Mary's Assumption

[Randy_Carson]

Your distaste for Protestants is very apparent, but your premise is false; since we know that men were assigned to preach the gospel that turned their backs on the gospel; therefore just because an apostle may have spoken directly to someone does not mean we should rely on what they said as being “divine” as you seem to imply. Judas Iscariot was the the most famous of these.

When the Apostles taught, they did so infallibly.

Moreover, Peter wrote in 1 Peter that he was in Babylon which was the word the early Church used to refer to Rome. That is inerrant scripture. Peter was in Rome.

As for the Early Church Fathers, I did not imply that their writings were “divine”; I think I was explicitly stating that they are reliable witnesses.

Far more so than those men who hived off from the Church 1500 years later.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

What are you quoting?

Paul is counted as an apostle. He calls himself an apostle. He is considered the apostle to the gentiles but that is not the same as a bishop. Apostle means one sent on a mission. We usually associate this with the 12 Jesus chose.
according to the Catholic Encyclopedia

I don’t think that Paul ever held the position of a bishop. Apostle-yes bishop no.

What is the date on that definition? 1950’s or 1960’s; was it from a divine or human source?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Was Paul his co-bishop?

It would be more accurate to say that Peter and Paul were Apostles. Their successors were known as Bishops.

Paul died in Rome, but he has never been considered to be the Bishop of any Church since he travelled so frequently. Kinda like Billy Graham evangelized millions, but was never the pastor of a single church.

The Bishop of Rome has always been recognized as the leader of the universal Church, and later began to be called “pope” which means “father”.

So, we are ascribing to the early popes a title that they would not have known in their lifetimes; the office was clearly evident, however.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Wow. This is easy.

John 20:19-23
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1. The doors were locked.
2. Only the eleven were present.
3. Jesus commissioned the eleven and gave them the same authority that the Father had given Him. This authority was not conveyed to others in the Book of Acts.
   

In John, the term disciples is used broadly to refer to followers of Jesus; not just the specific twelve or eleven as the case may be. In John 6 his disciples left him.

And Thomas was not there. So did he or did he not have the authority that you believe was transmitted here when he established churches in India according to your beliefs?

 

[Rightlydivide]

It would be more accurate to say that Peter and Paul were Apostles. Their successors were known as Bishops.

Paul died in Rome, but he has never been considered to be the Bishop of any Church since he travelled so frequently. Kinda like Billy Graham evangelized millions, but was never the pastor of a single church.

The Bishop of Rome has always been recognized as the leader of the universal Church, and later began to be called “pope” which means “father”.

So, we are ascribing to the early popes a title that they would not have known in their lifetimes; the office was clearly evident, however.

So was Peter the Bishop of Rome? It does not seem so. Everything I read up to a certain time in history always puts him with Paul. Nothing seems to indicate that Peter and Paul had a different status in the early church. Certainly the quote I used does not give Peter any more status(and I hope people will forgive the term status but rendering words are difficult).

 

[Randy_Carson]

In John, the term disciples is used broadly to refer to followers of Jesus; not just the specific twelve or eleven as the case may be. In John 6 his disciples left him.

And Thomas was not there. So did he or did he not have the authority that you believe was transmitted here when he established churches in India according to your beliefs?

In John 6, some of the disciples left him; the ones who, like you, refused to accept the literal meaning of his teaching about eating his body and drinking his blood. But I digress.

If all of Jesus’ disciples were present behind those locked doors, then that must have been one very large room. Either that, or you have to admit that the word is being used in its narrower sense in this passage.

Since Jesus had already chosen the Eleven previously, Thomas’ absence from this particular event does not suggest that he was ommitted from the company of the Eleven. He was present in Acts 1 & 2, for example. However, if you read on a bit in John 20, you will see that Jesus interacted individually with Thomas very powerfully just a few verses later.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

It’s simple, really.

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

That’s how it affects your salvation.

Randy Hello,

The Mormons, the JW’s, Christian Science, Church of Scientology, Divine Light Mission, The Unification Church, Islam, & Judaism all make the claim they are the only way to God, but the Bible, which i believe to be true, says it is by His grace through faith. If a thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years, then this puts Catholicism somewhere between Judaism and "the health and wealth gospel, like the Word Faith Movement.

Explain again how the Pope effects my salvation? I can follow your logic above, but it is built upon many assumptions that other religions claim, which primarily is divine revelation apart from the Scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So was Peter the Bishop of Rome? It does not seem so. Everything I read up to a certain time in history always puts him with Paul. Nothing seems to indicate that Peter and Paul had a different status in the early church. Certainly the quote I used does not give Peter any more status(and I hope people will forgive the term status but rendering words are difficult).

Everything puts Peter with Paul? Hardly. Paul doesn’t even begin to appear in the Scriptures seriously until what? Acts 12? Peter has been busy at work long before then.

No, but Paul does travel to check his understanding of the gospel with Peter twice in Acts.

And yes, even Paul’s own letters reveal that he could not help but be compared with Peter.

