# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

OK. We did the assumption the original model, the apostolic model is there.

Now we’ll have to see whether our assumption can resist Ed’s powerful broadsides.

But before that, just rest there a few minutes. Isn’t it everything simpler, from this new point of view ? We’re just assuming Christ’s original model was not a failure.

We do not have to establish what failed, why, when, as all the Eds and Freds have to, or at least should.
We do not have to work out ideas about faithful remnants, where they are or with whom they merged … We do not have to propose church resurrections, resuscitations, to detect which denomination preaches the soundest faith. No more teachers teaching us we do not need any teacher…

Just breath, and live for a while this new linearity. His Church coming from Him to us.

And after these new, intense moments…let Ed and Fred now open the fire, and let us see, whether Soc and his virtual friends here can resist.

In Christ
P7

Yes, it certainly makes things easy to stop worrying about what is true and just believe!

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, it certainly makes things easy to stop worrying about what is true and just believe!

Soc, if things that have been revealed were completely open to our understanding, Paul would not have said this when talking about the spirit of deceit in 2nd Thessalonians

2nd Thessalonians
2:8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2:9: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2:10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

So it is the spirit of wickedness that leads us to believe lies.

2:13: But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
2:14: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Notice this last sentence and the word “Therefore” and ask yourself, what is it there for? We are to obey the traditions passed on through the apostles because…

1 John

4:6: We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us;** he that is not of God heareth not us.** Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Again and again it is obedience that is called for, not huge socratic discourses:

1st Peter

1:22: Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

1st Thessalonians
2:13: For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The teacher of this truth is God through means of the apostles and their successors.

1st Timothy
3:15: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Now, I am not accusing you of not desiring the truth, but consider this: Are we meant to be constantly debating the nature of the truth God has revealed to us? Or are we meant to obey the truth once given? Then after that obedience is rendered, it becomes a matter of Faith seeking understanding? Otherwise, aren’t we at risk of becoming like this:

1st Timothy
6:5: Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Again, ask yourself who is the custodian of truth? Is it you? Or was it the apostles only? They certainly taught doctrine.

2 John
1:1: The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
1:2: For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
1:3: Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
1:4: I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
1:6: And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
1:7: For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
1:8: Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
1:9: Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the **doctrine **of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
1:10: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
1:11: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Notice in 2nd Thessalonians, Paul to not ask us to understand all that is given for us to believe. But simply to believe what is given through the apostles.

2:13: But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Continued

 

[utunumsint]

Yes, we must study:

2nd Timothy
2:15: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But we should also avoid this:

2:16: But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
3:7: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Notice also this from 2nd Timothy

3:8: Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

These men refused to obey Moses and so were resisting the truth. Do not be like them.

Hebrews 13:7: Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
13:8: Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
13:9: Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.

The reason we must submit is that within revelation, there are mysteries, that defy our ability to understand. Now if a mystery is beyond our understanding, it can be easily distorted.One such mystery is the Eucharist.

We are called to obey, in such cases.

3:9: Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

God bless,
Ut

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Gmorning Soc!

I think this has to do with the inherent limitations of language, and even more so for translated languages, and superlatively more so, for translated dead languages. The Gospels were written at least 40 plus years after the death of Christ in a language that Jesus probably did not use in his preaching (i.e. Greek versus Aramaic, except for a possible proto-Matthew which no longer exists). All of these factors take us out of Christ’s immediate context, making it very difficult to settle such disputes in a compelling and obvious way (at least given someone with enough of a motivation to dispute alternate meanings to these passages).

[SIGN]So to answer your question, these issues would not have been ambigous to Jesus, or to the Apostles who could ask Jesus to clarify his meaning, who spoke the language of Christ, and who were his hearers and witnesses from the beginning to the end of his ministry. [/SIGN]
Did Jesus know his words would cause division? Yes. I believe he knew human nature. Both he and the apostles after him had to know that there would be divisions in the church, divisions in interpretation of his words, and divisions in authority. But I don’t think it follows that he intended such divisions.

