God wrote the Bible not the Catholic Church

[Grateful4mercy]

Not in the Greek. You’ll have to look at the context for the meaning. That is why I used Rev 2:20. “Thee” refers to everyone in the church at Thyatira.

'round and 'round we go…

Rev 2:18-19 puts Rev 2:20 into context. There is ONE angel. Singular.

There is only one Peter in Matt 16:19, same Greek word, same singular usage.

And the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with either of them, these are Jesus’ own words not inspired thoughts.

 

[believers]

'round and 'round we go…

Rev 2:18-19 puts Rev 2:20 into context. There is ONE angel. Singular.

There is only one Peter in Matt 16:19, same Greek word, same singular usage.

And the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with either of them, these are Jesus’ own words not inspired thoughts.

You just refuse to believe that the message wasn’t for the angel but for those in the Church of Thyatira. The angel was a messenger as they usually are… i.e. Gabriel. There’s a big difference.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

You just refuse to believe that the message wasn’t for the angel but for those in the Church of Thyatira. The angel was a messenger as they usually are… i.e. Gabriel. There’s a big difference.

Syntax, not content or interpretation, is the root of our debate. You are trying to prove your point with illustrations of word usage and failing. Try another tact.

And the angel of the church is the human Bishop. It’s a poetic term showing how close Jesus considers the priest to himself. It’s used to take the sting out of the criticism he was about to lay on him.

Angels dont need humans to bring them messages…they ARE messages.

 

[believers]

Syntax, not content or interpretation, is the root of our debate. You are trying to prove your point with illustrations of word usage and failing. Try another tact.

And the angel of the church is the human Bishop. It’s a poetic term showing how close Jesus considers the priest to himself. It’s used to take the sting out of the criticism he was about to lay on him.

Angels dont need humans to bring them messages…they ARE messages.

Rev 2:18
And unto the angel (aggelos) of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet [are] like fine brass;

aggelos - 1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God

The Greek refers to a real angel. There’s nothing about a Bishop of the Catholic Church in there.

 

[guanophore]

Are you kidding? The OP is a pot shot at the protestants.

Not really. Not all protestants are Sola Scriptura. It was a pot shot at the SS doctrine. I thought it was funny!

 

[jmcrae]

Rev 2:18
And unto the angel (aggelos) of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet [are] like fine brass;

aggelos - 1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God

The Greek refers to a real angel. There’s nothing about a Bishop of the Catholic Church in there.

The angel of the Church is the singular individual to whom John is being commanded to write the letter. (Ask yourself why John would need to write a letter to a literal angel that is up in Heaven? Does that make any sense? Why wouldn’t Jesus just talk to the angel, Himself?)

Jesus is the authority over John, and John is the authority over this angel to whom he is writing. Was a human being ever in authority over a literal angel, that you know of? It makes more sense that he is using the word “angel” as a metaphor for the position that is being held by that person - most likely, a Bishop (who is the messenger of the Gospel, aka the angel, of that city), since these are city churches.

 

[guanophore]

Rev 2:18
And unto the angel (aggelos) of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet [are] like fine brass;

aggelos - 1) a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God

The Greek refers to a real angel. There’s nothing about a Bishop of the Catholic Church in there.

All the first bishops were apostles - messengers of Jesus, envoys, those who were sent by Him.

 

[Imagine23]

Everybody knows that God gave us the bible. It was given by God as a whole book from Genesis to Revelation. Everyting we need for life is in the bible. Protestants are right.we do not need a church of any kind.All we need is the Bible.

The Lord’s public ministry was not necessary, He could have done it in private. We have His word in the bible handed down to us from God. God gave us the bible. The Catholic Church put books into it that God did not pen. Protestants took them out again!

We do not need the Catholic Church as we are free to interpret it as we want. That is why athiests interpret it different to SDA which is different to JW’s which is different to Moslems, which is different to mainstream Protestants which is different to Catholic and Orthodox.

It can be interpreted however you want. My agnostic friends interpret it and they dont even believe in it.

So we did not need a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church the pope and His Apostles were actually not necessary.

Catholics are idolatrous because they worship the Father Son and Holy Spirit, Mary and the saints. You should worship only one God and the Bible.

I hate to disagree, but while there are some beautiful statements in the Bible, it also contains much useless and ridiculous babble. Take the following ridiculous quote which I’m sure you would not consider a wise practice:

Exodus 35:2 – “For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.”

 

[Curious]

“upon this rock” refers to the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus told the disciples not to tell anyone that He was the Son of God. The Father would have to reveal it to them. If anyone believes and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, they received the key.

