A Protestant view of the Mother of God

[CWBetts]

The first Covenant was pronounced by God and made with our first parents, Adam and Eve. It was at this time that God told them to make the very first typical animal sacrifice, which they built an alter and did at the gate of the Garden of Eden. The rest of the Plan of Salvation, which started there, was revealed in steps, based on the circumstances at the time each “new” Covenant was given. After the Israelites left Egyptian bondage and reached Horeb in northwestern Saudi Arabia as we know it today, the enrtire nation of Israel was together in one place. There, the “Everlasting Covenant” was pronounced by God iwth Israel when His Laws, Statutes and Judgements and religious calendar and the themes of Salvation were formally pronouced and man’s promises of obedience were made.

What Christ did when he made “a new Covenant WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL,” was to take out of the way man’s promises and in it’s place, He instituted His life as the Sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin and to make a way for his followers to love Him because of what He did for them, such that theri love for Him would cause them to follow in His footsteps. What were His footsteps?? He kept the love contained in the written Torah, and taught men to do the same.

Peter (Cephas, an Aramaic word for “Peter,” or Petra in Greek, was likened by Jesus to a rolling stone. Jesus said while standing on a high rock, that His Church would be built on a similarly strong foundation. He even turned to Peter when Peter said he did not want Christ to go to Jerusalem and suffer: “Get thee behind Me thou Satan.” I doubt that Peter, the man Christ knew would deny Him three times in Jerusalem, was to be the leader of His Church. In fact, Christ made a non-disciple, Saul, calling him Paul, the greatest Apostle.

I’ve already explained the correct use of the word, “Keys.” Loosing and binding had only to do with judgements made using the knowledge of His Law and the prophets which Christ said should be kept by His followers (Matthew 23) Paul said, "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That excludes man, whether Church leaders, or laiety because “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Sinful human beings cannot claim any human as “holy.” Only Christ can do that, and will at His second coming and afterward after the thousand year millenium at the Great White Throan judgement. The final judgement, based on His Ten Commandments.

Yeshua’s blessings

If Peter was not the greatest disciple, then why is he always named first? Why was he the one who presided over the council of Jerusalem as detailed in the Book of Acts? The Keys are in reference to the Pope’s role as a prime minister of the Kingodom on earth. Lastly, why should we believe your inerpretation is correct, when it runs counter to the Catholic Church? Your “correct” explaination of the Keys are frought with error.

 

[antonabe]

Ron,you mention that a Sinful Christian cannot get the Glory of God through the Holy Spirit but that is part of the process of Salvation brought about by the Sacrfice Jesus Chrst made on the Cross.True repentance for one’s Sinful life will qualify one to enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit.This is the message of Divine Mercy.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

If Peter was not the greatest disciple, then why is he always named first? Why was he the one who presided over the council of Jerusalem as detailed in the Book of Acts? The Keys are in reference to the Pope’s role as a prime minister of the Kingodom on earth. Lastly, why should we believe your inerpretation is correct, when it runs counter to the Catholic Church? Your “correct” explaination of the Keys are frought with error.

Why believe my interpretation is correct? Because it is the interpretation that doesn’t turn the words of Yeshua (Jesus) against His overall statements, as in turning Christ against Christ. It keeps all of what Christ said, consistent in meaning. If the Catholic Church teaches that it was only when Christ was born that people only then somehow knew that he had always existed in Heaven with God the Father, then even then it shouldn’t be surprising to see that Christ, Who is part of the Godhead, was also present at Mt. Sinai when the triune God formally gave His Laws, Statutes and Judgements in support of the Ten Commandments, including the annual holy times each with it’s theme describing the Plan of Salvation.

My interpretation also keeps Paul’s words consistent. For example, when Paul says that one man can keep all days as alike, not keeping one day as above the others and do so unto Christ, he is not saying that such is what he did. Paul, as in Collosians 2: vs. 13 through 17, and at Phillipi with those he considered the most loving of his converts to Judeo-Christianity, observed the Passover incuding the “days of unleavened bread.” Paul also observed the Sabbath according to the Commandment, just as Christ did, even in the grave.

When Paul talked about keeping one day above another, or all days being kept as equal, both “convinced in their hearts” that they did it unto Christ, what Paul was trying to say was that we should only be convinced in our hearts that we are doing what God asked us to do. ie, that we should NOT dictate, as has been done over the past 1,700 years of the Christian era.

My interpretation keeps the Plan of Salvation consistent, addressed by God to any who choose to accept His consistent words about His love for us as expressed in His Laws, Statutes and Judgements found in Leveticus 23, as well as in the words of the prophets.
It keeps the words of Christ consistent with the words of all of the Apostles who also kept the same days and ways that Christ did.

As far as Christ and the Passovers He observed during His ministry on earth, it is noteworthy that for the last year of His ministry and life, He kept all of the annual holy times, with the exception of His final Passover Seder, outside Jerusalem, and there is no record of Christ ever sacrificing an animal (lamb) for His sins. He recognized His role as the sinless Son of God, thus there was no need of such sacrifices on His part.