Why? Because Paul knew that Peter was the head of Church established by Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Hello,

The Mormons, the JW’s, Christian Science, Church of Scientology, Divine Light Mission, The Unification Church, Islam, & Judaism all make the claim they are the only way to God, but the Bible, which i believe to be true, says it is by His grace through faith. If a thousand years is like a day and a day like a thousand years, then this puts Catholicism somewhere between Judaism and "the health and wealth gospel, like the Word Faith Movement.

Explain again how the Pope effects my salvation? I can follow your logic above, but it is built upon many assumptions that other religions claim, which primarily is divine revelation apart from the Scripture.

Okay. Let’s go through them one at a time.

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.

Any problems with this?

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Wow. This is easy.

John 20:19-23
19On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

1. The doors were locked.
2. Only the eleven were present.
3. Jesus commissioned the eleven and gave them the same authority that the Father had given Him. This authority was not conveyed to others in the Book of Acts.
4. Jesus breathed on the Apostles and gave them them the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not breath on the other people who received the Spirit in the Book of Acts. This sending of the Spirit was different.
5. The Apostles were the leaders of the Church which later became known as the Catholic Church.

One other minor point…we know that only the eleven were present (without Mary and the other women) because Jesus told them to forgive sins. Only priests can forgive sins and only men can be priests.

See you at mass this Sunday?

You have many problems here;

1. Acts 1 - Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me”; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." - The “them” is the apostles and they have not yet received the Holy Spirit as you presumed from post above from John 20
2. John 16 - 7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. - this corresponds with Acts 1, not John 20.
3. you seem to overlook that the holy Spirit is received by whom, individuals as i stated earlier; the disciples, regardless if they are Apostles or regular believers, all receive the Holy Spirit Acts 10 and 12 and 15 among other places.
4. When Peter was preaching to the gentiles and had some Jewish converts with him, the Jewish converts were amazed that they had received the gift of God, salvation, just as they had.

Conclusions: the Holy Spirit being received by a person is what makes an individual a Christian and part of the church, which is the body of Christ. It is based on His grace by Faith in God. You were unable to provide any evidence of the HS being given to an institution; therefore i will not be at Mass this week, you will need to present a better case as to why my salvation depends on a Pope.

Perhaps you could start a thread, Adrift seems to be getting concerned about beig off topic; if you do let me know.

 

[adrift]

The bible doesn’t say that Peter was bishop of Rome, so that information must come from man. He was actually outside of Rome when He died according to men, the Bible does not say explicitly.

Oh Adrift, sorry - off topic - I’ll respond to those that responded to me, then I will leave, so as not to be “off topic”

I give up:shrug:

I started a thread to accommodate this discussion

 

[Timothy_Piper]

When the Apostles taught, they did so infallibly.

Moreover, Peter wrote in 1 Peter that he was in Babylon which was the word the early Church used to refer to Rome. That is inerrant scripture. Peter was in Rome.

As for the Early Church Fathers, I did not imply that their writings were “divine”; I think I was explicitly stating that they are reliable witnesses.

Far more so than those men who hived off from the Church 1500 years later.

Yes the apostles were under the direct influence, as all the writers of true Scripture were, but other than that no man has been inspired by God in the same since of the word.

I understand you were relating to them as reliable witnesses, but my point was that the Apostle Paul for example, made some ministers of the gospel that then turned and perverted. the early church was combating false teachers from day one, so unless you can see the lives of these writers you refer to as reliable witnesses, which you cannot, then you must use the Scripture as the standard to compare what anyone has said in light of what is taught by God; otherwise you open a box that anyone who claims to be near the apostles as reliable and we know from history this is not the case.

As far as Babylon, you are correct that Christians may have used that as a code word for Rome, but again that is making an assumption that cannot be shown from Scripture. Babylon is also used to describe the territories the Babylonia empire encompassed. I have no real issue with Peter being in Rome at some time, but as being a Bishop, that would not make any sense and go against what Scripture had said concerning the apostleship’s. They were moving place to place and Peter specifically to minister to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

 

[adrift]

Perhaps you could start a thread, Adrift seems to be getting concerned about beig off topic; if you do let me know.

[

DONE here is that thread](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6006921#post6006921)

Now can we return to the Assumption. Please

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Everything puts Peter with Paul? Hardly. Paul doesn’t even begin to appear in the Scriptures seriously until what? Acts 12? Peter has been busy at work long before then.

No, but Paul does travel to check his understanding of the gospel with Peter twice in Acts.

And yes, even Paul’s own letters reveal that he could not help but be compared with Peter.

Why? Because Paul knew that Peter was the head of Church established by Jesus.

Peter leaves the bible at Acts 15. none of the disciples thought peter was their “boss”. Look at the story of James and John, when their mother asked the lord to make then greatest in the Kingdom by sitting on His left and right, this is right after Matthew 16, which my understanding is where Catholics derive Peters suthority, but it seems that no one else understood that Peter was the boss except for you Catholics. Jesus nor any of the other apostles got it according the biblical account.

