Is the AntiChrist...Christ!?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joshua27
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
With all due respect, I’d like to place my humble opinion…

Baffles me that someone would go through all these readings of the Bible and get the results you seem to have…(and it looks like you’ve done quite a bit of reading…)

Personally, after reading His Word, other Catholic and Religious books, learning the culture of my Church, Prayers, Eucharist; It’s a pleasure to have Jesus in my life. I know there is a God. I feel Him.

I really hope that you find your answer. I don’t think anyone on this forum can tell you what you are looking for.
Keep on reading that Bible my friend…
Again, no disrespect to you or anyone else.

Have no more to do with man, whose life is only a breath, for he is of no value. Isa 2:22
Cursed are those who seem wise to themselves, and who take pride in their knowledge! Isa 5:21


May Jesus touch your heart and show you His peace and Love.
Marcus.
 
With all due respect, I’d like to place my humble opinion…

Baffles me that someone would go through all these readings of the Bible and get the results you seem to have…(and it looks like you’ve done quite a bit of reading…)

Personally, after reading His Word, other Catholic and Religious books, learning the culture of my Church, Prayers, Eucharist; It’s a pleasure to have Jesus in my life. I know there is a God. I feel Him.

I really hope that you find your answer. I don’t think anyone on this forum can tell you what you are looking for.
Keep on reading that Bible my friend…
Again, no disrespect to you or anyone else.

Have no more to do with man, whose life is only a breath, for he is of no value. Isa 2:22
Cursed are those who seem wise to themselves, and who take pride in their knowledge! Isa 5:21


May Jesus touch your heart and show you His peace and Love.
Marcus.
Just a quick add…

The Trinity…God is the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

God Bless You All,
Marcus.
 
Joshua there are a couple of problems with your thoughts.

First of all, they are logically inconsistent. You are trying to prove that Christ is the anti-Christ, by relying on what you know to be the truthfulness of Christ’s words. But the anti-Christ is a liar. Therefore, if Christ is the anti-Christ, then he is a liar. So why would you look to his words anyway?

This is akin to the illogical syllogism:

What I’m about to tell you is true.

The above statement is a lie.

Even if Christ is the anti-Christ, and you are trying to prove that by proving that he was lying, your logic is circular. You rely on a misunderstanding to prove an assumption. It makes no sense. If Christ is the anti-Christ, then everything the New Testament says is a lie, including the fact that there will be an anti-Christ. It just doesn’t work out logically.

Furthermore, the only knowledge of what Christ said is what has been handed down to us by the authorities who, divinely inspired, compiled our Scriptures. This means that if we accept the words of Christ, we must accept the interpretations offered of them. If Scripture is divinely inspired (If it is not, why are you even looking to it to prove your points? It is then just the ravings of members of a subversive Jewish sect.), then that means all of Scripture is divinely inspired, and that no part of Scripture is more divine than another. So the quoted words of Christ are no more inspired than the words of the narrator or even the words of Paul. It is all Sacred Scripture, and is inerrant and non-contradictory. If I believe that Scripture is inerrant, and the evangelists tell me that Jesus meant ‘A’, then I accept that that’s what he meant.

Second of all, Jesus was a man. He had two, separate natures: fully man, and fully God. He therefore spoke and acted and lived like Palestinian Jewish men of that time. He therefore employed colloquialisms like his friends did, and they were intended to add to his meaning, not compromise it. As someone already pointed out, if I say I was “up all night” no one expects that I was literally standing up all night, but assumes I was awake all night. And if I actually did get two hours of sleep, everyone still understand that I was “up all night”. I don’t need to mean exactly what I said, because that’s the nature of colloquialisms. In fact, I only need to mean what I meant, if you will. And I am not a liar for it. Jesus doesn’t have a higher standard of language. He doesn’t have to say things more specifically than normal, lesser humans do, lest he be called a liar. He doesn’t need to swear off colloquialisms for the sake of clarity. In fact, Jesus’ use of contemporary colloquialisms (like the x days and x nights formula) merely lends credibility to the claim that he is fully man. Just like me, Jesus doesn’t need to mean exactly what he said all the time (humans just don’t do that). He only needs to mean what he meant, and it doesn’t need to make sense to me (even though in this case, it makes perfect sense, and you are just digging). That’s why I have the interpretation of the gospel and epistle writers to help me.

