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

[NotWorthy]

Personally, I think this arguement has plenty of validity. I don’t think any of us can be part of Christ’s building unless he grafts us into it. It is not our doing, but His. For reasons of His own, Jesus chose Peter for a special role in His building. It is part and parcel of Peter’s identity in Christ, and cannot be separated from it.

Also, remember earlier in Matthew where Jesus says, “The wise man builds his house on the Rock”. Yes, Peter is that Rock.

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s a good observation. Furthermore, those two weren’t even the same Johns. Scholars tell us they were two completely different men who had the same name (it was common; the Baptist was named John, an Apostle was named John, “Jonah” who got trapped in a whale was a John, the father of Peter and Andrew was named John).

I don’t know if you are referring to the authors of the Gospel of John and Revelation, but they are the same John. There is no compelling argument to convince me otherwise that I’ve seen.

Also, Jonah and John are two different names entirely. They are not the Greek and Aramaic rendering of the same name.

 

[NotWorthy]

Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

So why do you all call the pope father in direct opposition to this verse?

Peter was not a pope,he would not had been called father

So you’ve given up on your Peter is not Rock tact, and tried a new one?

I smell a red herring!!!

But to answer this false trail… For the same reason that Paul refers to others as Fathers and even himself as one. The Bible is to be taken as a whole, not just a single verse.

 

[n2thelight]

LittleDeb

I answered your question, so I would like to leave you with one of my own.

If Sacred Scripture is the final authority why would the ONE Holy Spirit not protect it with ONE singular, original, transcript? After all the Bible you hold in your hands is just a copy of a copy, of a translation of a copy, of a whole bunch of separate books written in a bunch of different languages by a bunch of different people over a bunch of different eras.

If it is THE Authority, shouldn’t there be just ONE?

I stand by the KJV as that authority

 

[n2thelight]

NotWorthy

So you’ve given up on your Peter is not Rock tact, and tried a new one?

I smell a red herring!!!

I never give up,with that said my next question,would you call Peter satan?Christ did

Matthew 16:23 "But He turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

 

[SD_Catholic]

I stand by the KJV as that authority

I think you may be better off spiritually if you do take some time off from debating in order to truly reflect on the information you’ve been given here… I’m sure it’s an awful lot to absorb in a short amount of time.

It seems you’re objecting to everything because it’s too Catholic without even trying to discern wether or not it might actually be true… not because everyone here proved it, but because you seem to have a real love of Christ, please look into this stuff…not like before but with an open heart.

Christianity makes much more sense when you include the history of Christ’s Church.

SD

 

[mercygate]

John 2:18-21
18 Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Even if your Greek grammar were accurate, John clarifies Jesus’ meaning by explaining that "the temple he had spoken of was his body.

There is no such gloss in Mt. 16.

The Catholic church insists that the “rock” that Jesus refers to is Simon Peter, who they say was the first pope. They claim that when Christ gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom”, He was giving him authority and leadership over the Church. My position is that the Catholic interpretation of this verse is a wrong interpretation.

Though not considered by many to be a valid arguement, due to the fact that Christ spoke in Aramaic, the examination of the Greek reveals this:
The “rock” which Christ refers to is what Peter said, namely, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This truth is the basis of all Christianity.

I hope you have discovered that Catholic teaching does not deny that Christ is THE rock, that Peter’s confession is the rock, that Peter’s FAITH is the rock, that all the other little rockettes (in Peter’s epistle, BTW the word is completely different: lithos) are built into the household. But to Peter alone he promised the keys. It is Peter’s faith upon which Christ promises to build His Church. So how ya gonna find Christ’s Church apart from Peter?

 

[Gamera]

…Mary … her ascension

That isn’t Catholic belief. Catholics believe in the assumption of Mary, not ‘ascension’ of Mary. Ascension is the act of moving onesself to heaven. Only Jesus did that (John 3:13). Assumption is the passive event of being taken by God to heaven. Scripture says it happened to Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). Scripture says it happened to Enoch (Gen. 5:24). Scripture says it happened to Moses’ body (assumption does not require that the person be alive)(Jude 9). Catholics believe it also happened to Mary. None of those involve ‘ascension,’ which Christ alone did. Your source’s claim that Catholics believe in Mary’s ‘ascension’ rather than assumption shows that your source doesn’t even understand Catholic belief.

