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

[Church_Militant]

I think inturpretation of scripture is the main issue here,what I see from scripture tells me that the Catholic Church is wrong.

Yet it is directly from scripture that Catholics get their beliefs, and these same beliefs were held by the earliest Christians. If you disagree, who do you think is really correct.

The early church was taught by the apostles, who taught you your interpretations?

We are told not to comunicate with the dead,you say the saints in Heaven are not dead,and you are right,but technically no one is dead,

Hebrews 12:1 makes the communion of saints very clear. The Intercession & Communion of Saints.

Necromancy (consulting the dead to foretell the future) is a whole other thing.

So when you all can’t prove something from scripture,you say it was given to you orally

,that I can’t buy.Except that that very belief, that everything that Christians believe and practice (Sola Scriptura) has to be found in the Bible is not itself found in the Bible.

I know of very few things that have come down to us totally by oral tradition, and even those things have a Biblical basis.

So the problem for you is that you have bought into a errant new wind of doctrine of men that only came into being some 500 years ago.

You need to resolve that issue before going on to attempt to discern any of the other issues because it is the linchpin of and fundamental error in doctrine upon which virtually all other n-C doctrines are built.

 

[guanophore]

I am a forum moderator on that site

In that case, even more kudos to you for having the guts to come here and have dialogue with us. It is very impressive to find someone willing to do so, and try to have a civil discussion with “the enemy”

I am not protestant I am non denominational.

Well, sure you are! You have just not spent sufficient time on your family lineage to find out how so.

I think inturpretation of scripture is the main issue here,what I see from scripture tells me that the Catholic Church is wrong.

You know, I think you hit that nail on the head. When one is separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the writings, and tries to interpret them without the benefit of that light, one can come up with all kinds of wild conclusions.

We are told not to comunicate with the dead,you say the saints in Heaven are not dead,and you are right,but technically no one is dead,no one has even been judged,satan is the only one by name who has been.So when you all can’t prove something from scripture,you say it was given to you orally,that I can’t buy.

That’s ok, since it is not for sale!

Scripture was never intended to be a source of “proof” for anything. It was written by catholics, to support the faith of catholics. It is a testament, a witness, not a scientific treatise! The writers never dreamed that the followers of Christ would come to such a pass. For them, separation from the authority appointed by Christ amounted to placing oneself outside the Kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

Her husband, St. Joseph, certainly DID remain a virgin all of his life!!!

I don’t think this is supportable. On the contrary, Joseph may have been an older man, easily the age of Mary’s father, who already had grown children, and lost his previous wife, possibly in childbirth. In fact, in the East, the boy Jesus is depicted on the journey to Egypt with his parents and elders stepbrother James, who looks about 15.

A very important point that protestants do not pay attention to is this: the apostles, through their relationship with Jesus and Mary…and some of them had lifelong relationships because of their parents…such as James of Alpheus, knew Jesus and Mary not only as God their Savior, but also as a person. This enabled them to know intimate details of Their lives. And this enabled the Catholic Church to know intimate details also, through oral tradition.

Protestants are missing so much in their relationship with and worshipping of Christ Jesus by rejecting the cornerstone.
They have to do without so much more that Jesus has offered to us. I don’t say that they cannot have a knowledge or relationship with Jesus, but that it doesn’t have the fullness that the Catholic Church offers.

God bless
Cherie

I don’t think most Protestants reject the “cornerstone”. It is the foundation connected to it (successors of the Apostles) that they reject. On the contrary, I think they believe they only need the cornerstone to have the whole building.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I agree with no man,that does not agree with the Word of God which is the Holy Scriptures.When I say the flesh is evil,I mean that it is impossible to live in the flesh and not sin.

When you say Christ built His Church on a rock,Im I correct in saying that you mean Peter,if so that is false,for Christ is the Rock.

As for conflicting teachings,I don’t feel Ive posted any.

n2, then this verse from the Bible shall tell you exactly where you are wrong on SO many things. And, by your words above, you are bound to believe and follow it.

Matthew 16: 17-19" And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jo’na! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father Who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whaterver you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ ".

Jesus did not call Simon - Peter - for nothing. And He did not say, “I am the rock on which My church shall be built.” He said “you are Peter…which means rock…and upon THIS rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” He also gave Peter authority over His Church in the following verse when He gives him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and tells him that whatever he binds or looses on earth shall be bound or loosed in Heaven.

