Did Jesus Start the Catholic Church?

[rev_kevin]

tqualey;7527757]Hi, Rev Kev,

I am truly impressed. If CAF had an award for fictional flare … you should walk off with the top prize!

I don’t know why you insist on these kind of remarks. Does it make you feel better about yourself or are you just that nasty of a person?

1.) Christ now did NOT start a Church - He started a ‘following’. And it was only later that this ‘following’ was called Catholic. (Ah, do you have a reference? a date? anything to back this up?)

The following refers to church.

2.) Saul, whose ‘nom de plume’ became “Paul” got a wandering physician to act as his publicist - and it was Luke the Promoter who ensured “Paul” got top billing wherever he want.

Where do you see this in what I wrote?

3.) Rivalry between the Jerusalem Gang and the new literary giant, “Paul” (probably generated by artistic envy and the growing royalties from all of those letter written by “Paul” and promoted by Luke) cause a break up of these groups and “Paul”. Luke, however, continued to promote “Paul” that the other guys never really had a chance.

4.) After 70AD, Luke joined up with the Gang of Three and wrote about the Life of Christ. Mark was the first one to get his version in print and then Matthew and Luke just copied what was already there. John had severe writer’s cramp and did not get started until much later. But, the real emphasis was on “Paul” and his inventive use of Jewish tradition and a new variation he dreamed up… maybe after he fell off of his horse?

Hmmmmmmm … did I miss anything?

Ya where did you come up with this?

I was amazed that God’s influence was left our of your account, Rev Kev. I would suggest an edit about now … but, I will leave that one up to you. Really, you have done so well with this creative literary spirit

If you want to talk like this then we need not discuss anything until you are to do it in a better manner.
So you are on my list.

 

[benedictus2]

Ah, you must admit he is a colorful individual though, he does keep a thread going thats for sure.

V
v

When I first started on here there was this guy Mickey, we went at eachother for months. He would get one up on me and I on him. He actually put me on what he called his ignore list.

Then not long after my Dad died. I got a PM from Mickey. I was so sad. Well I stayed off of the site for awhile and when I got on there was the PM from OLE Mickey. I was like great kick a dog when its down.

Well I finally thought okay Mickey let me have it. I knew it was probally something sarcastic but … He said Dear Rinnie, I want you to know that my Dad died on March lst also but many years ago. I am going to light a candle for your Dad.

He ended up being my very best friend in my heart on this thread. For years I wanted to kill him, and then he got my heart.

Every March lst for 3 years now I will go to Church for my Papa and also light a candle for his.

One day I said, hey Mick did you take me off the ignore list yet. He wrote back Oh Rinnie I forgot about that. I promise never to put you on it again. We still don’t agree on all thing’s but, We still respect one another.

So I means the Rev’s okay, He is trying. I give him credit. But if we continue to attack it just drives others away in the end. And they will never give any merit to what you say anyway even if you are telling the truth. But if you can laugh and chill out, they may not agree with what you say, and thats okay. but they will at least maybe check it out, and maybe once in awhile (DEEP DEEP INSIDE: agree with you), But you just can never tell!!

Wow Rinnie THAT is beautiful.

I don’t think it is good to put anyone on an ignore list. I think when one does that one puts a block on a possible avenue of God’s grace.

One thing I really appreciate about Rev Kevin is that he really dialogues.

By the way Rev Kevin, if you are reading this, I take my hat off to you for the simple fact that you are able to keep up with the posts considering there technically only one of you and so many of us. :tiphat:

 

[benedictus2]

Like it or not we were birthed from Rome not Constantinople

Technically yes. But that is not enough to classify you as a member of the Catholic Church. Actually let me rephrase that, you are a member but a separated member.

I think I asked you this before. If you want to be classified as a Catholic then why not just be a full pledged member? What’s going on there?

 

[PbloPicasso]

:winter:
This is my best thought right now. Cold as ice here in Tejas. Couldn’t find the hat tippin guy.

 

[benedictus2]

That is your perspective.

Not just my perspective but what it is in reality.

I think it is an accepted fact that Christianity is fragmented and it is an often lamented fact by even Protestants themselves.

We all see this fragmentation. The only way there can be unity is if we take a good hard look and address what divides us rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Well looks like I found the thread you may answer this rev… perhaps?