Finally, though you are obviously not receptive to criticism, and accuse it of being hateful, I’m afraid I need to scold you. You think you are being “provocative” and making us think. In reality, you are just looking for inconsistencies that aren’t there and refusing to acknowledge when other people prove you wrong (and do it well). In truth, you are giving scandal. Luckily, many people have been able to counter your misleading words and flawed proposals with sound appeals to faith and reason, to both spirituality and modern scholarly understanding of Semitic language (which you choose to ignore). Who knows how many eyes of people with newly formed or shaky faiths have wondered across this page and had their beliefs unnecessarily questioned, or their already shaky faith further shaken? You think you’re making a point, but you’re really just causing confusion.

Joshua, do you know who the author of confusion is?

Leave this matter alone. I think it has been handled well enough.

I sincerely pray that you will be a little more sensitive next time and also that you will learn to place your faith and trust in the Author of Truth.

Blessed be the resurrection of Christ!
 
I’m sorry but this thread title is just plain stupid. How on earth could Christ Himself be the anti-Christ? 🤷 As the Bible says: every kingdom, city, or house divided against itself cannot stand. I think the same holds true for people.
 
I’m sorry but this thread title is just plain stupid. How on earth could Christ Himself be the anti-Christ? 🤷 As the Bible says: every kingdom, city, or house divided against itself cannot stand. I think the same holds true for people.
Holly, God Bless you for not wasting as much time on this as I did!

Truth is always simple, never complicated, and your answer is the simplest, and most true of all.

Thank you!
 
[Again…I’m appreciative of all comments…especially for the prayers]

Let me just say to all that I’m not trying to prove that Christ is the AntiChrist.

Far from it. My title is primary to provoke a response and dialog (I’ve alluded to this several times…thankfully a few like bravedave, actually read all of my posts to understand that this is not an attack). It only proves to show that most people really don’t read everything before sticking their foot in their mouths based on a snippet of dialog before becoming aware of the entire conversation.

“Christ” is a title; a double translation [greek to english] from the original (hebrew) word that means “annointed one”…and [as a side note] there were many “annointed ones”; many “christs” throughout the history of scripture (David, Joseph, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Daniel, the Son of God, etc.). To be annointed is to be “set aside for a special task from God”: Aaron, Ezekiel, Jonah, Joshua…

*"…Thou annoints my head with oil…my cup runs over…" *(from Psalms 23).​

My intention for this thread is to trying to peel away millenia of assumptions, traditions and successful marketing to get to the “real” Son of God who became man, who was “annointed” (Christened) by the Holy Sprit for the task of “salvation for humanity”…not “Christ, the Propaganda” (and those who’re reasonable know what I mean, with respect).

“Christ, the Propaganda” can (and probably has) - through our trust and faith of those of the revolving door of “Authority” - subltly changed (here-a-little-there-a-little), until - in generations time - He’s completely different; a completely new icon foreign to the original Son of God, and there’s nothing any of us - we, who are merely laity, can do but believe anything “Authority” says about him. And Why?

Why can’t anyone - an athiest, for instance - pick up the bible and read Christ’s words and be changed; adopted; grafted into the family of God and know the full truth? Some may say, “well, that person can”. But then if he/she reaches a different conclusion of certain “truths”, who’s right and who’s wrong? He/She is probably deemed incorrect because the prevailing wisdom is “no one can truly understand for themselves what the Son of God really meant through his recorded words without some “Authority” present to feed them their meaning”.

I know the Son of God wasn’t incorrect or unreliable about anything he said. I know he was perfect, but if we can’t trust record; if we can’t trust our ability to read sentences; if “EVERY HUMAN BEING on the planet who is laity” is always (somehow) “mentally incapable” of understanding ANY scriptural word, phrase or sentence from the Son of God on their own (as an unwritten religious rule), then no one…NO ONE can ever know what the REAL Christ said. Not anyone, save those who are in “Authority”, who’re free to feed us any line or explanation they want.

And so here’s the real reason for my thread’s title; what’s to stop a “Judas” from entering into the upper echelon of “Authority”? Note that scripture says, “…and the spirit of Satan entered into Judas…” Recall that Judas was one of the twelve; one of those chosen by God himself. He didn’t infiltrate; he was selected. So what’s to stop anyone in the “Authority” - past or present - from being subject to the “spirit of Satan”, and changing truth?

