SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter n2thelight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mercygate said:
You are very kind.

But my question wasn’t a joke.

It is obvious that Peter was not a triple-tiara-wearing-Renaissance-head-of-state holding a full-blown articulation of the doctrine of papal infallibility. He was NOT a pope in the way the office legitimately developed over time.

I trust n2thelight will come back with something better than, “Peter was never pope because he was married.”
Click to expand...
Oh no, I clearly understand that you were not joking.

I completely agree: the office of the Pope has developed over time, and I believe rightly so, and I think it’s fairly evident that this is what happened. The Church of Christ has continuously grown in an understanding of her role in the salvation of man as laid out by Christ.

As a non-denominational evangelical Protestant, I thought, “Catholics make everything up as they go along, and just attribute it to this ‘tradition’”. Little did I realize that, upon closer examination of the Scriptures and some very excellent apologetic literature, the Church makes nothing up; instead, the Church is made aware of previously existing truths, not yet fully revealed to man by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

St. John 16:12-14, emphasis added

I hope N2 read that part: how peculiar that the Bible itself should not contain all truth. Christ Himself even tells us that “we cannot bear it now”, but that the Spirit will guide us to “all truth”.

Such can be seen in the development of the Trinitarian doctrine, papal infallibility, extra ecclesiam nullus omnino salvatur, and other various doctrines that the Church has proclaimed to all the faithful.

I was, in particular, laughing at the “before you knock yourself out” portion of your post. 😃 Sorry if I made that unclear.
 
Jesus_N_Cherie said:
I pray you will come to the fullness of the Truth of Jesus Christ…which will be offered to you in the only place it exists…the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Cherie
Click to expand...
Gosh! I hope you will pray. There a so many of us non-Roman Catholics that also long for salvation in God’s One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.😉
 
n2thelight said:
Other than what I feel to be a misinturpretation of scripture concerning Peter being the Rock,ie head of the Church,what proof do you have that he was the first pope?
Click to expand...
n2thlight, unfortunately you have been inculcated with a substantial amount of anti-Catholic bigotry.

Peter is not “head” of the Church. Jesus is Head of the Church. Jesus left Peter to lead the flock in HIs absence. It does not make Jesus less of a Head, just because He appointed someone He could trust to look after His interests.

How do you suppose that all the first Chrisitans and their immediate disciples were so confused about what Jesus meant? Why did they all call him “Cephas” and defer to him?
n2thelight said:
Also, are you aware of the Church that Joseph of Arimathaea founded which many believe to be the first

"The reason, today, we are so unaware of the fact that the British church was the true church established by Joseph of Arimathaea, by the direction of St. Philip, is because most all the records have been destroyed. There have been enough records to survive, though, to establish beyond all doubt that the church of Britain (not to be confused with the present day Anglican Church of England) was the true church, before being Romanized.
Click to expand...
Ok, what you don’t seem to understand is that there was only One Church for a thousand years. Any communities established by any of the Apostles and “fellow co-workers” such as Joseph of ARimathaea were in complete unity with one another, and with Peter.
n2thelight said:
Code: 
   For this reason most everyone has assumed that the true church was the Roman Catholic Church, which is entirely false.  Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor her Protestant daughters represent the true church established by our Messiah.  There was a church established at Rome, and Linus {2nd Tim 4:21} (the son of Caractacus) was appointed by the Apostle Paul to be the first Bishop, and it was not related in any way to the Roman Catholic Church, ever!  It was called, Basilica Di Pudenziana (also the Palace of the British)."    -- Excerpted from this study.
You can read study here

biblestudysite.com/church1.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will pass. Even this section of it is ridiculuous to read. You are admitting that a Church was established in Rome, then in the next breath, saying it is not related to the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, read what you are typing! Or cutting and pasting. Of course it was Rome, and of course it was Linus, and of course, all of them were Catholic.
n2thelight said:
How will the Roman Catholic foundation stand if proven that Peter was not a pope?
Click to expand...
The term “pope” did not evolve for about 6 centuries later. No one called Peter ‘pope’ because they were using Aramaic and Greek. Everyone called him Cephas, because that was the name Jesus gave him.

