A
Anna_Scott
Guest
Original Post:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
X
xylem411
Guest
This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.
Luke 12:59 says, “I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” But it if it was talking about Hell, Jesus said once in Hell your in there forever, whats the point of that verse then? He’s talking about somewhere you go and you do suffer but to get all your sins payed for, thus he’s is talking about a 3rd place, because you cannot get out of Hell.
Matthew 16:18 states “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” You can interpret that this is saying Jesus knew Peter would be a good person to place being in charge of the Church.
Luke 1:48 states, “for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,” Mary Knew she was going to be called Mother because she gave birth to God in his human birth,.
My take of Protestantism now:
So far I think they build there entire faith on John 3:16, at least for the most part, that verse does not directly end, meaning that it can be interpreted as that’s the main thing in general for salvation BUT not the only thing.
I think once I finish studying a bit more with this protestant Bible I will quit my Protestant finding in a Church and look at Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
I perceive you have your mind made up either way. As far as Mary is concerned though, please be more accurate. ALL Christians call her Blessed. As far as Peter, most call him a leader, first amongst equals. As far as purgatory, it is more an event, something that takes place (judgement, where we are cleansed, where we suffer loss and gain). Just because there are other interpretations taken to a scripture does not mean the obvious is dismissed. What is not so obvoius is that Mary is immaculate, sinless, assumed, co-redemptrix, ever-virgin. What is not so obvious is that Peter was infallible and the head bishop/apostle over all bishops, and if you are still inclined that there would always be a head bishop after him .What is not so obvious is that your prayers, offerings, indulgences can help someone out of their due at judgement time (shorten purgatory). As far as bibles are concerned, yes there are some differences, but it is the Lord that leads us to still waters. As far as churches are concerned, there are some differences but it is the Lord who leads us to greener pastures. As far as John 3:16, it is not open ended . It is quite obvious and specific. That it can be interpreted various ways is no reflection on the beauty and precision of the verse. All things can be discerned carnally and/or spiritually, even with a mix, but the truth still stands for those that have an ear. Blessings.
S
studychristian
Guest
I don’t know if Catholicism is true, I know now that they can claim many of there doctrines are bibical.
X
xylem411
Guest
As has been pointed out some things are for sure true (Catholicism), but it’s overall gospel message, that is another question. Having said that, JW’s ,Mormons and most "christian " cults claim biblical foundation/reference, not too mention all the denominations. Catholics will claim they are the only One (unified), Apostolic (going back to apostles), Holy ,Catholic (universal) Church. For many that is their beauty and attraction. For others at this site, that is the hopefully amiable debate. BlessingsI don’t know if Catholicism is true, I know now that they can claim many of there doctrines are bibical.
B
BrianGular
Guest
The greater context here and in a similar passage in Matthew 5 is to settle before one gets to hell. The point is that once in hell we have no hope.Luke 12:59 says, “I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” But it if it was talking about Hell, Jesus said once in Hell your in there forever, whats the point of that verse then? He’s talking about somewhere you go and you do suffer but to get all your sins payed for, thus he’s is talking about a 3rd place, because you cannot get out of Hell.
I think the original Greek is informative here. The word for “Peter” is Petros, a small stone. The word for “rock” is petra which means a boulder, typical of what might be used in a foundation. Jesus is contrasting the boulder of earth-shaking truth in verse 16–that he is the Christ, the son of the living God–with the the small stone–Peter–that has proclaimed it. It’s a play on words used for emphasis.Matthew 16:18 states “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” You can interpret that this is saying Jesus knew Peter would be a good person to place being in charge of the Church.
You’re not going to get an argument on this one. Mary was blessed. She was a recipient of divine grace.Luke 1:48 states, “for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,” Mary Knew she was going to be called Mother because she gave birth to God in his human birth.
I would say that John 3:16 is a good starting place, but it is far from sufficient. To fully understand Protestantism one must understand the entire Bible as well as the history of the church. That includes the history of the church prior to the Reformation.So far I think they build there entire faith on John 3:16, at least for the most part, that verse does not directly end, meaning that it can be interpreted as that’s the main thing in general for salvation BUT not the only thing.