Do you believe the info you posted? What was your reasoning in posting it.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Primacy or being first among the apostles, however what the papacy has become is not what we see as being anything instituted by Christ especially in light of Luke 22 and the example in Acts and the early ecumenical church councils.

What makes you think that it is a departure from the all the verses that you cited. Furthermore, Luke 22 and Acts does not completely define Christ’s Church. There is more to it.

If you focus on Christ, one everything He said and everything He did then I think you will find that there is not departure from Christ’s teaching at all.

Who said they were sinless? Who expected them to be? Peter was probably the worst in the bunch. I think back of my trip to Rome and visiting the Quo Vadis church. But the fact remains that in our view Rome has broken with the traditions in the early church and has retained greater authority not delegated by Christ.

Actually history proves you wrong. From the very beginning Rome has been the prime see. Someone here mentioned Canon 3 of Second Ecumenical Council and from that you can clearly see that Rome takes primacy.

It is a simple fact that Christ did not create a democratic Church.

Especially in the time of the 1500’s, the papacy was corrupt and a source for political intrigue, bought and sold by the rich for their benefit. I do not expect the papacy to be filled with men who rival Mary in her sinlessness, but there is absolutely no accountability or ability for righteous Bishops to depose an unrighteous pope. A popes moral character shouldn’t matter when making a promulgation on faith or morals, but the fact a great majority of the church does not or cannot make the distinction between those times and other times. See other threads about the popes speaking about condom use and the firestorm following.

And we already know all that. But that does not detract from the fact that Christ instituted this Church. And He would have know that that will happen. He allowed that to happen. I mean look at His promise. Why could He not have sent His Holy Spirit to guide His folllowers into goodness. Surely that would have been a piece of cake for an Omnipotent God. Yet that is not what He sends the Spirit for. What He sends the Spirit for is Truth.

Which is why even in their darkest hours, the bad Popes never taught error. They are hypocrites for sure for not practicing what they preached but Praise be to the Lord our God, they DID NOT PREACH WHAT THEY PRACTICED.

To respond to your point number 1, we don’t use an abridged version. That would be something of a falsehood spread by people who don’t know. I can certainly show you in our lectionary where we use readings from books like Sirach. And no one is denying the existence of the church prior to 1517. We look to the early church fathers and to the early ecumenical councils as guidance for the church. I think the argument that most people including the orthodox would put forth is Rome took on more power or authority than was granted or part of tradition.

Don’t you see the error in that thinking? You are claiming that up to a certain point the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit. But who decides that? You? Your Church? How do you know that the guidance was not withheld earlier or later?

What makes you/your church the authority on the determination of when the guidance of the Holy Spirit ceased? Furthermore, is it no contrary to scripture to say that?

 

[rev_kevin]

Well looks like I found the thread you may answer this rev… perhaps?

Do you believe the info you posted? What was your reasoning in posting it.

God bless

Right now I see no reason not to believe it. I have looked at other sites and they all say pretty much the same thing.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Right now I see no reason not to believe it. I have looked at other sites and they all say pretty much the same thing.

From the limited research I have been able to do (my Google is strong) it appears that the author Vexen Crabtree is a satanist.

I am not going to post anything from the other web site that he or she authored but it was apologetics for sex and sexuality in satanism… So what was your reasoning for posting this rev?

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

:winter:
This is my best thought right now. Cold as ice here in Tejas. Couldn’t find the hat tippin guy.

And down here we are getting soaked. Looking at the news last night I was wondering if there is any place that is not experiencing a weather bad news.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Yes rev, I can now confirm that the author, Vexen Crabtree, is indeed a satanist. I found his ‘about’ page though I refuse to post it.

So again, what was your reasoning in posting it?

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Dr. John Eck used the term not against the Lutheran Church. There was no church at the time, there were a group of people who were aligned with Luther. Eck used this the term Lutheran to refer to this group as a pejorative. Later much later, the adherents did end up using the name. However if you read Luther’s collected works, you would know that Luther himself said that his name should not be used for anything, that if people wanted to call themselves anything they should call themselves Christians, because it is Christ who we must have in sight at all times.

And despite the name I will still claim that Lutheran Church is just as catholic as the Roman Church. But you seem to be the one hung up on naming conventions not me.

I know Luther did not want this name used… I said as much in my post. It was Luther’s followers who chose to use it to differentiate themselves from the Calvinists and the other groups. Why did they not use another name?

So no, you cannot accuse the Catholic Church for labeling the Lutheran Church as such. The name that John Eck had given would not have stuck if they followers chose not to use it.

