What does 'Church no, Jesus yes' mean?

[CopticChristian]

I’d like to answer that because I got a brilliant idea!

God the Father - Prophets - Jesus - Apostles - Catholic Church - Martin Luther (as he was a monk) - Calvin/Zwingli (weren’t they not also clergy?) - Anabaptists (as far as I know one of the founders of the Anabaptists movement in Switzerland was a former Catholic priest) - Baptists - Pentecostals.

That’s the tree from where the authority is from!

And I listed only what you Catholics call “seperated brothers in Christ” not heresies or cults. (Did I speak with you, prodigal, about the German term “Sekte” and the English word “sect”, or was it someone else?)

I love this analogy. The family tree of authority. It should match up with Scripture.

7Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. 8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Paul was given the grace, he did not do it alone, to preach the Mystery, the Church by which the manifold wisdom of God would be known not only to the World but the angels.

Now with your family tree of authority give me a few of the revealed truths that this family tree agrees on from the beginning to the end so that the angels in heaven can say, YUP thas it!

 

[CopticChristian]

There is a quote by Pope Benedict that says (READ BELOW). I was wondering what does ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ mean?

I’ve heard that many fundamentalist Protestants believe in a ‘just me and Jesus’ religion. I believe that without the Catholic Church the probability of my salvation wouldn’t be very high. So what is this so-called ‘just me and Jesus’ religion?

This is an echo from the 16th century…

denial of Church authority, salvation by Faith alone, sola scriptura, denial that The One Holy Catholic Church is the Church of the living God. It is tantamount to saying that Jesus is first and foremost in my relationship…the Church is not important…kinda ignores…The Church is the Body of Christ…having a relationship? We are its members he is the head. Ask your friend where he and his Jesus/yes people meet…then remind him that many Protestants tell you that where 2 or more are gathered is the church to them?

 

[jmcrae]

That is circular reasoning and very much dependent on the unknown, i.e.is it not a fact that there is no scriptual, or secular writing that proves that Peter was ever in Rome, and so could not have been the Bishop of Rome? I so dearly wish that there was, but there you are. Please tell me that I’m wrong.

Protector.

You’re wrong.The Early Fathers wrote quite extensively about St. Peter’s time in Rome. Eusebius has something like three chapters on this period of Church development.

 

[akshay]

There is a quote by Pope Benedict that says (READ BELOW). I was wondering what does ‘Church no, Jesus yes’ mean?

I’ve heard that many fundamentalist Protestants believe in a ‘just me and Jesus’ religion. I believe that without the Catholic Church the probability of my salvation wouldn’t be very high. So what is this so-called ‘just me and Jesus’ religion?

When a sentence is uttered it has some meaning. Why? If the speaker is ok and educated. One must know the policy of reading between lines.Like, when it is said Sabbath is for mankind and not vice-verse- it is rejecting the idea of supremacy of ritualism. Every rituals, religion is for the welfare of human beings.We were not made for them. They are made for us.
On this ground see the above statement. When Jesus threw the merchandise from the synagogue - he clearly wanted to keep the purity of the place.Then only vibration will remain pure and divine. Here church is not neglected but commercialization or marketing activities carried in its name is rejected and opposed.
Covert yr home in church and run like that. Do not convert the church in a market place. It is said Kingdom of heaven is within you - It clearly signifies the importance of internal purification.In the name of religion and spirituality we are converting them in an industry. Jesus gave his physical body for the mass It is important to understand his words.

 

[akshay]

When a sentence is uttered it has some meaning. Why? If the speaker is ok and educated. One must know the policy of reading between lines.Like, when it is said Sabbath is for mankind and not vice-verse- it is rejecting the idea of supremacy of ritualism. Every rituals, religion is for the welfare of human beings.We were not made for them. They are made for us.
On this ground see the above statement. When Jesus threw the merchandise from the synagogue - he clearly wanted to keep the purity of the place.Then only vibration will remain pure and divine. Here church is not neglected but commercialization or marketing activities carried in its name is rejected and opposed.
Covert yr home in church and run like that. Do not convert the church in a market place. It is said Kingdom of heaven is within you - It clearly signifies the importance of internal purification.In the name of religion and spirituality we are converting them in an industry. Jesus gave his physical body for the mass It is important to understand his words.
Akshay is not brainy like u all but do follow that when a reputed person says it has inner meaning.

 

[Esdra]

I love this analogy. The family tree of authority. It should match up with Scripture.



Paul was given the grace, he did not do it alone, to preach the Mystery, the Church by which the manifold wisdom of God would be known not only to the World but the angels.

Now with your family tree of authority give me a few of the revealed truths that this family tree agrees on from the beginning to the end so that the angels in heaven can say, YUP thas it!