I hate to bring this up to even further muddy the waters, but we haven’t considered the issue that only John 6 reports Christ’s eucharistic dialogue. And only Matthew 16 reports Christ making Peter the rock and handing him the keys, and binding and loosing authority. Luke does not report these passages, and neither does Marc or John even though Marc and Luke do report a version of it.

Does this make scripture untrustworthy or inconsistent? I don’t believe so. I think you have to apply the principles of good historical criticism. Matthew was most likely written for a Jewish context. The things he reports Jesus saying would have been very relavent to a Jewish church. Marc and Luke are writing for more Greek and Hellenistic cultures, so they don’t include references to things like keys and rocks which would have only confused Greek hearers. Their theological emphasis was different. In a sense, guided by the Holy Spirit, they brought the word to their hearers in a way in which they could bear it and understand it.

In my opinion, this does not invalidate their message, or the words of Christ. I believe fully that Matthew reports those parts of Christ’s dialogue with Peter that would be relavant to a Jewish crowd, and I believe that Luke and Marc did the same for their audience.

God bless,
Ut

There is still no better answer than this. It sums it up in the nutshell:thumbsup:

The Apostles all agreed on the word of God because the had the power of the HS. Thats why the CC all agrees on the word of God. Same Power Same HS.

 

[fhansen]

I think Evangelical Ed’s pastor would end the sermon differently, and perhaps something like this:
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. …
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:19-26)

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Phil 3:7-11

Is this “righteousness that comes from God” merely an imputed righteousness? No, it’s a genuine one, but one that comes from God rather than from mere observance of the laws-which could only be a righteousness of my own.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:12-14

The man-Paul-who wrote this also wrote Galatians 3:19-26. Is he saying here that he lacks faith?

It’s funny- I was dialoging recently with a fellow who was quite anti-Christian and who maintained, going by Jesus’ words in the NT, that He never meant to start a new religion or new covenant and was simply a solid Jew who knew His faith well in the Pharisaical tradition and so fully supported the old covenant. And that a man named Paul (really a Jew-hating Gentile) came along 30 years later and twisted the whole thing into a new religion called Christianity, based on Hellenistic thought and mythology-so different were the concepts purportedly expressed by the two men. Now while it’s a huge stretch to say that Jesus and Paul were saying almost opposite things, the fact that Paul, in some of his letters, emphasized the role of faith over against the Law so strongly in order to combat the legalism that humans fall prey to so readily, while Jesus said much to cause one to think He still demanded obedience to the Law, can make agreement between them appear to be, well, perhaps somewhat ambiguous at times. But faith in any case is extremely important-it’s the beginning of mans restored relationship with God.

Maybe this should be obvious but there’s a reason why mans’ believing in God is held to be so imperative. When Adam & Eve sinned, they lost faith in God-and with them mankind lost faith in God- because when one no longer trusts in the authority of another, rightly or wrongly, then the other is no longer authoritative in their life- i.e. God was no longer the god of them. And He allowed them this freedom, the freedom to make this unwise choice. So man finds himself in a world effectively without God, where his own will, along with that of others, reigns, and the disorder we observe is the result.

(cont)

 

[fhansen]

(cont)

But is faith, by itself, really enough? Or if God desires to save us with no role for us to play, why is even our faith required? No one believes we’re saved by faith because they know we’re saved by God, faith being an instrument He uses because it’s the most basic right disposition of God’s creation towards Him. But faith, as James points out, is dead without works. So then we must come up with a way to distinguish between dead faith and saving faith. But “saving faith” then is forced to take on a broader range of meaning- becoming a faith that necessarily produces fruit. The CC recognized long ago that faith alone does not save and that God is after something deeper in us than that. The law doesn’t save either because “the law made nothing perfect” Heb 7:19. But even this still implies that perfection is the goal.