To get a fuller picture, start with verse 9 and end with verse 21:
9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
B
bzkoss236
Guest
You have to remember that before it was written in Greek it was said in either Hebrew or Aramaic, both of which only have one word for rock/stone. The translation into Greek wasn’t a play on words, but the most accurate depiction of the words with the correct gender application. Petra does mean boulder, and Petros does mean small stone, but if you’re giving someone a name, you’d give them the name according to their gender. He wouldn’t have called Peter “Petra” because of the feminine gender, so Petros would have then been used.I think the original Greek is informative here. The word for “Peter” is Petros, a small stone. The word for “rock” is petra which means a boulder, typical of what might be used in a foundation. Jesus is contrasting the boulder of earth-shaking truth in verse 16–that he is the Christ, the son of the living God–with the the small stone–Peter–that has proclaimed it. It’s a play on words used for emphasis.
You can read more about this position here on one of the Catholic Answers’ Tracts.
F
funny4god
Guest
Here is something interesting to sink your teeth intoFirst of all, welcome! It is clear that you have learned critical thinking very well. Protestantism, first and foremost, rejects central Church authority - the authority that you have discerned that Christ gave to Peter. If there is no central authority, what you rely on then is the individual ego interpreting scripture. Aside from the fact that private interpretation of scripture is banned by scripture itself (and, by Peter no less! 2 Peter 1:20), you can easily see why there are countless protestant denominations, all of which disagree with one another over certain things. Rather than denominations, they are men’s egos conflicting - exactly as the reformers did immediately upon splitting form the Church in the 16th century. This itself violates Christ’s prayer that we be one, as He and the Father are one.
As to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it is much more subtle - and complicated. Yet, both Churches trace, in an unbroken line, directly back to Christ via the Apostles and their successors. However, the point may be becoming increasingly moot, as the two are in constant talks regarding a solution to the great schism. I believe that, one day in the future, they will be re-united. Yet, as a Catholic, I see that the fullest expression of the One Church is the one united behind the successor of Peter. Ever notice that the entire world seems to hate the Catholic Church? We see that there are no anti-Methodost websites, no anti-Presbyterian websites. We could go on and on. But, anti-Catholic websites? Seemingly thousands of men and women are raking in big bucks preaching just how awful the Catholic Church is, and how right they themselves are about everything theological.
As a side note: Each and every protestant denomination uses the bible of 66 books that Martin Luther personally held to be inspired scripture. I note that each and every splinter group, sect and cult uses that same 66 book bible. From the Mormons to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to the Branch Davidians to Jim Jones - all used the 66 book bible. I wonder if the “reformers”, instead of reforming, actually opened Pandora’s box?
Not a single one of them uses the 73 book Catholic bible. Zero. I find that to be a telling fact.
In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: “Pope,” “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11)
Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.” (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows:
“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”
Some religionists today advocate that man is saved by faith only. However, there is only one passage in the entire Bible that has the words “faith” and “only” together and it says, “not by faith only” (James 2:24). The Catholics today speak of the Pope as vicar, taking the place of God (Christ Himself is God, Matt. 1:23; John 1:1), yet there is only one passage in the entire Bible which speaks of a man doing such and it calls him “the man of sin.”
James Cardinal Gibbons, a Catholic Archbishop said, “Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 82). The apostle Paul said, “For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 3:11). There is no other foundation but Christ! Therefore, any church which does not recognize Christ alone as the foundation stone cannot be the church of Christ.
Catholic writers often speak of “the primacy of Peter” and “the primacy of the Pope.” However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, “And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy…” Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope!
Catholics claim that the Pope is the visible head of the church. Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
“The pope, therefore, as vicar of Christ, is the visible head of Christ’s kingdom on earth, the Church, of which Christ Himself is the invisible head.” (Answer Wisely, by Martin J. Scott, p. 49).
“According to the will of Christ, all its members profess the same faith, have the same worship and Sacraments, and are united under the one and same visible head, the Pope.” (Father Smith Instructs Jackson, by John F. Noll and Lester J. Fallon, p. 42)
Catholic officials always use the word “visible” no doubt thinking that it removes the thought of the Pope standing in opposition to the headship of Christ, and removes the apparent problem of having a church with two heads. Nonetheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach the idea of a visible and invisible head. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18; Emp. mine D.R.).
Luke 17:20-21 says, “And on being asked by the Pharisees, ‘When is the kingdom of God coming?’ he answered and said to them, The kingdom of God comes unawares. Neither will they say, ‘Behold, here it is,’ or ‘Behold, there it is.’ For behold the kingdom of God is within you.” The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king.