How will we “prove” that there is one God in three persons, instead of three God’s in one person? Since it can be proven that the word “trinity” is not in the scripture, and did not come foward for centuries? Jesus is the one who renamed Peter, and gave him this special duty. However, Catholicism is not founded on Peter, but on Christ Himself. Peter is a trusted servant who was given specific duties in the Kingdom. How will catholicism stand if it can be “proven” that Peter is not a pope? I can’t imagine. I can’t imagine that it is possible to “prove” matters of faith. We accept Jesus’ words because we trust in Him. Do you think you can “prove” Jesus to be unworthy of our trust? I think not…
n2thelight said:
In the next couple of days I will go back to the begining to find the questions some claimed I have not answered,I still say they are not many,but we shall see,and I will answer them.

I also will show why Peter was not a Pope.

In the meantime,is there anywhere on this site where I can discuss end time prophecy?
Click to expand...
You can start a new thread. I would recommend the Scripture section.

There is no need for your proofs of Peter and Pope, unless you want to do them to reinforce to yourself that you can disregard the first 1500 years of christian history. 🤷
 
n2thelight said:
You can read study here

biblestudysite.com/church1.htm

How will the Roman Catholic foundation stand if proven that Peter was not a pope?
Click to expand...
I looked at this link, and they combine totally unrelated verses to make the bible say something that was not intended by the original writers.

Open up your eyes man, how can you fall for this ignorance, surely you can see the fallacy of those arguments.

Do you remember from the book of Genesis how the Serpent misapplied what God had said when he spoke to Eve.

He told Eve: “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

And God did say:“Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”

Can’t you see that the evil one tries to deceive others by using the truth in a way that it wasn’t intended?

All I can say is go back and read all of the early Christian writings from the Didache and the Apostolic fathers until say the time of Augustine. I have and what I see is a gradual development of doctrine, building upon itself as the Church confronted heresy, and had to explain what it believed.
You might not be convinced, but you should read what the fathers believed themselves, instead of what others tell you that they believed.

It is like when I see a Protestant site on the subject of being born again, and it states that the early church fathers and the modern catholic apologists really didn’t understand the bible, since they believe in born again in baptism. Things like that make me raise an eyebrow. I mean, what they are saying is that the church got it wrong for the first 1,500 years before the protestant reformers finally understood what the bible was really teaching. You can accept that premise if you want, but I personally find that sort of logic, illogical.

I hope that I haven’t been too rude, but when I see these resources you provide as you proof, I can only shake my head in disbelief and wonder.
 
"guanophore:
It is hard for me to imagine, given the horrors you have witnessed in your life, to think that there will not be people who spurn God’s love and forgiveness.
Click to expand...
Lisdogan said:
And God will love them for their pain, their humanity, and because they are His children.
Click to expand...
He loves them of course, and created them for HImself, and because of that, He will respect their choice to disobey him and separate themselves from Him. He will not save people against their will.
"guanophore:
We cannot read the hearts of those who have heard [his message]. Even if one appears to reject what they have heard, it is not our place to “condemn them to hell”. They are condemned already, if they refuse to believe. It is incumbent upon us to share our faith as best as we are able, so that this can be remedied. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word.
Click to expand...
Lisdogan said:
Code: 
If you don't hear, you may be saved. If you hear and believe with merit, you will be saved. If you hear and reject, you will be refused - unless God in His determination wills otherwise (not many people seem to give Him credit for being able to make that decision, taking it rather upon themselves). So Pascal's Wager would seem to suggest that it is better not to hear. I am pushing the point, because it bugs me on behalf of European moral non-Christians who have chosen to be moral but not Christians. There are more and more of them all the time, and we need to be mindful of their humanity, their lovingkindness, and their compassion which often parallels or even outdoes that of many Christians.
Click to expand...
As did Adam an Eve, outdoing God’s way of coming to Him to have knowlege, and wanting knowledge acquired on their own to be as good or better. The original sin is thinking that one can be like God, and a God unto himself, rather than humbling himself before the Creator.
Lisdogan said:
If we agree that hell is not a place, but is an eternal separation from God’s love and mercy, then we agree about that. Of course it is not CC that decides: as we agreed above, it is God’s choice, in every single case for each bit of flotsam and jetsam that claims to be divinely human. Perhaps it cuts close to the bone when it seems as if staunch Catholics seem to imply that they are uniquely placed to determine God’s will and intentions on this?
Click to expand...
We can be confident in what God has revealed to us about HImself, of which revelation the Church is a custodian.
 