 

[NotWorthy]

I never give up,with that said my next question,would you call Peter satan?Christ did

Matthew 16:23 "But He turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

You are so funny!!! We all are slaves to Satan when we worry more about this life, rather than the next.

Simon is human, my friend. But Jesus is God. Don’t you think Jesus had an idea that Simon would try and protect Jesus from dying within moments of the “Blessed are you Simon, BarJonah” scene?

With that said, anything we do that interferes with God’s Plan places us in league with Satan.

Now, let me ask you, do you plan on answering any of the refutations to the wonderful “cut and paste” job you did, or do you continue to plan on throwing out these red herrings?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I never give up,with that said my next question,would you call Peter satan?Christ did

Matthew 16:23 "But He turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Jesus called Simon Peter Satan because his way of thinking was of men and not of God. When you distant yourself from God, you might as well call yourself Satan.

However, if you read the entire Bible. Jesus in Luke told Peter that his “faith will not fall away.” See Luke 22:31-32. He also told Peter to feed his sheep in John 21:15-17. When the Apostles are addressed in the Gospel, Peter is always listed first. Judas is listed last. You know where Judas is now… and Peter is also the first to professed that Jesus is the Son of God.

Don’t pick Scripture like a vacuum and interpret it ways that divide Scripture… You have read Scripture in its ENTIRE context.

 

[cfrancis]

Originally Posted by n2thelight
Matthew, the author of this Gospel, and one of the twelve Disciples, was named Levi before Jesus called him to Discipleship in [Lk 5:27. Mk 2:14, Mt 9:9]. The story of Matthew’s call only appears in three out of the four Gospels. In Luke and Mark’s Gospels, Matthew is called Levi at the time of his call; but in the Gospel of Matthew, the name Levi is not used. There is a good reason for this apparent inconsistency: Luke and Mark were not among the twelve Disciples and were not present to know Matthew before his name was changed from Levi.

Matthew was writing of himself when he wrote of his call to Discipleship [Mt 9:9] and simply referred to himself by his present name (which he had been called by for 13-18 years at the time of this writing). Luke and Mark did not necessarily know that Matthew was Levi when they were divinely inspired to write of events that they themselves were not present to observe. Had St. John wrote of this event in his Gospel he would have no doubt cleared this matter up for us, as John was also one of the twelve Disciples and was present in those days. It is not a remarkable thing that Levi’s name was changed to Matthew, for it was also done with Simon changed to Peter [Mt 10:2], and Saul changed to Paul [Acts 13:9].

BUMP FOR N2thelight

Do you have any Scriptural basis for the above? I note you have Scriptue references in your answer, but none of them deal with authorship.

Do you have any Scripture that supports your belief that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired and belongs in the NT canon?

 

[guanophore]

I stand by the KJV as that authority

This brings us full circle to the OP. What did the Christians do prior to the creation of the KJV 1500 years after the fact?

If the KJV is the ultimate authority, how did they survive?

Was Jesus lying when He said “I will not leave you orphaned”, for 14 centuries before the KJV appeared?

Do you believe the Orthodox have no authority either, since they do not use the KJV?

 

[Mannyfit75]

This brings us full circle to the OP. What did the Christians do prior to the creation of the KJV 1500 years after the fact?

If the KJV is the ultimate authority, how did they survive?

Was Jesus lying when He said “I will not leave you orphaned”, for 14 centuries before the KJV appeared?

Do you believe the Orthodox have no authority either, since they do not use the KJV?

The KJV of today is different from the original KJV of 1611.

 

[cfrancis]

Nowhere in Scripture is the “teaching Magisterium” or mastery of bishops taught and treated as of equal weight with Scripture.