This is something I’ve always been taught as well - from the pulpit. If Jesus really meant it was the revelation that Peter had, why did he keep saying Rock? Who initially came up with the interpretation you stated? I’m not just throwing out the question for arguments sake, I’m really wondering. And, who gets to decide that that interpretation is correct?

Thanks

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is something I’ve always been taught as well - from the pulpit. If Jesus really meant it was the revelation that Peter had, why did he keep saying Rock? Who initially came up with the interpretation you stated? I’m not just throwing out the question for arguments sake, I’m really wondering. And, who gets to decide that that interpretation is correct?

Thanks

Jesus reveal this to Simon. Listen to the verses carefully.
Matthew 16:15-19

15: (Jesus) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16: Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

My commentary: Peter professes his first infallible statement regarding faith and acknowledges Jesus is the Son of the Living God. True Statement.

17: And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has **not revealed **this to you, **but **my Father who is in heaven

Commentary: Not that flesh and blood has not revealed but God the Father who is in Heaven. What is the Father revealing here? We shall in the next verse.

18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on** this rock **I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

Commentary: Jesus revealed from the Father, that Simon is Now Peter (Petros for Greek musculine. The use for Petra would not make any sense since that uses femine. Regardless of that Jesus spoke Aramaic. The word for Rock is Kepha which makes no difference between small or letter rock. You can also note that Jesus address you (Singular) to Peter. He did not say that he is the Rock in this passage in Matthew 16:18. If he did, Jesus would have rename himself Peter. However, we see Jesus telling Peter that God the Father is the Rock that Jesus Christ will built upon. This is very Clear in Scripture.

19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Here Jesus grants Peter the keys a symbol of authority in the OT. With a Jewish mindset, which both these men know well, keys symbolizes authority. Isaiah 22:22 - in the old Davidic kingdom, there were royal ministers who conducted the liturgical worship and bound the people in teaching and doctrine. But there was also a Prime Minister or chief steward of the kingdom who held the keys. Jesus gives Peter these keys to His earthly kingdom, the Church. This representative has decision-making authority over the people.

This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Peter’s “keys” fit into the “gates” of Hades which also represent Peter’s pastoral authority over souls.

Jesus built an authoritiative Church upon Peter, and this Church exist today as the Catholic Church, we have Pope Benedict XVI as the chief stewart of Jesus’ Christ’s Church.

 

[mdstanzel]

Not in the Greek. You’ll have to look at the context for the meaning. That is why I used Rev 2:20. “Thee” (http://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs163.gifhttp://www.blueletterbible.org/bg/gs165.gif) refers to everyone in the Church at Thyatira. The Holy Spirit used the same Greek word when Jesus talked about the keys. I’m only showing that “thee” could have referred to everyone in the church.

This scares me. A non-inspired solo scriptura anti-Catholic interpreting Greek as if he or she were an expert. Typical move by one attempting to stumble a weekly catechised Catholic. This is a typical and deeply saddening useless argument has nothing to do with approaching truth. No matter what color you paint the truth. It will not be accepted by those whose consciences are not well formed. Very few Protestants even approach anything even close to amateur in scripture, much less languages.

I began to study Isaiah 22 today because Scott Hahn addressed an analogy about the keys and its meaning. It’s interesting and I suggest that you all read it. The keys mens something very special in both this case and the case to Peter. There is also mention of a rock. I’d suggest that you download Common Questions and Answers for Catholics on the EWTN web site. It’s free and will bring your mind to orthodox Catholicism from what I’ve listened to so far.

 

[colliric]

You really should read the bible. It would tell you how there’s no way Peter could have been the pope. While Paul was running around preaching the Gospel to the gentiles, Peter didn’t know how to act towards the gentiles for 14 years until Paul straightened him out. ** Peter was the apostle to the Jews** and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. In case you don’t know, the Christian church was called out of the gentiles. Paul is the masterbuilder of the Chistian faith.

The Church Fathers attest as early as 80AD that Peter accompanied Paul to Rome, became the bishop there, and died at the same time as Paul. He was originally the apostle to the Jews, yes, but the Church fathers all agree he ended up in Rome teaching to the Gentiles as “the bishop of Rome” alongside Paul.

It is not just important to know what happens in the bible to bible to Peter, it is also wise that you do study into the extra-biblical history of what happens to him after the bible as it was understood by early gentile christians. This is because it is very clear that when Peter went to Rome, which the church fathers say he did, he was the very first Bishop there, attested also by the early church fathers who consistently say BOTH he and Paul were the two main evangelists in Rome until they were both killed at roughly the same time.

The fact is the christian church had it’s incubation period in Rome, when Peter was the Bishop of Rome. The christian church was called out of the gentiles, predominantly in Rome and the Chruch fathers Agree it was both “Peter and Paul”.