Adam & Eve lacked something else, originally, than just faith because they certainly believed in God before they sinned. They determined that there was hope for greater happiness to be found outside of following God’s will and they did not yet know the value of love-the value of Him and the need *for *Him in order for goodness, harmony, and happiness to be attainable. Laws prescribed the way man “should be”-or at least should look, if he were to be holy, IOW to be who God created him to be, but they were only laws, which would be unnecessary to begin with if man were not already out-of-sync in some capacity. They were commandments of God rather than God, Himself, which is what man needed. This is why the prophet Jeremiah says,

**10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3

The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 1John 4

The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Gal 5:6**

It was the rejection of God, not just by not believing in Him but by not loving Him-that caused man to break the laws to begin with. Because love *always *implies faith while faith can exist without love. And loves fulfills the law, not faith. For man to love God is justice itself, and He can be satisfied with nothing less. Why should we be either? Growing in justice by being perfected in love and living our lives accordingly is Gods way, so St John of the Cross says:

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love

Not judged on an imputed righteousness, attained by faith, but on our love, and all that implies.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Is this what you believe? I wouldn’t attempt to find a better meaning of our Lord’s words. I simply believe Him. Ed [SIGN]insists that Jesus rose His church from the dead with the protestant reformation[/SIGN]; Jesus used the reformation to revive His one church; again, please identify Jesus’ one revived church, stemming from the reformation, that “has one common set of core beliefs. Many churches–one in belief and purpose.”

Good questions! Not sure how Evangelical Ed would answer.



Does this even make sense to anyone? Did Jesus not said I am the Church.

n eph 5:25 Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she might be holy without blemish.

Now here is what I am hearing. Jesus died for the Church, became the Church and then left the Church? Is that what they are trying to say. IF so not only do I disagree, scripture sure does too.

 

[DerekD]

Introduction:

It’s a question that has haunted me, and something i’ve just got to know: Was Jesus intentionally ambiguous? I mean, when i read this,And [Jesus] took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

Catholics tell me He meant this,“This is [actually] my [actual] body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)
but Protestants tell me He meant this,“This is [like] my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

(Luke 22:19)

And when i ask the meaning of this,Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

(John 19:25-27)

Catholics tell me He meant this,“Here is your mother [and the mother of all Catholics].”
but Protestants tell me He meant this,“Here is your [adopted] mother [who I want you to treat as though she is your own, even though she is not].”

And when i ask the meaning of this, When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:13-19)

Catholics say He meant this,“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] I will build my church…”
but Protestants tell me He meant this,“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this [truth that I am the Son of God] I will build my church…”

---

Some Observations:

I find three things extremely curious about this:1. The passages that appear ambiguous are those about which Protestants and Catholic disagree. One might say they together are a cause of the Protestant Reformation!

1. The devil and demons (if they exists) are using such passages to continue the division between Catholics and Protestants.
2. Jesus (who is omniscient, and knew the future) could have chose His words more carefully and put a stop to all of the confusion and lack of unity before it began, but He did not.

---

The goal of this dialog:

You might find this odd, but my purpose is NOT to determine what Christ actually meant. (I suppose that would take many hundreds of posts and split this topic many times over, causing the Forum Moderator to pull out his hair!) I’m not opposed to discussing what Christ meant, as it relates to the reason for the apparent ambiguity of His words, but what He meant is not the truth i’m seeking at the moment. I’ve discussed what He meant in other discussion threads at length, only to come to the conclusion that Protestants and Catholics really have good reason to disagree, due to Christ’s ambiguity, which has deceived one group or the other.

My actual purpose is to find out whether Christ was ***deliberately ***ambiguous, and if He was, then what purpose would be served by making the New Testament ambiguous by design. Such ambiguity seems counter productive to His purpose, for He prayed:“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.”

(John 17:11)

It is not ambiguous; you need to dig deeper into the Word, assuming you are saved. If you are not you will not be able to understand because the Holy Spirit is the one that leads individuals to know and understand the things of God as the bible states.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

Job 28:28 "And to man He said, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; And to depart from evil is understanding.’ "

Connect Job 28 with the following (Job 38) and you can see that salvation is all of God and nothing of man - faith by itself.
Job 38:36 "Who has put wisdom in the innermost being Or given understanding to the mind? Answer; God and He alone.