My interpretation keeps Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Malachi, Isaiah, Ezekiel, all the prphets of God, Yeshua (Jesus Christ), the Apostles, and those of us today who try to follow in their united footsteps, religiously and spiritually, to the best of our abilities, consistent, all the way through the journey we are on. It says that life on this earth is as attending a school, or schools, from young childhood on through to old age.

It does not turn the words of Christ, the observant One Who praises God, (Jew) against what He, Himself said in other places or times in His earthly ministry. it does not turn His words against the words of the Apostles when it comes to observances and holy times, or vice-versa. It keeps the idea consistent that we can all be one in the “Jewish” Messiah. We become Jews inwardly, as Christ asked us to do.

It keeps consistent the idea that whether within or outside of specific religious organizations, people have the inherent rigfht to disagree and follow the pathway they feel that Christ is leading them into. It allows that ultimate test of whether we believe or not to be whether we allow for others, even defending their rights when they disagree with us, the freedom to follow their own consciences, not turning to governments or state authorities in efforts to take the faith and practice rights away from them due to low attendance at church services on any particular day or season, as was the case a few hundred years ago and further back in history.

It keeps the basic Bible message consistent, all the way through to when Christ returns as King to gather first the dead in Himself, then the living who followed His Commandments through faith in Himself.

Shalom my brother in Yeshua Ha-Maschiach (Jesus, the Messiah)

 

[Stephentlig]

Ok Ron, there are a lot of subjects you have brought up that I wish the clear up, but first we shall take it step by step.

let us stay on the subject of St.Peter and his succesors the papacy.

then when we have moved from that we shall move to the next subject.

Peter (Cephas, an Aramaic word for “Peter,” or Petra in Greek, was likened by Jesus to a rolling stone. Jesus said while standing on a high rock, that His Church would be built on a similarly strong foundation. He even turned to Peter when Peter said he did not want Christ to go to Jerusalem and suffer: “Get thee behind Me thou Satan.” I doubt that Peter, the man Christ knew would deny Him three times in Jerusalem, was to be the leader of His Church. In fact, Christ made a non-disciple, Saul, calling him Paul, the greatest Apostle.

ok lets take it step by step.

The ‘‘Keys’’ to the kingdom

In the old Davidic Kingdom, the King had royal ministers who performed the liturgical duties of conducting liturgical worship and offering sacrifice. The King also had a prime minister, or cheif steward, who would rule and govern the household in the kings absence. The cheif steward would act as the king’s representative and would have the authority to establish rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he served. The chief stewards authority was represented by his ‘‘Keys’’, as we read in the prophet of Isaiah: ''Thus says the Lord GOD of hosts, ‘‘Come, go to this steward, to shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority you to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the Key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; he shall shut and none shall open.’’ In describing the Old covenant kingdom, Isaiah tells us that shebna, King davids chief representative, has an office and a station ( see Is 22:5,19 ) In the next verse, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household ( see v.20 ). King David by this time had been dead for three centuries, but his kingdom was preserved through a succesion of representatives. We also see that Shebnas authority is fully transferred to Eliakim, who is called a ‘‘father’’ to Gods people ( v.21) Finally, we see that the keys to the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim, and whenever Eliakim opens, ‘‘none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open’’ ( v22). Thus, The keys to the kingdom are a symbol of authority, and are used to facilitate dynastic succession. Jesus was referring to this passage in Isaiah when giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and most Jews immediately recognised the connection. This passage in Isaiah is the only other place in scripture where keys are mentioned in the context of a kingdom. Jesus came not to abolish the spiritual principles of the Old Covenant, but to fulfill them ( see matt:5:17 ) thus, Jesus, after establishing Peter as the rock foundation of the church, appoints Peter as his chief steward and invests Peter with his own authority to rule and govern while Jesus is in heaven. In Fact, Jesus begins to talk about his death and departure only after he appoints Peter as the chief steward of the kingdom ( see matt:16:21 ). Peters office as cheif steward provided a visible and perpetual source of unity for the church from one generation to the next, a fact that was not seriously questioned for 1,500 years— until the protestent reformation. As the chief steward, Peter also becomes the father of the inhabitants of the church. This is why Catholics call the succesor of Peter ‘‘The Pope’’ and his office ‘‘the Pacacy’’ ( the word ‘‘Pope’’ simply means father or papa in Italian.) Further, whatever Papa binds or losses ( opens or shuts ) on earth is bound or loosed ( open or shut ) in heaven. Binding and loosing are rabbincal terms that describe the authority to make rules of conduct ( in Hebrew, halakah ) for the faithful. Thus Peter can enact laws and make disiplinary decisions for the church. Jesus also gives authority to bind and loose to the other apostles, but he gives Peter alone the keys. Binding and loosing also connotes the supernatural ability to make doctrinal pronouncements and forgive sins. We see elsewhere in Scripture that keys represent supernatural authority. For example, Jesus says in the book of revelation that he has ‘‘the key of death and hades’’ ( rev: 1:18 ). The keys represent Jesus power over death and his authority to forgive and punsih sins. Jesus gives these keys to Peter as the chief shephard of the Church. Thus not only do Peters keys symbolize his governing authority over Christs earthly kingdom, but they also represent his pastoral authority over souls. Peters Keys fit into the gates of hades, which bind sin and punishment, and loose sin through the sacrament of forgiveness. Hence, the gates of Hades will never prevail against the church (see Matt16:18). Further because peters declarations on earth are ratified in heaven, Christ is giving peter the authority to teach infallibly ( which means without error ).