Some people will say that Jesus was talking about the verses before this, and stating that the rock was the statement that Jesus is the Christ. But Jesus did not say, “you are Peter, and on your words declaring Me Christ I will build my Church.” He said it about Simon, whom He renamed Peter. And it was given to Peter because Peter is the one who the Heavenly Father had revealed that Jesus is Christ.

It isn’t difficult to understand. 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

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Jesus was speaking of Himself, not Peter.

Matt 16:16-18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV
The specific words that are key to understanding this are “Peter” and “rock,” for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to “Peter” in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to “rock” is petra. Also, the word “rock” below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word “Peter” (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.

Matt 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV
Peter: Greek word #4074 Petros (pet’-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: KJV - Peter, rock. Compare NT:2786.

rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

(The definite article): Greek word #3588 ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc…

Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse.  Notice the definite article (tee -Grk. word #3588) preceding "rock":

 Also, the word "and" (between "Peter" and "upon") in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word "but" in the English.  This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood.  Observe:

and: Greek word #2532 kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: KJV - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra (“rock”), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. “Peter” (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra (translated “rock”) was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:
1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV
Rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

biblestudysite.com/answers26.htm#2

The translation of Peter is “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic equivalent. That’s Aramaic, which is what they spoke in the time of Jesus.

cherie

 

[n2thelight]

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?

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.

    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

How will the Roman Catholic foundation stand if proven that Peter was not a pope?

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?

 

[JLongoria]

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?

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.

    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

How will the Roman Catholic foundation stand if proven that Peter was not a pope?

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?

Oh come now, that same argument has been circling around since the Reformation!

All the Apostles taught in doctrinal unity with one another; St. Paul and St. Peter founded the Church in Rome, St. John in Asia, St. Phillip in other parts of the Mediterranean, and so on and so forth.

That Culdee Church argument is ludicrous, and untruthful. Firstly, if they were teaching anything other than what the other Apostles were teaching - which is what the Roman Catholic Church has always adhered to - then they were in dire heresy and were not in communion with the Church, and were among the first heretics in the Church much like the Judaizers.

Second, if the Church founded in ancient Ireland and Britain was led by a bishop who was not in unity with the rest of the Church, then that Church does certainly not reflect the true teachings of the rest of the Church.

Furthermore, if St. Paul decided to make Linus the bishop then, that has very much everything to do with the Roman Catholic Church. Let us not forget those two blessed Apostles who met their martyrdom in Rome for the sake of Christ’s Church.

 

[SD_Catholic]

How will the Roman Catholic foundation stand if proven that Peter was not a pope?

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.

Well that would be pretty amazing, since many have tried and failed… I think you would be wasting our’s and your time… but I’m sure you can reprove it to yourself though.

It would be very sincere of you to go back and answer the old questions:thumbsup: … especially before starting up a barrage of new ones. Everytime you say something different opposed to the CC you get hammered with questions which makes it nearly impossible for you to answer them all, and then when you jump to a new statement before answering all the Qs about the previous statement it seems quite evasive (even if it’s unintentional)…

Without posting another reply you probably have 2 weeks worth of material to hash through if you really study the info given to you… I absolutely respect you for hanging in there… this site will be here for awhile so don’t worry about getting all your concerns addressed in one thread

SD

 

[cfrancis]

N2, start by answering these:

N2, you have been very good answering several questions posed to you, but you have very conspicuously avoided this one:

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE ARE WE TOLD WHAT BOOKS BELONG IN SCRIPTURE?

asked another way,

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE ARE WE TOLD THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW IS INSPIRED AND THUS SCRIPTURE?

When asked the following questions, you answered:

1. Where did the Bible come from?

Originally Posted by n2thelight
1.God

 

[Lisdogan]

I think he is alone because precious few Protestants agree on all of the points he is making. Some may indeed agree with us more than him.

Another perception is that some come here with an air of superiority as far as theology goes. They rely 100% on the tiny portion of Christ’s life that was actually written down. Since the theology is razor thin, under fire it always draws back upon the “self-attesting” bible.

If only the bible would attest to the same things to two different Protestants!

Christ’s peace.

It does: to Protestants (so-called) and Catholics - all Christians - it says one thing, and all the rest is commentary (a quote from the Talmud):

Mark 12

Of all the commandments, which is the most important?