This verse is packed full of theology. Wisdom - fear the Lord; this is the heart of reverance for God, the saved heart. Understanding; departing from evil unto righteousness, which is obedience. With wisdom one finds the Savior and by understanding, one treats Him as Lord. He is both Lord and Savior or He does not know you.

1Tim. 6:17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Well, you might think Mr. Ed is a horse’s arse (and yes, sometimes he does affectionately call me Wilbur)! But to be fair to him, he is quite creative. I mean, you are a bright fellow, P7, as are the other participants in this discussion. Yet none of you have tried to argue that [SIGN]the gates of Ha[/SIGN]des http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/images/01/not-equal-to.gif death

This being the case, his line of reasoning is possible, if not provable.

http://cache.deadspin.com/images/2006/05/mr.Ed.jpg

Also I am sorry I didn’t read all of this thread. But the gates of hades is indeed death. BUt that is what God said the death of an Apostles will never end the Church. The Apostolic succession will live on through what we call Holy Orders. It will succeed until Jesus comes again in glory. The RCC will alway be led by the HS through the Apostles in succession which is the Pope and Bishops and can be traced and proved in history.

 

[paul_c]

It is not ambiguous; you need to dig deeper into the Word, assuming you are saved. If you are not you will not be able to understand because the Holy Spirit is the one that leads individuals to know and understand the things of God as the bible states.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

Job 28:28 "And to man He said, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; And to depart from evil is understanding.’ "

Connect Job 28 with the following (Job 38) and you can see that salvation is all of God and nothing of man - faith by itself.
Job 38:36 "Who has put wisdom in the innermost being Or given understanding to the mind? Answer; God and He alone.

This verse is packed full of theology. Wisdom - fear the Lord; this is the heart of reverance for God, the saved heart. Understanding; departing from evil unto righteousness, which is obedience. With wisdom one finds the Savior and by understanding, one treats Him as Lord. He is both Lord and Savior or He does not know you.

1Tim. 6:17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

Derek,
While I agree that Salvation is a gift from God, we must cooperate with it to be saved. We are called to be holy as the Lord is holy. Do you recognize that?

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Soc, you said:

That does not answer the objection of Protestants that the Catholic religion has become a man-made one and the real God-made religion is Protestantism.

Proof is in the pudding. Another claim I often made as a former Lutheran, but with very little follow up, for I could not back it up. Every non-Catholic church was built on the foundation of the reformers, as opposed to the Apostles. This is a historical fact. If the real God-man church is one of the protestant churches, then show me historically, where one of these churches can be found, prior to the protestant reformation? As I said before: give me the name of any protestant church and I can give you the name of the man who established it, and when, and the date will not precede the 16th century.

I’ve heard claims such as: the Arian movement (denied the trinity) - or the Nestorian movement (believed that God was not man) - and many other groups were the true churches built by God, and that the apostolic Church was Protestant, but zero proof for such outlandish claims. Clearly heretical movements such as these do not count; the C.C. still pre-dates these movements:

Montanists, Donatusists, Paulicans, Catharists, Waldenese, Nestorian, Bogomil, Bohemian Brethren, West Deutsche Brethren, Anabaptists, Heuguenots, Moravian Brethren, Arianism, Donatists, Manichaeism, Marcion, Nestorianism, Pelagianism.

Furthermore, if the C.C. is a man-made church, as so many protestant churches suggest, could you please give me the name of the man who established it, and when? This was crucial to me becoming a catholic.

---

Soc, you said:

Yes, i see what you mean. So, will you give me the name of the man that built the C.C.? This was my starting point.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Soc, you said:

That does not answer the objection of Protestants that the Catholic religion has become a man-made one and the real God-made religion is Protestantism.

Proof is in the pudding. Another claim I often made as a former Lutheran, but with very little follow up, for I could not back it up. Every non-Catholic church was built on the foundation of the reformers, as opposed to the Apostles. This is a historical fact. If the real God-man church is one of the protestant churches, then show me historically, where one of these churches can be found, prior to the protestant reformation? As I said before: give me the name of any protestant church and I can give you the name of the man who established it, and when, and the date will not precede the 16th century.

