is not Catholic, but this is how the Church is described in the book of Acts, and the word has been used since that time to describe the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ.

What you call ignorance I call offensive to the Holy Spirit. Not once have I been led to call the church catholic. Catholic to me, although it means universal, sounds impersonal to me. It sounds more like a worldly title to me. If I was led to call the church catholic, then I would do so. Yet, I do not heed to the ways of men, but the ways of God. For only he is worthy of all praise.

There is some faulty reasoning here that borders on idolatry. Jesus is the Word of God, but He is a person, not a book. Elevating Sacred Writings, however Holy, to His level is wrong.

Jesus was spoken into existance, begotten of his Father, by his Father. And though the Son and by the Son all things came into existance through the ministry of the HG. Jesus is God’s Word made happen.

The fact that the Bible cannot be head of the Church does not “disregard” it in any way. In fact, the Catholic Church created and reverences the bible. You complained on another thread that Catholics kiss statues. We kiss the Bible too! I know you think that is wrong, but for us, it is a sign of respect for what we believe.

What you do is between you and God. I do not or will not kiss statues or objects man made. I pray I be found worthy to kiss the scars that bore my sin.

It is very Catholic of you to say this! However, the Bible cannot govern, as it has no will, or discernment. Governance requires that one be able to act, and to take responsibility for ones actions. Scripture cannot do this.

Yet, the Holy Spirit is what opens the Word of God into our hearts. We read it, the Holy Spirit gives us understanding and it is written on the fleshly tablets of our heart.

Those who try to make Scripture the final “authority” are trying to ascribe to scripture qualities it does not posess.

How can it posses if a man does not believe? When a man reads the Word and believes it, then the authority comes alive in his heart.

 

[Louie1983]

Are not all who are members of the body of Christ representing Christ? The body has many parts. Are the smallest of parts any less important to the major parts? If a part is missing, does not the body lack?

It is Christ who is the head of the body, not Peter. Peter was given the authority to be over the early church for the Jews. Now, as for the many other branches of churches, did Peter rule over them as well? Or was decisions made by way of counsels made up of deacons and bishops comprised of the apostles and others who were put in position of authority?

As for circumcision, I believe Peter had difficulty with this decision, and was rebuked by Paul for contemplating that the Gentiles should receive circumcision.If I am not mistaken.

Hi heiscominginthe,

Let me ask you this question, can all who claim to be members of christ teach differently? does god change his on different issues after thousands of years? How come we see so many denominations teaching differently on different issues? who is teaching the truth? I do not think christ intended for his body to work like that. He came to give us one simple message and the church and it’s members were commanded to keep it and not change it to suit the sign of the times.

Yes i agree christ is the head of the of the body, but he has given this authority to peter as head of the church on earth! He delegated this authority to peter. It doesn’t matter if the pope was present or not. There is no valid ecumenical council until the pope approves the final documents. I don’t know which ones the popes attended and which ones he didn’t attend, but it is irrelevant because the pope approved the conciliar documents.

Peter did not have any difficulty with this decision. If we go to Acts 15, we read that there was a lot of debate in the Church about whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. After the debate, Peter “rose” and declared that circumcision was not necessary. Peter made an authoritative decision about the doctrinal question, and no one questioned him. In fact, after Peter spoke it says “all kept silent.”

Paul opposed Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this a big deal? Because Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts.*** Paul was criticizing Peter’s conduct, not his teaching authority.*** Everyone would have looked naturally to Peter and his conduct since he was the leader. God specifically reveals this in Scripture to teach us that there is a difference between a pope’s private conduct and opinions and his official teaching authority.

 

[guanophore]

What you call ignorance I call offensive to the Holy Spirit.

Do you think ignorance is offensive to God?

I agree that we are to study, to show ourselves approved. However, I am not sure He is offended by ignorance. Maybe if we choose to stay ignorant?

Not once have I been led to call the church catholic. Catholic to me, although it means universal, sounds impersonal to me. It sounds more like a worldly title to me. If I was led to call the church catholic, then I would do so. Yet, I do not heed to the ways of men, but the ways of God. For only he is worthy of all praise.

IT is simply a testimony to the fact that not all you are led to do is from the HS.

Sometimes you have been clearly “led” to do things that are against the HS. This happens to all of us, because we are human, and as such, are imperfect vessels, and have “dirty” filters for discernment at times.

Luke called the Church founded by Christ Catholic. This term has been used since the Apostolic times, until now. Your perceptions of what “catholic” means will not take the word out of scripture.

Jesus was spoken into existance, begotten of his Father, by his Father. And though the Son and by the Son all things came into existance through the ministry of the HG. Jesus is God’s Word made happen.

This is a teaching that is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.
Jesus is not a created being. He was, in the beginning, with the Father. All things were created through HIm, and for HIm.

What you do is between you and God. I do not or will not kiss statues or objects man made. I pray I be found worthy to kiss the scars that bore my sin.

Ok. I pray you will recognize the nature of the person who bore those scars.

Yet, the Holy Spirit is what opens the Word of God into our hearts. We read it, the Holy Spirit gives us understanding and it is written on the fleshly tablets of our heart.

I am sure you believe your perceptions of what you read in the bible are from the HS. I am noticing that your conclusions are different from how the HS led others before you, such as the Apostles and their successors.

How can it posses if a man does not believe? When a man reads the Word and believes it, then the authority comes alive in his heart.

Indeed, authority does “come alive in his heart”. More often than not, it is his own “authority” and not that appointed by God to shepherd the Church.