 

[CatholismRox]

God instituted the Catholic church. We don’t worship saints, but ask them to pray for us.

 

[guanophore]

To distinguish Peter as Petros and Jesus as Petra.

Could you please elaborate on this? It seems to me that distinuishing him from Petra would have been a lot easier if He left the name Simon. Why did Jesus rename him Petros? Doesn’t that just cause more confusion?

 

[guanophore]

Romans 3:10-14 “As it is written: there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
This “no one” includes everyone including the Pope. So why would Jesus leave someone who falls into this catagory as head of His church? That just doesn’t make sense. Jesus is the Rock, the foundation and head of His church.

God Bless,
Robert

Robert, what is described in this passage is the state of a person who does not know God, or as you may put it, has not been “saved”. By his profession, Simon Peter had faith in Jesus, and professed it with his mouth. Is he not then, “saved”?

The reason Jesus uses ordinary things like water to bring about salvation through baptism is a demonstration of the incarnational principle.

7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us." 2 Cor 4:7

We are now, as Peter was when he believed, temples of the holy spirit. Jesus uses our clay vessels and infills them with His Holy Spirit in order to glorify Himself.

Jesus appointed Peter to shepherd His church so that he could use the foolish to shame the wise of the world.

1 Cor 1:27-31
7 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; 31 therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”

 

[guanophore]

I think you must be using an “abbreviated” bible rather than the one approved by the ecumencal council.

I the authentic Bible, we have this passage:

Acts 8:14-18

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit; 16 for it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

Which shows back in chapter 8 of the book of acts that Peter was opening the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Gentiles.

And again in Acts 10:

Acts 10:34-46

34 And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, 35 but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37 the word which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses to all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; 41 not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

44 While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45 And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God."

I find myself puzzled that you would think that Peter did not know how to behave toward the Gentiles? Perhaps your own private interpretation of scripture is somewhat lacking?

Nope, Jesus gave Paul the revelation while he was on his way to damascus. The Gospel to the gentiles was committed to Paul, not Peter.

Certainly Paul did have a revelation on the way to Damascus, and Jesus sent him to the Gentiles.

That does not subtract from the fact that Peter had a revelation BEFORE that, and was sent to the Gentiles FIRST.

Acts 10:9-11
Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth."

Peter opened the door for the Gentiles because he had the keys to the kingdom. Paul was not given those keys.

It’s really very simple… Peter was the first to receive the revelation from the Father that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That was the Gospel to the Jews and Peter was the first to receive this key. This same revelation was also given by the Father to the rest of the disciples. It’s the belief in the heart and the confession that is the key. All believing Jews must possess this key.

I think it may have been Moses that got the first inkling about the Messiah. It must also be said that Isaiah had lots of clues, tho he may not have been able to put them all together. Also, one must consider Mary and Joseph, who had this truth announced to them by the angel of God. Mary was really the first Christian, since she placed her faith in Him at the time of the annuciation. however, I agree that Peter was the first of Jesus’ apostles to make this divine confession.

 

[guanophore]

Please be easy on Believer. I can see he’s actually struggling. His views are clouded by his actions in leaving the Church. This could get dangerous for him. Seriously. If he starts to actually see the truth, assuming he’s not running like I did, he will be required by God to revert. Now I’m not one to judge so harshly, but I see pain in his words. He’s rather despirate in chosing scripture that he plays like he knows. I find the scriptural background one many that argue here to be very weak.

Anytime someone reverts to making false accusations publicly like this one, he is struggling with something far deeper than we recognize. I would guess he had a bad experience in the past. However, the Church is full of sinners. The Infalibility of the Papacy is very misunderstood by all, even many Catholics here. There are fancy words that Catholics use that make non-Catholics, mainly Protestants, feel uncomfortable. Its like saying sweety to someone you care about publicly. Guys like to put on a show like they’re tough. I see a mind block occurring and Believer and others are not being open minded about learning.

I am working hard to be charitable with believers, who seems to be full of anger and accusations. It seems to be that believes is angry about not learning the truth as a child, and being poorly catechized.

Originally Posted by believers
Let’s get this straight. I was a cradle Catholic and remained Catholic for 36 years and come from a long line of Catholics. I even attended CCD as a child. I also grew up with Catholics in a state divided into parishes. Please don’t tell me I don’t know Catholicism.

Such arrogance to think your church fathers can override God. Whosoever believes means whosoever believes. And to actually think your church fathers gave us God’s Word is such arrogance. Water baptism does not save. Why don’t you prove it?