You may answer and say, “God will stop him” or “God would never let it happen”, but before you do, know that God didn’t stop Judas, because scriptural prophesy HAD to be fulfilled. Scripture also says Satan HAS [to] deceive the whole world; this HAS to happen…which is why I started this thread by saying, “most people will be on guard for an obvious AntiChrist to appear (from the outside)”, but most people would never think that “infiltration” and “corruption” has already occurred. Any war tactician would plan a secret invasion against his enemy.

There is a real Son of God/Messiah…and there is an AntiChrist, and I’m trying to wade through the mess to see who’s currently in “Authority”…because I know that truth stands against any test. Truth is clear, not cloudy. Truth has no contadictions. Truth perfectly synchronize with the Son of God’s words. In Truth, the “math” works…and my quest is to make sure that what we have is truth.

—To Frindro…and anyone else who’d like to answer—

Even though your link attempts to disproves “Wednesday” as Crucifixion day…yes, this day seems to be a good direction for me to head in.

…But let me ask, “what would be wrong with the possibility of a different Crucifixion Day?”

If Friday is the wrong day (particularly), why not change tradition to match to the correct day? Why MUST Christ have been crucified on Friday (even though scripture never states it specifically)?
 
Even though your link attempts to disproves “Wednesday” as Crucifixion day…yes, this day seems to be a good direction for me to head in.

…But let me ask, “what would be wrong with the possibility of a different Crucifixion Day?”

If Friday is the wrong day (particularly), why not change tradition to match to the correct day? Why MUST Christ have been crucified on Friday (even though scripture never states it specifically)?
What is “wrong” with another day for the Crucifixion is that it is factually incorrect. I think quite enough discussion has been produced and I believe that the traditional acceptance of it taking place on Good Friday is more correct than that on Wednesday.

If Friday was the wrong day, then I would not have a problem with it being changed, but it is not the wrong day, so I feel it should remain.

Certain authorities (individuals) may become corrupt, but the Authority of the Catholic Church itself is guided by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus told St. Peter that the Church would persevere (Matthew 16:18). I am one who is willing to trust the Church and its leader on Earth, the Pope, on their interpretation of the Bible, since they are no doubt better than I, or any other person, at it.
 
What is “wrong” with another day for the Crucifixion is that it is factually incorrect. I think quite enough discussion has been produced and I believe that the traditional acceptance of it taking place on Good Friday is more correct than that on Wednesday.

If Friday was the wrong day, then I would not have a problem with it being changed, but it is not the wrong day, so I feel it should remain.

Certain authorities (individuals) may become corrupt, but the Authority of the Catholic Church itself is guided by the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus told St. Peter that the Church would persevere (Matthew 16:18). I am one who is willing to trust the Church and its leader on Earth, the Pope, on their interpretation of the Bible, since they are no doubt better than I, or any other person, at it.
👍
 
If Friday was the wrong day, then I would not have a problem with it being changed, but it is not the wrong day, so I feel it should remain.
The first part of your last statement is all I would ever want anyone to say, because it means you yield to Christ; your faith is not in a system (per se), it is in the Son of God. But most people can’t even say this, because their faith is tied to the system they follow instead of to the Person they’re supposed to follow.
I am one who is willing to trust the Church and its leader on Earth, the Pope, on their interpretation of the Bible, since they are no doubt better than I, or any other person, at it.
[This is what’s been bugging me, Frindro]

Why are they better than you at it? If we read all four gospels from start to finish, we find example after example of the Son of God getting in the face of those who thought they were better than everyone else in matters of faith; those who thought they were authority.

Matthew 16:6 & Mark 8:15 - “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” What was possibly wrong with them if they were the top brass of the prevailing religion? If they were better at it than everyone else?​


Mark 10:35 - *Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came over and spoke to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do us a favor.”

36) “What is your request?” he asked.

37) They replied, “When you sit on your glorious throne, we want to sit in places of honor next to you, one on your right and the other on your left.”

40) [But] I don’t have the authority to grant you a seat at my right or left. Those positions have already been prepared for certain people."

41) And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John.*

…The Son of God has all authority on heaven & earth, but why didn’t he have the authority to grant his “right” and “left” to James and John? Why are we told that the remaining ten became almost jealous when they heard the conversation? Wouldn’t you feel a little slighted if you knew others were trying to get a closer position to Christ over you?

Question: What are the only two spaces available near Christ when his right and left are filled?
**Answer: **James’ and John’s right and/or left, as they would be able to say, “Only I sit at the right (or left) hand of Christ!”