29 The most important one, answered Jesus, is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'

31 The second is this: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' *There is no commandment greater than these.*

This we all believe, without exception, and would that we remembered more often.

In Christ

 

[Lisdogan]

Lisdogan: One of the main struggles I see that both you and n2thelight might be having is the desire to reinvent the wheel. You don’t seem to want the things that we absolutely know are True, to stand on their own. Please allow me to explain:

About 25-50 posts ago you answered one of my posts with some very good questions and seeking clarification. I was unable to answer for 2 reasons. The first, being that the thread just moved on past them way too quickly. The second and more importantly is that it would have taken about 6 different threads to address your one post.

n2thelight is struggling with the same thing…hopping about from one topic to the next without really focusing on answering one single question. That is at the heart of both of your struggles. I can speak from experience because I was there once. I wanted to have all of the pieces fit right together in a picture I could comprehend, RIGHT NOW. You and n2thelight are showing the two ways this is done. 1. buying into everything that comes done the pike that fits a preconceived notion, or 2. questioning everything that comes by and settling on nothing as Truth.

We are trying to get to the heart of why n2 believes what he believes. At the same time we are trying to get to the heart of why you don’t believe what you don’t believe.

My advice, for the $.02 it is worth is: slow down and focus! Don’t keep looping around asking questions that you have not defined for yourself. Explain why you are asking a question and ask just one question. This thread has a question in the subject line. I find myself more likely to join a thread that asks a question right up front. I answered n2thelight’s question:

“Christ taught the things that come down to us through Sacred Tradition. I am sure He taught it because He founded ONE Church, and the Church can stand alone without it’s members being able to read Scripture.”

One topic at a time. If you can keep things focused and on topic, I would be happy to address your questions from waaaaay back in this thread. Start a thread asking one question and stick to it. I will join if you PM me.

Whew Long-winded LittleDeb strikes again!

Thanks. I have been received into the Catholic Church in Pretoria South Africa 30 June 2008. I have attended mass daily for four years. I have done all the things I am supposed to do and more: retreats, reading Nouwen, Nolan, Vanier, Merton (and even Borg and Crossan on the first Christmas nochal), read a lot of the New Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality etc, struggled with CCC, worked and laughed with my mentors, prayed through music, contemplation, meditation etc. I am actually an anti-authoritarian anarchist liberal Protestant-Catholic. (Sorry for that.)

I am grateful that you kept my questions in mind. But you raised many issues with which, yes, I took issue because you, as a Catholic, are so sure that there is only one Truth, and that is the Catholic Truth. This I find sticks in my craw: I am a Canadian who has lived internationally for the last forty years. And perhaps my learning from a variety of different faiths in different contexts suggests to me that it is hard, very hard, to talk in black and white about faith, belief, godheads, divinity etc.

I have chosen to join the Catholic Church for many reasons. That does not prevent me from thinking about and making choices about what I prefer to have at the top of my particular pile of beliefs. I think that every Christian - even every Catholic - prepares a bag of beliefs collected from here and there in a life growing up as a Christian. Every bag will have different bits of belief, morsels that are preferred to other bits. Some put the Virgin at the top of the heap; others put the Eucharist; others the Resurrection; others Jesus of Nazareth. So we all come at this Mystery from different perspectives. The Church has been magnificent in preserving the traditions of the church, and interpreting the scriptures and traditions, in keeping alive this faith. But that does not prevent one from thinking, contemplating, and choosing throughout the course of a lifetime. I look forward to it.

And don’t worry about the questions: they are on my research list (am I a grey matter convert?) and I will move along with my mentors and my books.

Bless you and thank you,

In Christ

 

[Lisdogan]

I have the same problem finding relevant material in it. Sometimes I am sure where I read something, then cannot find. I use a searchable version, which helps.

 

[Lisdogan]

Thank you for this thoughtful reply to a long post. Just a couple of points, mainly of clarification:

The Church does teach that one who willfully refuses God separates themselves from the graces only by which they can be saved. However, what “heard the message of Christ” means may be a matter of debate.

 

[mercygate]

Matthew 9:8 “But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, Which had given such power unto men.”

“Unto men” reads in the original text, “unto a man”.

No man can forgive your sins,period.

What “original text” are you referring to? In Greek it is “tois anthropois” – to men. Sorry; I don’t have a Greek font.