Believe and follow? Where did you get that from? Believe on Him and repent. That is condition for being baptized by the Holy Spirit. THE baptism that saves.

False. Why don’t you finish the verse? 1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, BUT the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Yes, it is about the Holy Spirit. But you must believe and repent to be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Your infant baptism is wrong. Babies cannot believe or repent.

You are the ones who have no intention of learning. You are so proud to think you are the one true church when Jesus Himself said to believe and repent. You guys completely ignore John 3:16 as if it doesn’t exist.

In regards to baptism, it’s not water baptism that saves you. Only baptism of the Holy Spirit which one receives when they believe and repent. That is the only way. You cannot receive the Holy Spirit with water.

Don’t you want everlasting life? You just have to place all your faith in Jesus Christ. You MUST believe that He is the Son of God. He paid for our sins in full on the cross with His blood. He was resurrected by the power of God. Now place all your faith in what He has done for you and repent. That’s the promise God made. It is a free gift but you MUST take it by faith.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

I have news for you. Abstaining from meat is not the same as fasting. Fasting is abstaining from ALL foods not just meat. And, no one is called to be celibate.

I have to agree with you that believers does not seem open minded, either, to learn about the faith that was dormant throughout 36 years. Rather, to “refute” seems to be the goal here. It is sad to read these posts. However, I will join you in prayer. Lord, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy Mercy.

 

[guanophore]

The 18... student was saying that his trust was in the Catholic Church first, and second in the Bible.  The Bible tells us to test all things, using the Word of God as the standard.   If what an organization tells us doesn't line up with God's word, then it is to be discarded.

God Bless,
Robert

Where does it say that, Robert?

 

[mdstanzel]

I also grew up in Louisiana. I believe that the Church is in dire need of catachesis there. My experiences there in the seminary and with my own family also caused me to eventually defect. But it is only through years of Bible study and attending many bible classes that I realized that the Protestants to not have inteligent answers for all the passages that point to the ancient Church as catholic. It was understanding that all of the Protestant Churches, mainly Mainstream non-denomination, Southern Baptist and Church of Christ. They all have their own "T"radition and majesterium (local level). It was in several bible classes with the elders and others that we discussed traditions in the Church. This is the congregatin that ventured into doing some “real” study on the ancient Church by recognizing that the Apostles Creed was in fact written by the early Christian Church. Not only that but the fact that the Nicene Creed was also written by the ancient church and recited by all the “authentic” Christians as their pronunciation of the faith in what they believed. That meant they had to understand the ancient meaning of the word “catholic” as used in it’s original application. The first recorded use of the word “Katholicos” was by St. Ignatius in about 107 AD. That’s well within the first century Church. Also if you read 1 Timothy 3:15 you will find that Paul directed us how to behave in the Household of God. He says that the Church (not the scriptures - ada Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth.

1 Timothy 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Q. Where did the word Catholic originate?

A. It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

Q. What is the meaning of the word?

A. It means ‘Universal’, which in itself means, ‘of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and all peoples therein’. It means, all encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing all that is necessary. In summation, it means all people in all places, having all that is necessary, and for all time.

Q. But is it Biblical?

A. Yes it is. It is in Matthew 28:19-20, “Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.” That is a statement of Universality, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

If you actually study and observe the writings in scripture you will see the Catholic Church there. It’s there and undeniable unless you’re running away from something that has darkened your conscience. My prayers are with you in your journey.

Keep this in mind. The preachers and leaders of the Protestant churches with whicy you may be affiliated have studied many writings of ancient history. Some of them have “Protestantized’ versions of the Ancient Church Fathers. In all honestly, if they use these and use writings from other 'non-Christians” then why can’t you read them. Read the actual writings without commentaries first. Read the first know “missal”, known as the didache. This is believed to have been written by Clement of Rome.

Do you know why the New Testament canon was determined? Do you know when it was solidified. Try 392 A.D. The reason is to root out the many heresies that were trying to take hold of the Church. READ… it’s all there. But understanding why Christ handed down the deposit of faith in the form of Tradition and Scripture. The majesterium is just common sense. Even Protestant leaders “teach” as if from authority. Only they teach as if they hijacked the bible as their own. In some ways the bibles is also from them, true, but not in the present day form. Their history is rooted in Catholicism from the days of “clericalism”, a time in the Church that the clergy were pushed as being so much higher in authority that the laity - us. The reason was because of many heresies trying to hijack the teachings of the Church. Some of their actions were really an attempt to protect the deposit of faith.

Sorry. I’ll stop here. I have to go read a bible story to my 5 year old son. Yes I/we do read the bible as the word of God. And guess what, we love the bible as the word of God.