I’ve heard claims such as: the Arian movement (denied the trinity) - or the Nestorian movement (believed that God was not man) - and many other groups were the true churches built by God, and that the apostolic Church was Protestant, but zero proof for such outlandish claims. Clearly heretical movements such as these do not count; the C.C. still pre-dates these movements:

Montanists, Donatusists, Paulicans, Catharists, Waldenese, Nestorian, Bogomil, Bohemian Brethren, West Deutsche Brethren, Anabaptists, Heuguenots, Moravian Brethren, Arianism, Donatists, Manichaeism, Marcion, Nestorianism, Pelagianism.

Furthermore, if the C.C. is a man-made church, as so many protestant churches suggest, could you please give me the name of the man who established it, and when? This was crucial to me becoming a catholic.

---

Soc, you said:

Yes, i see what you mean. [SIGN]So, will you give me the name of the man that built the C.C.? [/SIGN]This was my starting point.

Joe! This is priceless! I hope you don’t mind if I steal it from time to time. I can’t wait to hear what responses you get to this one.

 

[DerekD]

Derek,
While I agree that Salvation is a gift from God, we must cooperate with it to be saved. We are called to be holy as the Lord is holy. Do you recognize that?

Hi Paul,

I do not ascribe to a “works-based” theology because it is not taught in the Bible. Any works that are done with a heart for God’s glory is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer. In a simalar way the work of writing the bible was done on the basis of the holy Spirit working through the prophets and apostles.

I understand you do not believe in justification before God by faith alone; even though it is very explicit & all over the NT & OT; yet you don’t see the word “alone” therefore it is foolishness to you. This is in part because you hold a view that you must “do something” to have salvation and do even more to keep it.

 

[DerekD]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Soc, you said:

That does not answer the objection of Protestants that the Catholic religion has become a man-made one and the real God-made religion is Protestantism.

Proof is in the pudding. Another claim I often made as a former Lutheran, but with very little follow up, for I could not back it up. Every non-Catholic church was built on the foundation of the reformers, as opposed to the Apostles. This is a historical fact. If the real God-man church is one of the protestant churches, then show me historically, where one of these churches can be found, prior to the protestant reformation? As I said before: give me the name of any protestant church and I can give you the name of the man who established it, and when, and the date will not precede the 16th century.

I’ve heard claims such as: the Arian movement (denied the trinity) - or the Nestorian movement (believed that God was not man) - and many other groups were the true churches built by God, and that the apostolic Church was Protestant, but zero proof for such outlandish claims. Clearly heretical movements such as these do not count; the C.C. still pre-dates these movements:

Montanists, Donatusists, Paulicans, Catharists, Waldenese, Nestorian, Bogomil, Bohemian Brethren, West Deutsche Brethren, Anabaptists, Heuguenots, Moravian Brethren, Arianism, Donatists, Manichaeism, Marcion, Nestorianism, Pelagianism.

Furthermore, if the C.C. is a man-made church, as so many protestant churches suggest, could you please give me the name of the man who established it, and when? This was crucial to me becoming a catholic.

---

Soc, you said:

Yes, i see what you mean. So, will you give me the name of the man that built the C.C.? This was my starting point.

Hi Joe,

Excuse me for putting my 2 cents in here, but I beg to differ; the reformers brought back the purity of the gospel that was perverted by legalism. It is history repeating itself as the NT clearly demonstrates that legalism was pervasive among the Jews and the Jewish converts and had to be and continues to this day to be a problem.

To make a cliam that your church has been around 2 thousand years means little to nothing in the sight of God. That would be 2 days in His book.