As for no man forgiving sins, others have addressed the Scriptural mandate for confessing “to men”. But let me also assure you that “only God” is the author of forgiveness. What the priest does in confession, he does by the power of the Holy Spirit (I Jn 20:23) as Paul did in reconciling the incestuous man (quoting from the KJV): (2 Cor. 2:10) “If I forgave any thing, . . . forgave I it in the person of Christ.”

 

[mercygate]

Again please give scripture or post # and I will prove you wrong,because what you are saying is that you don’t need Christ,and that He died in vain.

Correct me if Im wrong,but are you saying that you can ask a priest to forgive you,without asking Christ and you are forgiven?

If thats the case,why did Christ need to die on the cross?

Let me ask you this. When you wrote that question “are you saying that you can ask a priest to forgive you, without asking Christ and you are forgiven?”], did it seem reasonable to you that when we come to Confession, Jesus leaves the room?

Even the usual formula (convenient but not required) for confession begins, “I confess to Almighty God . . . *and *to you, Father . . .”

As for your mediator/mediatrix problem, this is a terminology problem. The unique mediation of Christ is not the same as the mediating people do on behalf of one another in a courtroom. Jesus is not an arbitrator. His mediation is via the hypostatic union – the union of his perfect humanity with his divinity in one divine Person.

The mediation of Our Lady is subsidiary in that she is completely and totally human. She ‘mediated’ divinity by her “yes” to the Angel and by becoming the mother of Our Lord. Divinity took on her flesh.

In a sense we are all “mediators” for one another when, as members of Christ’s body, we intercede for one another. But this is completely different in character from the unique mediation of Christ, who has elevated humanity to the right hand of the Father at his Ascension.

 

[mercygate]

Lis, please take a minute to figure out the “quote” feature. I can’t follow you.

 

[mercygate]

He uses the only authentic Bible available, the 1600 KJV.

Nope. KJV has “But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” At least the University of Michigan on line version has it that way.

 

[mercygate]

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?

What do you mean by “pope?” The name “pope” did not appear for a couple of hundred years. It means “papa” --father. ALL bishops (elders) were called fathers as you can see in John’s first letter. The authority of the papacy derives from and developed out of the unique primacy of Peter among the 12. The papacy, as it exists today, is a perfectly legitimate development and outgrowth of the original seed. The spiritual headship of the Church has not changed, nor has the New Testament order of bishops, priests [presbyters] and deacons.

Also, are you aware of the Church that Joseph of Arimathaea founded which many believe to be the first

I am aware of the legend of the Glastonbury foundation. Highly spurious and nowadays a very big headache for the abbey church there with all the looney new-agers crawling all over the place. Any church planted by Joseph of Arimathea would have been in communion with the other churches and part of the one, holy, Apostolic Church.

"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.

It is true that when Augustine of Canterbury arrived, he found Christians in Britain. Adjustments had to be made in order to bring their practice in line with the rest of the Christian world.

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

I have a friend who is a big enthusiast for the British Israel legend and the “true” Church of Britain, for which there is just about ZERO support. The records were “destroyed?” Handy, that.

How will the Roman Catholic foundation stand if proven that Peter was not a pope?

I’m not shakng in my shoes over the British Israel threat. :whacky:

We don’t have to “prove” that Peter was “pope.” He was an apostle and Bishop of Rome. The pope is a bishop. He has spiritual and administrative primacy in the church, but he is still a bishop. Peter died in Rome. As the centerpiece of the Apostolic band, his unique position inheres in Our Lord’s command to “strengthen your brethren.” If the city of Rome were to be blown off the face of the planet, the legitimate bishops of the Church would gather in conclave and elect a successor who would then become the Bishop of Rome and thereby “Pope.”

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.

Before you knock yourself out, tell us what you mean by “pope.”

 

[JLongoria]

Before you knock yourself out, tell us what you mean by “pope.”

I’m really looking forward to this enormous epiphany all us error-prone Catholics are going to have when he gives us this irrefutible proof of how wrong we’ve been for 2000 years .

By the way mercygate, I really enjoy reading your posts. Keep up the good work .

 

[mercygate]

I’m really looking forward to this enormous epiphany all us error-prone Catholics are going to have when he gives us this irrefutible proof of how wrong we’ve been for 2000 years .

By the way mercygate, I really enjoy reading your posts. Keep up the good work .

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.”