…Then once those spaces are filled, the only remaining positions available are at the sides of those two disciples…and so on and so forth until a familiar structure is formed where those at the bottom are too far from Christ they must trust those “closer” to Him to learn any truth about him. In order to hear Christ’s words, one must go to the next in line; in position; in authority.

John 13:8 - *“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

13) You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and you are right, because that’s what I am.

14) So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you must also wash one another’s feet.*​

…Peter did not want Christ to wash his feet, as Christ is his Master. But the Master washed his servants’ feet, telling Peter he will have no part in the Kingdom if Christ doesn’t wash his too.

Traditionally, a servant washes a master’s feet “Top-Down” Hierarchy of Authority], but again the Son of God brakes with this tradition.

Matthew 19:30 - *But many who are first will be last, and the last first.

Matthew 20:1
) For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard.

2) And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

5) So they went. "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing.*

[verses 6 & 7, the land owner did likewise as verse 5…]

8
) *"That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first.

9) And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

10) But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

11) When they [the first] received their pay, they protested to the owner,

12) These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13) But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?*​

Those “first” thought they possessed better position over those who were “last”…but all were counted equally.

Then Paul talks about how all are equal in the body of Christ…

1 Corinthians 12:3 - “…and no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit.”

…which means us - all of us - who make this statement possess Holy Spirit. It’s not just relegated to the Apostles, from them to the Church Fathers, and then to Church Authority. All possess Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:5) *and there are differences in administration, but the same Lord

6) and there are diversities in operations, but it’s the same God…

7) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal*.​

There is no such thing as “better than…” There is no Authority, save One. Any who’d assume authority is suspect.
 
Continuing from my last post…

Revelation 2:5 - *Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

6) But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.*​

The Term “Nicolaitan” is a compound word from Greek language:

Nico means “to conquer or rule” in Greek

Laitan refers to “lay people, or laity”

…so “Nicolaitan” means “rule [authority] over the laity”. Now (sure) while this was a specific group in the past, in his apocalypse, the Son of God is recorded saying “I also hate [the **practices (meaning “similar acts as”) of the nicolaitans]”; the only time I can recall the Son of God using the word “hate” for his own feelings about something.

Through these passages in scripture (from this and my previous post), it would seem that the True Christ HATES when man exercises any authority over another, and he particulary expressed that such a practice is not part of God’s Kingdom.

So if this is what Christianity has slowly changed into over generations; a system of Hierarchal Authority over laity, is today’s Christianity of the Kingdom of God or of the AntiChrist’s Kingdom?

Jude 1:3 - Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once [meaning “a time ago”] delivered unto the saints.
 
Joshua there are a couple of problems with your thoughts.

First of all, they are logically inconsistent. You are trying to prove that Christ is the anti-Christ, by relying on what you know to be the truthfulness of Christ’s words. But the anti-Christ is a liar. Therefore, if Christ is the anti-Christ, then he is a liar. So why would you look to his words anyway?

This is akin to the illogical syllogism:

What I’m about to tell you is true.

The above statement is a lie.

Even if Christ is the anti-Christ, and you are trying to prove that by proving that he was lying, your logic is circular. You rely on a misunderstanding to prove an assumption. It makes no sense. If Christ is the anti-Christ, then everything the New Testament says is a lie, including the fact that there will be an anti-Christ. It just doesn’t work out logically.

Furthermore, the only knowledge of what Christ said is what has been handed down to us by the authorities who, divinely inspired, compiled our Scriptures. This means that if we accept the words of Christ, we must accept the interpretations offered of them. If Scripture is divinely inspired (If it is not, why are you even looking to it to prove your points? It is then just the ravings of members of a subversive Jewish sect.), then that means all of Scripture is divinely inspired, and that no part of Scripture is more divine than another. So the quoted words of Christ are no more inspired than the words of the narrator or even the words of Paul. It is all Sacred Scripture, and is inerrant and non-contradictory. If I believe that Scripture is inerrant, and the evangelists tell me that Jesus meant ‘A’, then I accept that that’s what he meant.