God is not a respector of anyone and His church has been around phiscally since the day of Pentecost and spiritually since before the foundation of the world; long before there was a Catholic Church.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Joe,

Excuse me for putting my 2 cents in here, but I beg to differ; the reformers brought back the purity of the gospel that was perverted by legalism. It is history repeating itself as the NT clearly demonstrates that legalism was pervasive among the Jews and the Jewish converts and had to be and continues to this day to be a problem.

To make a cliam that your church has been around 2 thousand years means little to nothing in the sight of God. That would be 2 days in His book.

God is not a respector of anyone and His church has been around phiscally since the day of Pentecost and spiritually since before the foundation of the world; long before there was a Catholic Church.

If this is true why did Jesus Christ establish the CC. Why was there never a church before Pentecost. His Church on earth was never established before Pentecost. If it was where was it?

And if I may add the RCC is not led by the Jews and the Jewish converts it is led by the Advocate the Holy Spirit. Big fat difference there.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Hi Paul,

I do not ascribe to a “works-based” theology because it is not taught in the Bible. Any works that are done with a heart for God’s glory is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer. In a simalar way the work of writing the bible was done on the basis of the holy Spirit working through the prophets and apostles.

I understand you do not believe in justification before God by faith alone; even though it is very explicit & all over the NT & OT; [SIGN]yet you don’t see the word “alone” therefore it is foolishness to you. [/SIGN]This is in part because you hold a view that you must “do something” to have salvation and do even more to keep it.

That among faith without works is fruitless.

Not to mention Mat 7:21 like 6:46 rom 2:6-8
Rom 2:13
Heb 10:26-27
Jas 2:14
Jas 2:17 Jas 2;18-20 Jas 2;24

Just to get you started.

Yes we do have to do something to keep it. Its called the ten commandments. What do you think that they like just fell off the face of the bible or what.

How about Love one another. Is that a work.

Honor you Father and Mother. Is that a work.

Confess your sins is that not a work. I could go on forever.

 

[DerekD]

If this is true why did Jesus Christ establish the CC. Why was there never a church before Pentecost. His Church on earth was never established before Pentecost. If it was where was it?

And if I may add the RCC is not led by the Jews and the Jewish converts it is led by the Advocate the Holy Spirit. Big fat difference there.

See if you can back you statements from Scripture; then you have some footing. You seem to suggest the physical church was “before” the day of pentecost. Since the elect of God are the true church of God; all of them were and are predestined before the foundation of the earth. I can easily support my position from scripture by citing ACTS 1 Thes eph and galatians, but you will be hard pressed to find any Biblical support.

I thought the CC was lead by the Pope???

 

[clmowry]

It might be a good idea to reserve the remaining 85 posts left on this thread for Soc and the subject at hand.

Chuck

 

[davidv]

See if you can back you statements from Scripture; then you have some footing. You seem to suggest the physical church was “before” the day of pentecost. Since the elect of God are the true church of God; all of them were and are predestined before the foundation of the earth. I can easily support my position from scripture by citing ACTS 1 Thes eph and galatians, but you will be hard pressed to find any Biblical support.

Scriptural support has been provided. It has been rejected out of hand.

I thought the CC was lead by the Pope???

You are only partially correct.
Christ is the head of the Church, the King.
He has appointed a representative, the Pope, to be the visible head of the Church until He returns.

 

[rinnie]

See if you can back you statements from Scripture; then you have some footing. You seem to suggest the physical church was “before” the day of pentecost. Since the elect of God are the true church of God; all of them were and are predestined before the foundation of the earth. I can easily support my position from scripture by citing ACTS 1 Thes eph and galatians, but you will be hard pressed to find any Biblical support.

I thought the CC was lead by the Pope???

Well see it just goes to show your ignorance for the Catholic faith. The RCC is led by the Power of the Holy Spirit. The Pope is just a human like anyone else in this world and can sin and make mistakes.

The only Power the Pope has or will ever have is given to him from above from God. All the Pope has is the authority to teach and be the Father figure to the household of the faith Is 22;21.

To lead and guide the flock John 21:15-17

To say that the RCC is led by the Pope is not true. The Catholic Church is led THROUGH the Pope by the Power of the Holy Spirit.