Eph. 5:23-25 shows that Christ is the only head of the church. “Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.” Consequently, the wife is subject to her husband as the church is to Christ. Just as the wife is subject to only one head–her husband, the church is subject to only one head–Christ. Just as the husband does not send a substitute to rule over his wife, Christ does not authorize a substitute to rule over His bride, the church.
Catholics often use the expression, “One fold and one shepherd” to sustain the doctrine of the papacy. (See Catholic Catechism For Adults, p. 59, q. 3). They teach that the “one shepherd” is the Pope and the “one fold” represents the Catholic Church. Hear what Jesus said about it:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep…I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (John 10:11, 14-16).
Jesus is that one good shepherd. If one can understand that one and one equals two, he can understand this. If one is subject to Christ as the one shepherd–that’s one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherd–that’s two!
The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). Our question is: “What part of the body is the Pope?” Also, “How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?”
One of the greatest arguments against the primacy of Peter is the fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves as to which of them should be the greatest. Notice the following:
“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.’” (Luke 22:24-26).
The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal–the last night of the Lord’s earthly ministry–and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, “But not so with you.” Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.
M
mskejj
Guest
In the Old Testament there was always (except for a time in Judges) when God had chosen someone to be “over the household” of his first born son Israel. We see this term used in Genesis in describing Joseph over the household of Egypt? This means that he had authority to make all decisions for the Pharoah when he was away.This Protestant Bible is leading me into studying Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, because Protestants don’t believe in Purgatory, Peter being the leader, Mary not being blessed. Yet I will explain why this made me began to ponder.
Luke 12:59 says, “I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” But it if it was talking about Hell, Jesus said once in Hell your in there forever, whats the point of that verse then? He’s talking about somewhere you go and you do suffer but to get all your sins payed for, thus he’s is talking about a 3rd place, because you cannot get out of Hell.
Matthew 16:18 states “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” You can interpret that this is saying Jesus knew Peter would be a good person to place being in charge of the Church.
Luke 1:48 states, “for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,” Mary Knew she was going to be called Mother because she gave birth to God in his human birth,.
My take of Protestantism now:
So far I think they build there entire faith on John 3:16, at least for the most part, that verse does not directly end, meaning that it can be interpreted as that’s the main thing in general for salvation BUT not the only thing.
I think once I finish studying a bit more with this protestant Bible I will quit my Protestant finding in a Church and look at Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Just one biblical explanation for the role of the Pope in the Church established by Christ…
Moses is seen as “over the household” of the Israelites as the wandered in the desert. We see what happened to those who defied his authority that was given to him by God. Example: Miriam and Korah. We see in the Davinic Kingdom an office that is “over the household” as well. This “prime minister” is second only to the king… And is responsible for all decisions for the kingdom when the king was away. He was called a “Papa” …father to the house of Judah and to him was given the keys to the kingdom. What he shuts none shall open and what he opens none shall shut. He is to be the “sure peg” that hold up the house. You can read about this is Isaiah 22.
In Matthew 16 we see Jesus give the keys of the kingdom to Peter and tell him that what he looses on earth is loosed in heaven and what he binds on earth is bound in heaven. This language would have taken a first century Jew back to Isaiah 22 and they would have understood that Christ was establishing Peter to be the one who will be “over the house hold”. The one who would have the authority when the King was away preparing a place for those who love him.
And God has always chosen imperfect people to further his plan for salvation history and Peter was no exception but he obviously had the heart Jesus wanted in the “rock” on whom he would build his church. Names for the Jews spoke of the person’s essence…who he was and his mission …Jesus changed his name to Rock for a reason. In Acts 15, the first Council held…Peter and the others who had left Jerusalem came back to discuss the first big problem in the Church. It is Peter that announced what they believed with his statement “we believe…” and then the others were silent. James as head of the church in Jerusalem gave the directions on how the “We believe” statement by Peter was to be handled. This is how the Catholic Church still works today.
If you have ever been to Rome you can get tickets if you do it in advance to go on the Scavi tour at the Vatican which takes you under the Papal altar two stories to the 1st century cemetery that was unearthed there in the 40’s. You can see the tomb of St. Peter and his bones as well. DNA tests show that the bones are not of European origin, from a man in his 60’s who died in around 60-65AD. You can see the graffiti wall that says “here lies Peter” along with the altar type slab as a headstone I guess, which matched early century descriptions of Peter’s burial site…right under the Papal Altar like had been written. You can actually do a virtual tour on line to see it too. It was so cool to see in person though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.