 

[CWBetts]

Why believe my interpretation is correct? Because it is the interpretation that doesn’t turn the words of Yeshua (Jesus) against His overall statements, as in turning Christ against Christ. It keeps all of what Christ said, consistent in meaning. If the Catholic Church teaches that it was only when Christ was born that people only then somehow knew that he had always existed in Heaven with God the Father, then even then it shouldn’t be surprising to see that Christ, Who is part of the Godhead, was also present at Mt. Sinai when the triune God formally gave His Laws, Statutes and Judgements in support of the Ten Commandments, including the annual holy times each with it’s theme describing the Plan of Salvation.

My interpretation also keeps Paul’s words consistent. For example, when Paul says that one man can keep all days as alike, not keeping one day as above the others and do so unto Christ, he is not saying that such is what he did. Paul, as in Collosians 2: vs. 13 through 17, and at Phillipi with those he considered the most loving of his converts to Judeo-Christianity, observed the Passover incuding the “days of unleavened bread.” Paul also observed the Sabbath according to the Commandment, just as Christ did, even in the grave.

When Paul talked about keeping one day above another, or all days being kept as equal, both “convinced in their hearts” that they did it unto Christ, what Paul was trying to say was that we should only be convinced in our hearts that we are doing what God asked us to do. ie, that we should NOT dictate, as has been done over the past 1,700 years of the Christian era.

My interpretation keeps the Plan of Salvation consistent, addressed by God to any who choose to accept His consistent words about His love for us as expressed in His Laws, Statutes and Judgements found in Leveticus 23, as well as in the words of the prophets.
It keeps the words of Christ consistent with the words of all of the Apostles who also kept the same days and ways that Christ did.

As far as Christ and the Passovers He observed during His ministry on earth, it is noteworthy that for the last year of His ministry and life, He kept all of the annual holy times, with the exception of His final Passover Seder, outside Jerusalem, and there is no record of Christ ever sacrificing an animal (lamb) for His sins. He recognized His role as the sinless Son of God, thus there was no need of such sacrifices on His part.

My interpretation keeps Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Malachi, Isaiah, Ezekiel, all the prphets of God, Yeshua (Jesus Christ), the Apostles, and those of us today who try to follow in their united footsteps, religiously and spiritually, to the best of our abilities, consistent, all the way through the journey we are on. It says that life on this earth is as attending a school, or schools, from young childhood on through to old age.

It does not turn the words of Christ, the observant One Who praises God, (Jew) against what He, Himself said in other places or times in His earthly ministry. it does not turn His words against the words of the Apostles when it comes to observances and holy times, or vice-versa. It keeps the idea consistent that we can all be one in the “Jewish” Messiah. We become Jews inwardly, as Christ asked us to do.

It keeps consistent the idea that whether within or outside of specific religious organizations, people have the inherent rigfht to disagree and follow the pathway they feel that Christ is leading them into. It allows that ultimate test of whether we believe or not to be whether we allow for others, even defending their rights when they disagree with us, the freedom to follow their own consciences, not turning to governments or state authorities in efforts to take the faith and practice rights away from them due to low attendance at church services on any particular day or season, as was the case a few hundred years ago and further back in history.

It keeps the basic Bible message consistent, all the way through to when Christ returns as King to gather first the dead in Himself, then the living who followed His Commandments through faith in Himself.

Shalom my brother in Yeshua Ha-Maschiach (Jesus, the Messiah)

if you want the True teaching of Jesus Christ, then you need look no furhter than the Catholic Church. You seem to be saying that Catholics disregard the Old Testament. Nothing could be further from the truth. We realize that the OT id fulfilled in the New. You have no teaching authority as far as I am concerned. I know nothing about you, but I can trace the authority of the Church through the Popes, back to Peter, the Rock upon which Christ built his Church

 

[Stephentlig]

Peter (Cephas, an Aramaic word for “Peter,” or Petra in Greek, was likened by Jesus to a rolling stone. Jesus said while standing on a high rock, that His Church would be built on a similarly strong foundation. He even turned to Peter when Peter said he did not want Christ to go to Jerusalem and suffer: “Get thee behind Me thou Satan.” I doubt that Peter, the man Christ knew would deny Him three times in Jerusalem, was to be the leader of His Church. In fact, Christ made a non-disciple, Saul, calling him Paul, the greatest Apostle.