That is, if you refuse to see it (see Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem).
Of course, you fail to recognize that nowhere in Scripture does

Scripture declare what is Scripture. All here are waiting for you Scriptural proof that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired, written by Matthew and belongs in the NT canon.

But even you recognize that if no such Scriptural proof is available (here’s a hint: it isn’t) then you are guilty of that which you accuse the Catholic Church…

So, it is with the Roman Catholic Church. Repeatedly Catholic Catechisms state that many of their doctrines are not found or based in Scripture (Mary being Co-redemptress and Co-mediator, sinless, conceived without sin; her ascension; praying to saints and venerating them and images of them; etc.).

The replies in this thread have provided both Biblical and historical support for the Catholic beliefs listed above - and others you’ve presented. What is “SO” is that you are faced with the weight of both Scripture and Tradition trumping your personal interpretation of Scripture (or, more likely, the interpretations that have been fed to you via your teachers and the numerous websites from which you’ve posted).

Again, you cannot fail to recognize the fault in your argument: you accuse the Catholic Church of wrongly interpretting Scripture while maintaining you have correctly done so, supporting your claim with a paltry, “I believe my interpretation is correct.”

For Roman Catholics, it is the “mother Church” that is the final authority, not Scripture, no matter that they say that the Magisterium is the “servant of Scripture.” Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. And while the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel than what had already been given and recorded in the New Testament (Galatians 1:8-9).

Let’s look at Gal 1:8-9:
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

The Catholic Church gives a hearty “AMEN” to the words of St Paul! And we ask you, N2, why do you preach a different gospel?

After all, the same St Paul told Timothy - and all of us - in 1 Tim 3:15:
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is **the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. **

St Paul also told the Corinthians and Thessalonians:
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Thess 2:15)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to **the tradition **which you received from us. (2 Thess 3:6)

While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession and the infallible magisterium of the church as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:

(a) infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.)

As was so aptly put previously, Scripture is inerrant, an authority is infallible; that is, an infallible authority can infallibly interpret inerrant Scripture.

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and Who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

Amen to Christ being our High Priest! And yet, He left men in charge - the Apostles - to make decisions (see Acts 15 again, this time noting no Scriptures were used in the decision-making process).

And we’ve seen St Paul refer to that which is not written as being God’s “tool” as well.

In summary, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, “tangible,” infallible guide left by God for His church. It is the written word of God, not an infallible leader (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

Yet the Bible never tells us what belongs in the Bible. Your a priori argument falls flat at this point: someone had to tell us what belonged in the Bible before the Bible could do all you claim.

And as He gave the Holy Spirit to bear holy men along in the writing of those Scriptures (2 Peter 1:19-21), so He has given His Holy Spirit to indwell, fill, guide, and gift members of His church today for the purpose of directing His church through the proper interpretation of that written word (1 Corinthians 12; 14; Ephesians 4:11-16). That there are schisms and false teachings today should be no surprise, for the Bible also warns us that there would be false teachers who would twist the written word (2 Peter 3:16) and that these false teachers would arise from within the churches (Acts 20:30). Therefore, the believers were to turn to God and the “word of His grace” for their guidance (Acts 20:32), determining the truth not by WHO said it, but by comparing it with the gospel already received by the early church, the gospel recorded for us in Scripture (Galatians 1:8-9; see also Acts 17:11).\QUOTE] Sooooooooooo, the million-dollar question you have asked without asking is: which of the schisms remains true to “the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from” the Apostles?. Yours?

 

[guanophore]

I never give up,with that said my next question,would you call Peter satan?Christ did

Matthew 16:23 "But He turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offence unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

I would find it presumptuous to say this to any person, knowing that I cannot see the person’s heart. Christ did not build His church on Peter’s shortcomings, but rather, his “rock-ness”.

Do you imagine that Peter did not repent of his attempt to disuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem?

This is actually one of the best passages to demonstrate that infallibility does not equal impeccability.

 

[po18guy]

Matthew 23:9 “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

So why do you all call the pope father in direct opposition to this verse?