Second of all, Jesus was a man. He had two, separate natures: fully man, and fully God. He therefore spoke and acted and lived like Palestinian Jewish men of that time. He therefore employed colloquialisms like his friends did, and they were intended to add to his meaning, not compromise it. As someone already pointed out, if I say I was “up all night” no one expects that I was literally standing up all night, but assumes I was awake all night. And if I actually did get two hours of sleep, everyone still understand that I was “up all night”. I don’t need to mean exactly what I said, because that’s the nature of colloquialisms. In fact, I only need to mean what I meant, if you will. And I am not a liar for it. Jesus doesn’t have a higher standard of language. He doesn’t have to say things more specifically than normal, lesser humans do, lest he be called a liar. He doesn’t need to swear off colloquialisms for the sake of clarity. In fact, Jesus’ use of contemporary colloquialisms (like the x days and x nights formula) merely lends credibility to the claim that he is fully man. Just like me, Jesus doesn’t need to mean exactly what he said all the time (humans just don’t do that). He only needs to mean what he meant, and it doesn’t need to make sense to me (even though in this case, it makes perfect sense, and you are just digging). That’s why I have the interpretation of the gospel and epistle writers to help me.

Finally, though you are obviously not receptive to criticism, and accuse it of being hateful, I’m afraid I need to scold you. You think you are being “provocative” and making us think. In reality, you are just looking for inconsistencies that aren’t there and refusing to acknowledge when other people prove you wrong (and do it well). In truth, you are giving scandal. Luckily, many people have been able to counter your misleading words and flawed proposals with sound appeals to faith and reason, to both spirituality and modern scholarly understanding of Semitic language (which you choose to ignore). Who knows how many eyes of people with newly formed or shaky faiths have wondered across this page and had their beliefs unnecessarily questioned, or their already shaky faith further shaken? You think you’re making a point, but you’re really just causing confusion.

Joshua, do you know who the author of confusion is?

Leave this matter alone. I think it has been handled well enough.

I sincerely pray that you will be a little more sensitive next time and also that you will learn to place your faith and trust in the Author of Truth.

Blessed be the resurrection of Christ!
If I were a Jew, on what basis would I have to accept the New Testament?

None
 
My intention for this thread is to trying to peel away millenia of assumptions, traditions and successful marketing to get to the “real” Son of God who became man, who was “annointed” (Christ
We know the correct day because the authentic teaching has been preserved and affirms with certainty that it is Friday. If the right day were not known with certainty the tradition would be open to the possibility that another day might be understood to be the day with more certainty.
 
No one knows the day Christ was born, yet it is tradition he was born on December 23.
Your argument is invalid.
Tradition for a date of observance does not make it a date of certainty. It is simply a date chosen.
 
No one knows the day Christ was born, yet it is tradition he was born on December 23.
Your argument is invalid.
Tradition for a date of observance does not make it a date of certainty. It is simply a date chosen.
The Magisterial teaching concerning the day Jesus was born is that it is not known with any certainty.

from my previous post.
We know the correct day because the* authentic teaching* has been preserved and affirms with certainty…
 
But, you just said:

We know the correct day because the authentic teaching has been preserved and affirms with certainty that it is Friday

Certainty? Or taking a stab at it not fully knowing the actual date? Or even worse, trying to fulfil a vauge prophecy?
 
But, you just said:

We know the correct day because the authentic teaching has been preserved and affirms with certainty that it is Friday

Certainty? Or taking a stab at it not fully knowing the actual date? Or even worse, trying to fulfil a vauge prophecy?
It isn’t a ‘stab’ it’s a well reasoned choice in light of the fact that it is unknown. Is it wrong to pick a day to celebrate someone’s birthday if the actual day isn’t known?

Do you have a reason to believe that the Church would be incorrect when it attaches a degree of chronological certainty or uncertainty to the particular day it celebrates various events. Perhaps falsify the degree of certainty on purpose?
 
Joshua27,

PLEASE read my first post (above) on this matter. I thought I explained the APPARENT discrepencies VERY WELL.

The “three days and three nights” are NOT to be measured on a Rolex starting at zero hours. That’s modern thinking, NOT the way of the ancients!

Secondly “in the heart of the earth” is NOT to be understood as the physical time spent in the physical tomb. I happened to have three years of geological training under my belt, and I can ASSURE you that the Holy Sepulchre is NOWHERE NEAR the PHYSICAL “heart of the earth”!

**PLEASE read my initial post again, and THEN give me your honest reply. **I’ll keep coming back to this site to look for it. 😉
 
In response to Joshua27:
You question why I believe that I feel the Magisterium of the Church interprets Scripture better than myself. I would like to respond to some of your claims, then provide reasons to support my belief in the teaching ability of the Catholic Church.