1. The Greek word for rock is “petra” (there is no word “petros”).
2. Jesus called Simon “Kepha” which, in Aramaic, means a large rock, or massive rock formation.
3. When the Gospel was translated into Greek, the writers translated Kepha into Petros (not petra). This was done to masculinize the name of Peter as Petros.
4. Because petra in Greek can mean a small rock and the translation reads Petros, Protestants attempt to say that Jesus was calling Peter a small rock, in order to diminish Peter’s significance.
5. But if Jesus wanted to call Peter a small rock, the translation would have read “lithos” (meaning small pebble in Greek), not “Petros.”
6. Nevertheless, Jesus said Kepha (not “evna” meaning small pebble), so the
   Petra v. Petros comparison (which really doesn’t exist in Greek anyway) is
   irrelevant. I hope this helps.

Now as for Peters rebuke does not mean he took the keys from him, as below this scriptural explanation of John teaches.
the very fact that paul rebuked Peter in the acts further proves that peter is only infallible on faith and morals not his ideas or conduct. That is, she is unable to teach error on matters of faith and morals. This inability to teach error on faith and morals is called “infallibility” (it has nothing to do with the sinfulness of the Church’s leaders, which deals with “impeccability”). If the Church were not infallible, the powers of death would indeed prevail over her sinful members. The consistent, 2,000 years of the Church’s teaching on faith and morals proves that Jesus has kept His promise.

John:21:15. Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? That is, more than any one of these love me. Christ puts this question thrice to St. Peter, that this triple protestation of love, says St. Augustine, might correspond to his triple denial. St. Peter did not answer that he loved him more than the rest did, which he could not know, but modestly said: yea, Lord, thou knowest I love thee: and the third time, thou knowest all things, and the hearts of all men, thou knowest how much I love thee. At each protestation, Jesus answered, feed my lambs; and the third time, feed my sheep. To feed, in the style of the Scriptures, is to guide, rule, and govern. St. Ambrose and some others take notice, as if by the lambs, might be understood the people, and by the sheep, those placed over them, as bishops, priests, &c. but others make no such difference in this place, betwixt lambs and sheep, only as comprehending all the members of Christ’s Church, of what condition soever, even the rest of the apostles. For here it was that Christ gave to St. Peter that power which he had promised him, (Matthew xvi. 18.) that is, He now made St. Peter head[1] of his whole Church, as he had insinuated at the first meeting, when St. Andrew brought him to our Saviour, when he changed his name from Simon to Peter: again, when he chose him, and made him the first of his twelve apostles; but particularly, when he said, thou art Peter, (a rock) and upon this rock will I build my Church, &c. Upon this account the Catholic Church, from the very first ages, hath always reverenced, and acknowledged the supreme power of the successors of St. Peter, in spirituals, over all Christian Churches. This appears also by the writings of Tertullian, of St. Irenæus, of St. Cyprian, of the greatest doctors and bishops, both of the west and east, of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, of St. Chrysostom, in several places, of the first general Councils, particularly of the great Council of Chalcedon, &c. (Witham) — Simon (son) of John. The father’s name is here added, to discriminate him from Simon Thaddeus, that every one might know that the chief care of the universal Church was not given to any other apostle but Peter. This Simon of John is the same as Simon Bar-jona. See Matthew xvi. 17. (Menochius) — St. Peter had three times renounced his master; and Jesus, to give him an opportunity of repairing his fault by a triple confession, three several times demanded of him, if he loved him more than these? That, as St. Augustine remarks, he who had thrice denied through fear might thrice confess through love. (Calmet)

 

[RonTheNewJew]

OK. So, where does it say that Shebna makes any changes in what the King did or said before he left the household? It was not the representative’s role to do that. He was there simply to represent the King in what had already been set up by the King.
All religious or secular organizations have leaders in various positions who work for and beneath the corporate owners, whether religious or secular.

In matters of religion, Christ already had set up and passed on to His disciples the real (not the manufactured by the rabbi’s and teachers) rules of observing His Laws, Statutes and Judgements, all of which testify to His love for humanity. The civil laws in the Torah sometimes pointed to some tough measures for civil or criminal lawbreakers. But, the laws relating to religious observances, particularly the themes of the yearly festivals and sabbaths in support of the right keeping of the Ten Commandments. Christ even conemned those who would “break one of the least of these commandments (notice in the text the absence of a capital “C.” That is a specific reference to the written Torah by Christ) and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

The problem from the very beginning when sin entered the picture in the Garden of Eden, has been that man has decided that he, rather than God, can make the rules and say that God said he could. When speaking of the Pharisees and some rabbi’s, Jesus made it clear that bad doctrine is not acceptable to Him. His point is that consistency in observing His Laws, Statutes and Judgements is His only standard. Not ours. His.Now, what is so difficult about that?