Peter was not a pope,he would not had been called father

This was spoken to whom? In what context? Come on, I know you know it. The bible is not a book of miscellaneous, unconnected anecdotes for everyone else to live by. It is a seamless garment, to be taken in it’s entirety.

If you still have both eyes, both hands and both feet, you cannot be Christian. Show me your amputations, and I will believe that you follow Christ.

**Mark 9:43-48 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’
**
Or, just maybe, is there a lesson here when applied in context? Man! You really dislike what you think the Catholic Church is! Too bad you do not know what it actually is.

Christ’s peace. But please stop misusing scripture, it offends both God and man.

 

[NotWorthy]

I would find it presumptuous to say this to any person, knowing that I cannot see the person’s heart. Christ did not build His church on Peter’s shortcomings, but rather, his “rock-ness”.

Do you imagine that Peter did not repent of his attempt to disuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem?

This is actually one of the best passages to demonstrate that infallibility does not equal impeccability.

IMO, I don’t think Peter had a clue why Jesus chastised Him, until after His death and Resurrection. It was perfectly natural to want to protect someone who you have given your whole life to, as Peter had done for Jesus.

How many of us, if we were in Peter’s shoes, would have done exactly the same thing?

 

[Mannyfit75]

This was spoken to whom? In what context? Come on, I know you know it. The bible is not a book of miscellaneous, unconnected anecdotes for everyone else to live by. It is a seamless garment, to be taken in it’s entirety.

If you still have both eyes, both hands and both feet, you cannot be Christian. Show me your amputations, and I will believe that you follow Christ.

Mark 9:43-48 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

Or, just maybe, is there a lesson here when applied in context? Man! You really dislike what you think the Catholic Church is! Too bad you do not know what it actually is.

Christ’s peace. But stop mutilating scripture, it offends both God and man.

God is more offended by the distortion of Scripture by those who use it out of context. We see this done by NCC a lot especially in these forums.

I know for certain there is only One Truth. Jesus Christ. He established only One Church not churches. Many of the Protestant sects teaches contradictory beliefs and it begs the question, which church is teaching the truth?

One can look back 2,000 yrs ago. The Jesus built his Church upon Peter. When the Apostles died, their authority was handed down to the bishops to first, second, third, fourth, fifth generation, so on and so forth. This Church battled Judaizers, Gnostics, Arianism, Nestorianism, and other heresy. This Church has four marks. It is One, It is Holy, it is Apostolic, and it is Catholic.

 

[Mannyfit75]

IMO, I don’t think Peter had a clue why Jesus chastised Him, until after His death and Resurrection. It was perfectly natural to want to protect someone who you have given your whole life to, as Peter had done for Jesus.

How many of us, if we were in Peter’s shoes, would have done exactly the same thing?

When we sin, Jesus might as well call us Satan. You know why Jesus called him Satan.

If you look at the entire context, Jesus explained himself to Peter why he called him Satan. "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

I think our NCC failed to look at the second sentence which Jesus spoke of. Remember, our ways are not God’s ways, and God’s ways are not man’s ways. I think if we were in Peter’s shoes, we would make the same mistake.

 

[po18guy]

God is more offended by the distortion of Scripture by those who use it out of context. We see this done by NCC a lot especially in these forums.

I know for certain there is only One Truth. Jesus Christ. He established only One Church not churches. Many of the Protestant sects teaches contradictory beliefs and it begs the question, which church is teaching the truth?

One can look back 2,000 yrs ago. The Jesus built his Church upon Peter. When the Apostles died, their authority was handed down to the bishops to first, second, third, fourth, fifth generation, so on and so forth. This Church battled Judaizers, Gnostics, Arianism, Nestorianism, and other heresy. This Church has four marks. It is One, It is Holy, it is Apostolic, and it is Catholic.

Amen, Manny! It is always good to hear from you, especially now that you are back on terra libre. I maintain that many NCC posters spend 50% of their life being anti-Catholic and 50% Christian. We have the blessing of loving Christ 100% of the time. And we have reconciliation for those times we fail to love Him as we should.

Christ’s peace.