 

[joe370]

Rev Kevin, do you believe the abridged version of what you copied and pasted? I am a little confused:

"Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader…After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence….but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion."

---

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Rev Kevin, do you believe the abridged version of what you copied and pasted? I am a little confused:

"Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader…After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence….but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion."

---

Rev is telling us that he is a Christian and that his faith in Christ is strong. I am going to take rev at his word and believe, if this is indeed the case, that he rejects this and that he posted it for no other reason than for discussion purposes.

God bless

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes rev, I can now confirm that the author, Vexen Crabtree, is indeed a satanist. I found his ‘about’ page though I refuse to post it.

So again, what was your reasoning in posting it?

God bless

Oh man I just looked at Vexen Carbtree and boy did I make a mistake I need to look at the authors and what they stand for before I post. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Oh man I just looked at Vexen Carbtree and boy did I make a mistake I need to look at the authors and what they stand for before I post. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I am not saying that satanist cannot write about the Church or even that they cannot be correct about the Church ( this is definitely not the case with Vexen Crabtree though). They are just not who I would go to for Church history

God bless

 

[PbloPicasso]

Oh man I just looked at Vexen Carbtree and boy did I make a mistake I need to look at the authors and what they stand for before I post. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I was hoping for you to post this. You had me worried. I feel like I can finally go to bed.

Whew!!!:yawn:

 

[guanophore]

Was Peter the rock that Jesus would build his church on?

What does it mean to build?

…Peter was to strengthen Jesus teachings

Yes, I think this is true, but it is unrelated to Jesus’ statement about the foundation. Jesus is the builder, and He says “I will build MY Church.” I have no doubt that He used Peter, along with all the Apostles and prophets to accomplish this. Scripture describes them as the foundation stones.

The Greek verb oikodomeo translated as built.
Now it could mean that Peter was to strengthen the teachings of Jesus. To make his teachings more avaible to everyone.

While solid teaching is an essential element of building the Church, this translation does not address the issue of which Rock Jesus was going to build upon. You are switching the subject from what Jesus is going to build upon to what He wanted Peter to build upon. Why?

Why do you think Jesus changed Peter’s name?

Peter was to build on the teachings of Jesus

Church Peter was to teach, instruct, his church which is his believers/followers. The church is a body of believers in Jesus Christ. Those who believe in his teachings.

Yes, but this does not answer the question about the meaning of the Rock in Jesus’ statement.

If you are a believer in Christ and in his teachings, if you accept Christ then Satan can not prevail. It would be hard for Satan to take you away from Christ.

Not really. He does it every day.

Besides, that is a promise that was made to the Church. Individuals can only benefit from it to the extent they remain in unity with the Apostolic Succession.
rev kevin;7493633:

I give you the keys to my Kingdom. To bring people to the Kingdom of Heaven by presenting them with the message of salvation found in God’s word.

This modern American Evangelical innovation was not found anywhere in Christianity until about 200 years ago. Even the Reformers agreed that the keys were for the exercise of authority.

 

[rev_kevin]

Rev Kevin, do you believe the abridged version of what you copied and pasted? I am a little confused:

"Paul’s zealous missionary activity and persuasive writings took his new “gospel” around the Roman Empire. The Jerusalem Church, including Peter and James, disowned Paul as a heretic and cult leader…After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Jewish Church lost authority, but the Gentile Church founded by Paul increased its influence….but Paul’s theology, already dominant in the church, tainted the writers’ perspective. Thus, Paul’s religion won out over Jesus’ religion."

---

NO
But I did find this out.

Paul’s new religion had the advantage over other salvation-cults of being attached to the Hebrew Scriptures, which Paul now reinterpreted as forecasting the salvation-death of Jesus. This gave Pauline Christianity an awesome authority that proved attractive to Gentiles thirsting for salvation. Paul’s new doctrine, however, met with disapproval from the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church, who regarded the substitution of Jesus’ atoning death for the observance of the Torah as a lapse into paganism. Paul was summoned to Jerusalem by the leaders James (Jesus’ brother), Peter, and John to explain his doctrine (c.50).

 

[rev_kevin]

I am not saying that satanist cannot write about the Church or even that they cannot be correct about the Church ( this is definitely not the case with Vexen Crabtree though). They are just not who I would go to for Church history

God bless

Boy did I find that out