As far as “a father” in the text you mention goes, I would simply say, did not Christ tell His followers to “Call no man Father, but your Father in Heaven?” Well now, what does all this mean? The text about the “representative” or “father in the King’s household” who would be appointed, came when Christ, representing His Father, and Who now is at the right hand of the Father, representing us to the Father, using His own blood in the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly sanctuary, for our sins. He promised, and followed through on that promise, to leave His Representative with us. This happened on the day, Shavuot (Pentecost) when He sent the Holy Spirit to be with us and be our guide in understanding His expressed will for us, contained in the Scriptures as written by all those fallible Jews who wrote the entire Bible, all 66 books of it.

Welcome home, if you wish, back to the “Judaism” (the religion that God gave to the Jews that includes Christ at it’s center.

Shalom in Christ

 

[CWBetts]

OK. So, where does it say that Shebna makes any changes in what the King did or said before he left the household? It was not the representative’s role to do that. He was there simply to represent the King in what had already been set up by the King.
All religious or secular organizations have leaders in various positions who work for and beneath the corporate owners, whether religious or secular.

In matters of religion, Christ already had set up and passed on to His disciples the real (not the manufactured by the rabbi’s and teachers) rules of observing His Laws, Statutes and Judgements, all of which testify to His love for humanity. The civil laws in the Torah sometimes pointed to some tough measures for civil or criminal lawbreakers. But, the laws relating to religious observances, particularly the themes of the yearly festivals and sabbaths in support of the right keeping of the Ten Commandments. Christ even conemned those who would “break one of the least of these commandments (notice in the text the absence of a capital “C.” That is a specific reference to the written Torah by Christ) and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

The problem from the very beginning when sin entered the picture in the Garden of Eden, has been that man has decided that he, rather than God, can make the rules and say that God said he could. When speaking of the Pharisees and some rabbi’s, Jesus made it clear that bad doctrine is not acceptable to Him. His point is that consistency in observing His Laws, Statutes and Judgements is His only standard. Not ours. His.Now, what is so difficult about that?

As far as “a father” in the text you mention goes, I would simply say, did not Christ tell His followers to “Call no man Father, but your Father in Heaven?” Well now, what does all this mean? The text about the “representative” or “father in the King’s household” who would be appointed, came when Christ, representing His Father, and Who now is at the right hand of the Father, representing us to the Father, using His own blood in the Most Holy Place in the Heavenly sanctuary, for our sins. He promised, and followed through on that promise, to leave His Representative with us. This happened on the day, Shavuot (Pentecost) when He sent the Holy Spirit to be with us and be our guide in understanding His expressed will for us, contained in the Scriptures as written by all those fallible Jews who wrote the entire Bible, all 66 books of it.

Welcome home, if you wish, back to the “Judaism” (the religion that God gave to the Jews that includes Christ at it’s center.

Shalom in Christ

If we are not to call any man father, why did Jesus himself say “yourfather Abraham”? You really need to look at things in context of the whole Bible, all 73 books of it.

 

[Holly3278]

You know, I have heard some Protestants insult Mary to the point where they make her as just another sinner just like the rest of humanity. To me, that is disgusting. Mary most certainly was not a sinner. She was free from both original and actual sin. Jesus saved her before she was conceived. Mary is a model for us all to follow! While none of us will ever be as perfect as Mary is, we can all still strive to be more like her.

That said, not all Protestants insult Mary by saying that she is a sinner like everyone else. Some Protestants do have a great deal of respect for Mary and I respect that. The ones who tend to think that Mary was a sinner just like everyone else are typically the fundamentalists and evangelicals.

 

[Stephentlig]

OK. So, where does it say that Shebna makes any changes in what the King did or said before he left the household? It was not the representative’s role to do that. He was there simply to represent the King in what had already been set up by the King.
All religious or secular organizations have leaders in various positions who work for and beneath the corporate owners, whether religious or secular.

Niether did Peter Make any new changes Ron on faith and morals. Jesus gave Peter the authority to teach without error, infact the popes in the history of the church has only practiced the charism of infallibility twice. that was with the assumption of Mary and the Immaculate conception, and it was not done to create anything ‘‘new’’ but to complete what was already there and a belief already held by the church, just not completed as part of the doctrine.St.Peter is Jesus representative on earth, he is the prime minister.

In matters of religion, Christ already had set up and passed on to His disciples the real (not the manufactured by the rabbi’s and teachers) rules of observing His Laws, Statutes and Judgements, all of which testify to His love for humanity. The civil laws in the Torah sometimes pointed to some tough measures for civil or criminal lawbreakers. But, the laws relating to religious observances, particularly the themes of the yearly festivals and sabbaths in support of the right keeping of the Ten Commandments. Christ even conemned those who would “break one of the least of these commandments (notice in the text the absence of a capital “C.” That is a specific reference to the written Torah by Christ) and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

for this you need to understand the Old and the new law. therefore I invite you to read to article provided in the link.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0812btb.asp

As far as “a father” in the text you mention goes, I would simply say, did not Christ tell His followers to “Call no man Father, but your Father in Heaven?” Well now, what does all this mean?