Quote by Lisdogan: “If you hear and reject, you will be refused - unless God in His determination wills otherwise (not many people seem to give Him credit for being able to make that decision, taking it rather upon themselves” end quote

God has given us a free will, Lisdogan. He has placed before each and every one of us life and death, and gives us the choice to choose between them. And then He respects our choice. Why would God in His determination take away someone’s free will? Could He do it, yes, except that it would be totally against what He has ever done in the history of the world. It is in total contradiction with Who He is.

He didn’t force Himself on Adam and Eve. He placed before them the choice. And they were exiled after they chose to disobey Him. He made it very clear to them what they could do, and He forbid them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. He even told them that they would die if they disobeyed Him.
They disobeyed, and they were kicked out of Eden, and made to suffer…and to die.

I am now stating that the death referred to in the case of Adam and Eve is not the one I refer to in Heaven and Hell.
My point is the choice He gives each of us.

**It would be totally unjust of God to allow some to choose death (Hell) and therefore gain Hell, and others to choose death and gain Heaven.**He will not force you to choose Him. And if you knowingly reject Him, you gain Hell.

What may give you comfort is this. NO ONE knows what the soul goes through at the moment of death. So no one knows where the soul will end up.

We have the Church with the Sacraments to give us all of the aid needed in choosing Christ at all times. That is not to say that one who, through ignorance which is not willful rejection, is not in fellowship with the Church is condemned to hell. Christ Jesus founded His Church and commanded us to go out and make disciples of all nations. That is so that every single person to live after His Ascension in to Heaven could recieve the aid of the Sacraments given by Him to the Church. We all need that aid. We choose to accept or reject that aid also, it is our free will.

And it would benefit no one, not even God, to force us to choose Him. What is love worth if one is forced to love…for then it is not love at all, just a pretense…which is worthless.

I hope I made my point. Sometimes I write in circles and never get to the point.

God bless you all,
cherie
 
guanophore said:
He uses the only authentic Bible available, the 1600 KJV. 😉
Click to expand...
But even the 1611 KJV states in Matthew 9:8
“But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.”

It didn’t say “power unto a man”
 
savedsinner said:
But even the 1611 KJV states in Matthew 9:8
“But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.”

It didn’t say “power unto a man”
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I don’t have the 1611 printing myself, but I am given to understand it has quite a few anti-Catholic revision within, including this one.
 
guanophore said:
Are you sure? I don’t have the 1611 printing myself, but I am given to understand it has quite a few anti-Catholic revision within, including this one.
Click to expand...
I know that this is true of the original Wycliffe translation, but I’m only aware of “errors” in the original KJV. I’m not sure if they could be accurately and objectively called anti-Catholic.
 
How could one actually proove what Jesus said which wasn’t written down unless he was there. I think this takes faith.
 
guanophore said:
Hmmm. Well, that was what n2thelight said he was using, and he specified that it was the ONLY valid bible. I dont’ know what to say! 🤷
Click to expand...
Maybe when n2thelight read that the power to forgive sins had been given to men he shouted “AMEN!!!”
😛
 
guanophore said:
Hmmm. Well, that was what n2thelight said he was using, and he specified that it was the ONLY valid bible. I dont’ know what to say! 🤷
Click to expand...
I think n2 simply misread or misremembered it. I expect he’ll come back and say: “Oops. My mistake. I must have been thinking of something else.”

I mean, haven’t you ever misremembered something from Scripture and attempted to make a point with it only to discover your error?

OK: not you, guanophore. But it HAS happened to moi. :o
 
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…where do you think N2thelight has gone? 🤷

Sure is quiet in this thread…
 
cfrancis said:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm…where do you think N2thelight has gone? 🤷

Sure is quiet in this thread…
Click to expand...
Well, he started a thread “how to enjoy the bible”, but evidently he’s dropped that.

Maybe he took my advice!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top