Matthew 20 - And hearing {this,} the ten became indignant with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and {their} great men exercise authority over them. 26 “It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Okay. Let’s go through them one at a time.

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.

Any problems with this?

Yes, A Christian is one who is saved from their sins against God and have received Gods grace through the believers faith in God’s gospel, which is manifest through Christ on the cross.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

[

DONE here is that thread](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6006921#post6006921)

Now can we return to the Assumption. Please

I don’t mind and have already posted, but your prejudiced shows because your messages are to me and one other and not to your own brethren.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Hi Randy Carson

I have posted on Adrifts link; so if you want to continue our discussion, then that thread or some other. I do not want to continue to cause concern for Adrift and want to respect his/her point about being off topic.

I have nothing to add to the assumption except that their is no Biblical support for it and it came into being over time, which in my view is further evidence that is pure myth and has no bearing on salvation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

In John 6, some of the disciples left him; the ones who, like you, refused to accept the literal meaning of his teaching about eating his body and drinking his blood. But I digress.

If all of Jesus’ disciples were present behind those locked doors, then that must have been one very large room. Either that, or you have to admit that the word is being used in its narrower sense in this passage.

Since Jesus had already chosen the Eleven previously, Thomas’ absence from this particular event does not suggest that he was ommitted from the company of the Eleven. He was present in Acts 1 & 2, for example. However, if you read on a bit in John 20, you will see that Jesus interacted individually with Thomas very powerfully just a few verses later.

They did not leave for that reason. Your chronology is completely wrong. You would be right if it was not for the clarification where Christ explains what he meant. If they left because of his statements concerning flesh…why did they not leave after THOSE statements? (John 6:53) They did not. You can say they did; but they did not. They were still there. When DID they leave? Why did they leave?
Lets read it and see if we believe what is actually says:

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

They are murmuring at what he said but no one is leaving Mr. Carson. Here is the statment that causes them to leave.

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

It is his pre-existence they cannot accept. He existed before (John 6:62). They cannot fathom he came down from heaven. That he is the bread of life. John does not mention a Eucharist in his gospel. Because it was the last gospel written, John was very aware of the false belief already spreading in the church. His message in Revelation speaks to the corruption that existed in the majority of the seven churches. There is no imaginary time where everyone agreed. The whole New Testament after the gospels deals with the problems in the churches. The error in the teachings. That is why Paul writes. Didn’t you guys ever notice the NT is not one giant pat on the back but is continual correction of errors in practice and doctrine? Faith and morals I believe you call them…

I will accept your correction to ten…as strangely as you worded it.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

Jesus claiming preexistence was probably a part of the reason they left, however it was not THE reason they left since Jesus mentioned that before and the Jews did not leave:

how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?" (verse 42)

 

[Randy_Carson]

You have many problems here;

1. Acts 1 - Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me”; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." - The “them” is the apostles and they have not yet received the Holy Spirit as you presumed from post above from John 20

I’m not sure that receiving the Spirit is a one-time thing, are you? Why did Jesus breathe on the Apostles? What did He mean when He said, “Receive the Holy Spirit?” Did He really mean “Receive the Holy Spirit a few days from now?” I don’t think so. Something very unique happened in that closed room.

1. John 16 - 7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. - this corresponds with Acts 1, not John 20.

Agreed. This passage does refer to Pentecost. I also agree that the Spirit works in the life of individual believers as described above. My contention is that the Holy Spirit does not lead individual believers into all truth as so many people want to claim.

If this were the case, we would not have Baptists denying baptism to infants based upon their reading of scripture while Methodists baptize them based upon their reading of scripture. Obviously, the Spirit is not leading different groups to different doctrinal truths. They can’t both be right; they can’t both be lead by the Spirit to all truth. Thus, this unique promise was made to the Apostles in their capacity as leaders of the original Church; that Church still exists, of course…it is the Catholic Church, and only that Church still has the gift of infallibility.

1. you seem to overlook that the holy Spirit is received by whom, individuals as i stated earlier; the disciples, regardless if they are Apostles or regular believers, all receive the Holy Spirit Acts 10 and 12 and 15 among other places.

Sorry. Not following you here.

1. When Peter was preaching to the gentiles and had some Jewish converts with him, the Jewish converts were amazed that they had received the gift of God, salvation, just as they had.

Agreed. I don’t see a problem.

Conclusions: the Holy Spirit being received by a person is what makes an individual a Christian and part of the church, which is the body of Christ. It is based on His grace by Faith in God. You were unable to provide any evidence of the HS being given to an institution; therefore i will not be at Mass this week, you will need to present a better case as to why my salvation depends on a Pope.

Since the scriptures record two occasions of the Spirit being conveyed upon the Apostles, we can ask what the differences between these events were.

It is my contention that the promises made to the Eleven were not intended for every believer in history. In fact, history proves that believers have not been protected from doctrinal error. However, the promise that the Church would be led by the Spirit was made to the members of the proto-Magisterium, the Apostles, and this has not changed.

However, this has nothing to do with my argument about being subject to the pope.

If there is another thread, I’ll look for it.