The Elders of the Church are Called “Fathers” and the Faithful "Children"
Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, “call no man father.” But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests “father.” This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.

Matt. 23:8 – in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But don’t Protestants call their teachers “teacher?” What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 - priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.

Eph. 3:14-15 - every family in heaven and on earth is named from the “Father.” We are fathers in the Father.

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, "Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”
1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
1 Cor. 4:17 - Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful “child” in the Lord.
2 Cor. 12:14 - Paul describes his role as parent over his “children” the Corinthians.
Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.
1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 - Paul calls Timothy his true “child” in the faith and his son.
Titus 1:4 - Paul calls Titus his true “child” in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.
Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus.
Heb. 12:7,9 - emphasizes our earthly “fathers.” But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).
1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”
1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church “fathers.”
1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 - John calls members of the Church “children.”
1 Macc. 2:65 - Mattathias the priest tells his sons that Simeon will be their “father.”

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.of course your erroneous private judgement only further proves why protestants are a denomination of 30,000 and the Catholic church in her history of 2000 years remains one holy catholic and apostolic church.

all 66 books of it.

and lastly when St.paul in his letter to timothy that all scripture is inspired, he was including the 6 deutorcanical books that the protestents removed 1,500 years later.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

It sounds like there were many “fathers” listed in the Old and New dispensations (two different administrations of the same “Old” and “Everlasting Covenant.” (first announced to Abraham, passed on to Jacob, etc.). Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the orginator of the religion of the Jews? Just curious.

What I tried to earlier point out is that Christ, when He said “Call no man Father, but your Father in Heaven,” He obviously meant that we should not call any man Father in the sense of the absolute arbiter of what is known (already) as truth. In other words to not allow any human to try to say what someone else to take the place of God the Father or Son. They are God.

Nowhere in the texts you listed does any of them say that their reference to the word, “father” raises the person refered to in the text to the level of God, or being able to change what God said in any way in terms of His stated requirements, keeping the written Torah, minus the animal sacrificial system of types pointing forward to Christ’s crucifixion, and the Temple services that went along with the sacrifices. This includes that we should observe the weekly Shabbat or Sabbath day. That was not done away by Christ’s death. He observed it in the grave, following His death, to prove that it is to be kept by His followers.

I had an earthly “father” who was a good man, who helped raise me, but I had the right not to agree with some things he believed in, or did not believe in. I had pastors who also taught me, and teachers, but at no time did they say I had to accept what they taught in order to have Christ’s salvation. They taught me that I had to “work out my own salvation, in accordance with what the Holy Spirit led me to believe and do.”

They taught me that, in the final Judgement, I would either stand before God alone, or with Jesus at my side as my attorney to claim that my sins were covered with His blood, thus wiping out the handwriting of (not ordinances or laws), but the handwriting of accusations against me. Those accusations are written by Satan, himself, who caused me to fail at times. See the Hebrew words for what is contained in Collosians 2: 14 through 17. These are much maligned verses by those who try to make the uncircumcised-in-their-flesh Collosians to have been former ethnic, observant Jews who, somehow or another, missed being circumcised as babies.They try to say that Paul was telling former Jews not to succumb to the tauntings of their former friends and neighbors and families by asking them to keep the Sabbath, the lunar new moon feasts and dietary laws.

The real truth, based on verse 13 (because theCollosian converts had been former pagan sungod worshippers, Wolden day worshippers, etc. They were not surrounded by Jews. They were surrounded by their pagan former associates who wanted the new converts to go back to their former heathen practices.how do we know this? Because in the text it says “Let no man judge you in name of a new moon (feast day), dietary laws, or the Sabbaton (weekly seventh-day Sabbath, etc.” The pagans had very different festival days and laws, and ate many things the ethnic, observant Jews did not eat. If the new converts had been former observant Jews, then the Jews who surrounded them would likely have invited them to go on keeping the holy days and festivals, as well as try to get them to restart the animal sacrifices and circumcision, etc. The new converts would have already been keeping the annual holy days and festivals that Paul would have taught them to continue keeping and observing.

Thus, we have modern Churches misinterpreting Paul’s work and purposes by misconstruing what he did and said. They do this to support the changes they thought themselves able to make in the written Torah, the everlasting Covenant which Christ defended the keeping of. He told His disciples to “Go forth and OBSERVE AND TEACH ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU.”

He never once commanded Peter or any others to change that which He had practiced, taught his disciples to observe and teach. His Laws, Statutes and Judgements “put into their inward parts; their hearts of stone taken out,” with the result being Salvation, is what the Gospel is all about. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Having the Holy Spirit within us, working and helping us discern what to think and do, does NOT mean that we are “holy.” That is something that can only be decided upon by Christ when we are at the final Judgement. The Holy Spirit works within us, but unfortunately, humans have a great tendency to hold back those sins which they hold dear, or perhaps even enjoy while ripping off others in the process. The history of the Church and the history of ancient, and modern Israel, the nation and Christians today, proves it.