You are critical of such authority since you feel they should serve. I agree. In fact, one title that the Pope carries (though I am not sure if Pope Benedict XVI in particular has this title) is the “Servant of the Servants of God.” Parish priests are servants – they serve a parish. Bishops are servants – they serve a diocese. The Pope is a servant – he serves the whole Church. In fact, this is quite evident right now with the sex abuse scandal. Although he is not to blame, Pope Benedict XVI is bearing a heavy burden for the sins of some priests who went astray; he is constantly attacked, but he perseveres. When Catholics do something bad, he often gets the blame, so I definitely see Pope Benedict XVI as an authority who serves.

The Church herself serves all who are members of her. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is not a dictatorship, but a network of servants.

I do not think you use Matthew 19:30 appropriately. Jesus is discussing Heaven, not how wise people are. Also, I do not see how Matthew 20:1-16 is about teaching authority. Just because I believe that people like Pope Benedict XVI are exceptional teachers does not mean I think he is better than all other people and deserves more than them. I think your argument is based on a misunderstanding of what I mean by authority.

I do not claim that only the Pope and cardinals have the Holy Spirit, but I believe that they are protected specifically by the Holy Spirit from falling into doctrinal error with regard to matters of faith and morals. I think the fact that so many people have interpreted the Bible differently despite having the Holy Spirit within them means that there must be one group that is specially protected to avoid falling into such error, so believer can know which interpretations to trust. This group is the Catholic Church.

1 Corinthians 12:7 is like the passages quoted from Matthew – they are not about one’s ability to interpret Scripture.

As for your reference from Revelation, I also believe this is an incorrect interpretation, because, as I pointed out, the Church does not exercise dictatorial control (which I believe is being referred to here since St. John probably would have hated the rule of the emperor, since that was why he was on Patmos), but rather is a servant. Also, I do not think you are correct that God is opposed to all forms of authority. See Romans 13:1-7.

In short, I do not believe the passages you provided discredit the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. I will make another post soon.
 
I find several reasons to trust the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture.

Some of these reasons are personal observations. First of all, I know that I have made mistakes in interpreting Scripture in the past, but have found interpretations by the Catholic Church that are much more accurate than my. For instance, I thought that Jesus abolished observance of a day of rest in Mark 2:23-28, but the Church maintains that there is a day of rest each week (Sunday) and it is quite clear, with their correction, that Jesus did not abolish this, but merely opposed the understanding of the Pharisees as well as proclaiming his dominion. Furthermore, when I heard the Pope or a bishop speak, I am often astounded by their wisdom; it is apparent that I am not as wise as them, so I am willing to trust them.

There are also many reasons I see in scripture to trust the Church. I will use the DRB, Challoner Revision for quotations.

Of course, as I have already mentioned, in Matthew 16:13-20, Jesus gives authority to St. Peter, the first Pope, to make decisions on earth that will be bound in Heaven. This clearly indicates that Jesus gave teaching authority to the papacy. John 21:15-17 also discusses the authority that Christ gave St. Peter.

If you doubt that Jesus actually gave authority to St. Peter as well as the other apostles, then check out Acts 15:1-21, which is the Council of Jerusalem. Notice who decides, for the whole Church, that circumcision is not necessary for Christians – St. Peter. Of course, St. Peter had this revealed to him by God in Acts 10:9-16, but this is the very thing I am arguing – that the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit. People should respect the teaching authority of the Church, like the council, for after St. Peter spoke, nobody opposed him (Acts 15:12). What I believe is that this authority did not cease to exist with the martyrdom of St. Peter, but rather that it continues to this day. Here, Jimmy Akin does a good job discussing St. Peter.

St. Paul did not seem to be concerned about a hierarchy, since he wrote to Timothy: “Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine” (1 Timothy 5:17). Acceptance of authority is also shown in 1 Peter 5:1-5. Some people have a better understanding of Scripture than others, and those are the ones who should serve as authorities on the Word.

To relate this back to the original question posed in the thread, I believe that tradition is important and that the traditional acceptance of Easter on Sunday is the one that should be trusted over the proposed alternative. Tradition is valued by St. Paul, as seen in 1 Corinthians 11:2. Also, St. Paul wrote, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:14). Please note for the former quote, that it is listed as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in the NRSV-CE.

As a side note, I looked up the Nicolaitians, and discovered this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top