Talk to you tomorrow.
Shalom

 

[agent_grey]

I am sorry but to say that protestants believe something is rediculous. They all believe something different. You can not use the bible or church history or anything to make war or obtain peace with protestantism.

One believes Marry was a kind of concubine, another may even believe she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. They all appear to believe something different. And one of them just may be right! Or may be two! The question is… if 2 protestants are right do they know each other?

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Well, uh, it seems that Methodists and Catholics and Baptists each believe something different about Mary. I don’t think any of them are right.

How’s that?

 

[PJM]

=Stephentlig;5221596]How do you then conclude that the Members of the Catholic church claim to be God?

Friend where the heack did you pick up that stange thought?

We are Catholics, “made in the image of God” [Gen. 1: 26]

This is what is meant:

All humanity is gifted from our Creator with a mind, intellect, memory, ability to reason, freewill and what annimates these traits as well as our physical bodies; our souls.

Note that each of these gifts can be proven, but not seen, and one cannot quantify them, because they are Spiritual. And it is precisely in this way that are “image God.”

Friend an “image” is only that; a “image.” It lacks many of the details of the orginal.

Jn. 3: 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Jn. 4:24 “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

If Christ didnt create a new commandment then why in John:13:34 does he give them one?

Once again friend, you seem to clarity of understanding.

Look at each and every one of the Ten Commandments. Are not each and everyone of them, at root, about love? Either love of God or love of neighbor. Yes they are!

This was a “new expression,” a different articulation, but in no way a “new message.”

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

It’s not “new” it is a SUMMUARY of the ten Commandments. New verbage, not a “new Commandment.”

And please don’t come back at me with “well he said” its “new.”

He meant a “new emphasis on love and Charity!” Remember the OT “law” was “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” [See Mt.18:21-22].

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[antonabe]

Having read most of the Posts it is eveident that all groups including Catholics,Protestants,Lutherians,Messianic Jews,believe and acknowledge the message of Christ as contained in the Gospels.The wedges which divide them are actually in my opinion trivials considering the most important message of Salvation by Christ.In the present context of the world today when most people turn to Seclarism what is vital is the unification of all who stand for the teachings of Christ.If one group thinks that Peter was the Head named by Christ which I too agree, they are entitled to their view.It cannot be denied that Mary was the Mother of Christ and I am sure all agree on this.Jesus was also the Son Of God and therefore Mary deserves reverance and not Worship and Catholics name her as an intercessor in the manner of her role at Cana.But having said that what divides the groups are not important enough to warrant division and as I mentioned before Unification is the Order of the Day as we are all focussed on Almighty God and Jesus Christ.

 

[RonTheNewJew]

Unity? We can all stand for the same basic moral principles of the Scrptures, the full Ten Commandments and moral dialy living, without “UNITY” in the corporate sense, the organizational sense. Unity has, in the past centuries most often been used as a drive to get people who disagree with each other, to join with the largest of the religious organizations, regardles of the personal beliefs of individual members or smaller religious groups. Such “unity” is a sham. It is dishonest. it is not based on free will. That kind of drive for “unity” is what led to centuries of persecution of smaller groups who disagreed with the larger ones.

If we are truly Judeo-Christians, believing in the love of Christ, and the peaceful free will with which He dealt with everyone He met, then corporate “unity” is not only not needed, but is a real threat to the Christian religion.

 

[antonabe]

What is important is the unity in idealogical sense and in terms of Doctrine. Our common enemy is Secularism.those who do not believe in Almighty God and Jesus Christ.Even if people are of the view that these petty differences which divide them confine them to smaller or larger religous groups because of thier free will that is fine.The point I am making is that corporate entities and boundaries are not required when basically the idealogy is the same though there could be minot differences to which they are wecome to have.That is Unity in Diversity.People who believe in Almighty God and Jesus Christ and follow the Ten Commandments will eventually achieve salvation after death culminating in his second coming.To me this is Unity and I am not concerned with amalgamationor fusion of religous entities or Corporates.

 

[Stephentlig]

you believe that Jesus Christ was the orginator of the religion of the Jews? Just curious.

Yes of course, he is the Lord, the alpha and the Omega.

What I tried to earlier point out is that Christ, when He said “Call no man Father, but your Father in Heaven,” He obviously meant that we should not call any man Father in the sense of the absolute arbiter of what is known (already) as truth

Really?

As far as “a father” in the text you mention goes, I would simply say, did not Christ tell His followers to “Call no man Father, but your Father in Heaven?” Well now, what does all this mean?

Then why did why did you ask me what it all meant if you knew what to say?

Nowhere in the texts you listed does any of them say that their reference to the word, “father” raises the person refered to in the text to the level of God,

I gave you those texts to show you that its ok for Catholics to call priests ‘‘father’’ I am not referencing them to show you that its ok for us to call them ‘‘God the father’’ as they are not God the father.

Us catholics become like Gods by our participiation, but we do not become God himself.

you’ve totally misconstrued my posts.

The real truth, based on verse 13 (because theCollosian converts had been former pagan sungod worshippers, Wolden day worshippers

The real truth is that ‘‘A New synthesis on Christ’s position. The Jewish christians of collosae were drawn to reverence angels and various cosmic powers, and this led paul to rethink Christs place with regard to them. He is the Lord of these powers, and God’s wisdom, in whom the fullness of divinity dwells. Many of the old doctrines of RM about belonging to Christ are repeated, with a new depth of experience of what it means to share in Christ’s sufferings and be part of the Body of which he is the Head. The letter is closely related to EP; some doubt its pauline authorship but the balance is in favour of it.’’

Ver. 12. Buried with him in baptism, signified by the ceremony of immersion in baptism. See Romans vi. 3. (Witham)

Ver. 14. Blotting out, &c.[4] This is commonly expounded of the sentence of eternal death pronounced against sinful Adam, and all his posterity, for having sinned in him. Others would have it to signify only the yoke and obligations of the Mosaical law, which could not of itself remit sins, and occasionally made persons greater sinners. This sentence of death (whether we understand the one or the other) Christ took away, fastening it as it were, to the cross, taking it away by his death on the cross. (Witham)

Ver. 15. And despoiling the principalities and powers; the devil and his infernal spirits. (Witham)

Ver. 16. Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat or in drink. That is, for not abstaining from meats, called unclean, for drinking out of a cup without a cover, (see Numbers xix.) or for not keeping the Jewish festivals. For these were but shadows, types and figures of future things to be fulfilled in the new law of Christ: but the body is of Christ, (ver. 17.) i.e. was the body, the truth, the substance signified by these shadows and types. (Witham) — He means with regard to the Jewish observations of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of their festivals, new moons, and sabbaths; as being no longer obligatory. (Challoner) — Modern dogmatizers wilfully or ignorantly misapply this text of the apostle, to disprove the fasts and festivals observed in the Catholic Church; but it is evident, as St. Augustine observes, that the apostle is here condemning the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats, and the feasts of the new moon, to which false brethren wanted to subject the Colossians. (St. Augustine, ep. 59. ad Paulin. in solut. quæs. 7.)

He never once commanded Peter or any others to change that which He had practiced, taught his disciples to observe and teach. His Laws, Statutes and Judgements “put into their inward parts; their hearts of stone taken out,” with the result being Salvation, is what the Gospel is all about. Nothing more. Nothing less.

St.Peter hasnt changed anything, I’ve already shown you this, its Christ who changed the Old into the New St.Peter is proclaiming that, and in the history of the church faith and morals has not changed. as Pat has so kindly shown us and corrected me on as well.

I have a wedding to plan, so cant carry on the debate, so I am handing it over to someone else.

here are some websites, why not take your questions to this well known catholic apologist? John Salza, and take a look at his website also upon which you will find his e-mail address, www.scripturecatholic.com

Adios muchachos.
Stephen <3

 

[Stephentlig]

Friend where the heack did you pick up that stange thought?

We are Catholics, “made in the image of God” [Gen. 1: 26]

This is what is meant:

All humanity is gifted from our Creator with a mind, intellect, memory, ability to reason, freewill and what annimates these traits as well as our physical bodies; our souls.

Note that each of these gifts can be proven, but not seen, and one cannot quantify them, because they are Spiritual. And it is precisely in this way that are “image God.”

Friend an “image” is only that; a “image.” It lacks many of the details of the orginal.

Jn. 3: 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

Jn. 4:24 “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Once again friend, you seem to clarity of understanding.

Look at each and every one of the Ten Commandments. Are not each and everyone of them, at root, about love? Either love of God or love of neighbor. Yes they are!

This was a “new expression,” a different articulation, but in no way a “new message.”

It’s not “new” it is a SUMMUARY of the ten Commandments. New verbage, not a “new Commandment.”

And please don’t come back at me with “well he said” its “new.”

He meant a “new emphasis on love and Charity!” Remember the OT “law” was “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” [See Mt.18:21-22].

Love and prayers,
Pat

Pat, thank you in regards to the Law, as I have just demonstrated my lack of in knowledge in.

what our friend ron is trying to say is that we claim to BE ACTUAL GOD

but the catholic church teaches us that we are the image of him, and that we become like him by participation.

but we dont actually BECOME GOD.

God bless
Stephen<3

 

[Stephentlig]

Christian, unity is very Important, we were once one but now are a division of three, Division is our greatest sin in the eyes of God. for he himself said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. we must Unite with Love, the Lord said ‘‘May they all be one’’ John:17:21 he did not say ‘‘may they all be 30,000’’

we’ve all got something in common and that is that we are Christian, let us behave like it then and allow the Lord to bring us home to the truth.

those who are against unity are on the devils side, not the Lords.

God bless
Stephen