Hi

okay, I think it’s really great that you like my anology, but somehow I don’t get your post.

I mean, I don’t know what you want to say me with Ephesians 3:7-9
and what your sentence below the bible quote has to do with my anaolgy tree…
Furthermore I don’t get your question that I should give you revealed truths that all these Churches on my tree agree on…

Either I am too tired to read and understand English at the moment (it’s 10:33 pm here - CET), or you were tired or so when you wrote it and have written this post a little bit complicated…

Right, I’ll have a look at this post tomorrow again, and hopefully I’ll be fitter again and get what you want to tell me. (;

in Christ,

 

[Protector]

You’re wrong.The Early Fathers wrote quite extensively about St. Peter’s time in Rome. Eusebius has something like three chapters on this period of Church development.

Thank you so much, I stand corrected. 'though it is not unreasonable to expect that such an auspicious event would have rated a mention in the Scriptures don’t you think. Nevertheless, you have supplied the required information. Thanks also, to the other poster that did so.

Protector.

 

[traillius]

How one can reasonably separate Jesus from his Visible Church is beyond me. Yes it can and does happen, but its done so outside of reason. At least that is my conclusion based on all available evidence.

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you so much, I stand corrected. 'though it is not unreasonable to expect that such an auspicious event would have rated a mention in the Scriptures don’t you think.

The Book of Acts ends at the final imprisonment of St. Paul, which was about a year before St. Peter went to Rome.

Why St. Luke stopped writing at that point, I don’t really know - I’m sure there are scholars who could shed light on the issue (maybe St. Luke was imprisoned himself, or martyred at that time?) but in any case, the fact that something doesn’t appear in Scripture doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

 

[Protector]

The Book of Acts ends at the final imprisonment of St. Paul, which was about a year before St. Peter went to Rome.

Why St. Luke stopped writing at that point, I don’t really know - I’m sure there are scholars who could shed light on the issue (maybe St. Luke was imprisoned himself, or martyred at that time?) but in any case, the fact that something doesn’t appear in Scripture doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

So true jmcrae, but it is such a pity that St Peter never made mention of the fact in his writings; How much controversy could have been avoided, not to mention the fact that it would have made the CC’s claim that St Peter was the first Pope self evident, a virtual fait accompli.

Protector.

 

[jmcrae]

So true jmcrae, but it is such a pity that St Peter never made mention of the fact in his writings; How much controversy could have been avoided, not to mention the fact that it would have made the CC’s claim that St Peter was the first Pope self evident, a virtual fait accompli.

Protector.

He did, actually. In both of the Letters of Peter, he mentions several times that he is in “Babylon” - the early Christian code word for Rome. (He would have been arrested and executed immediately, if he had put it in plain language, and the letter had been read by a Roman or Jewish official - as I know you are already aware, since even the Baptists I grew up with were aware of the persecutions of Nero against the Christians in Rome.)

With regard to “controversy” there was no controversy until after the advent of the “know -nothings” - a sect of Bible literalists who professed to know nothing except what was plainly written in Scripture. Until that point, educated Christians of every denomination still knew their history - the early Protestants never tried to say that Peter was never in Rome - what they tried to say was that the Papacy had lost its authority, and that God was bestowing it on someone else. (This was the cause of the Protestant Wars - trying to figure out upon whom God had bestowed His authority, after taking it away from the Pope - since no clear sign was forthcoming.)

 

[Protector]

He did, actually. In both of the Letters of Peter, he mentions several times that he is in “Babylon” - the early Christian code word for Rome. (He would have been arrested and executed immediately, if he had put it in plain language, and the letter had been read by a Roman or Jewish official - as I know you are already aware, since even the Baptists I grew up with were aware of the persecutions of Nero against the Christians in Rome.)/QUOTE]

You know jmcrae, I would truly love that to be beyond doubt. Although a non-Catholic, I see no problem with the CC claiming St Peter as the first Pope, but Matthew Henry’s Commentary on I Peter 5: 1-14 makes the statement that “Babylon” in that epistle is the actual city of Babylon on the Euphrates, and not “Rome” as in the Book of Revelation 17:5. But, when I cross referenced that with an article (Catholic???) in Wikipedia it would seem that Babylon was virtually unpopulated well before the New Testament era. So, to my mind the truth maybe rather difficult to establish. Further, your statement about St Peter being 'arrested and executed immediately" if he had used plain language, was indeed a very real threat for the early Church was it not?

Protector.

 

[PRmerger]

Because in their essentials ALL of those Churches in this tree (which is of course by far not complete, but I think one gets the idea!) are the same.

What are these essentials, friend? And what verses tell us so?

And how does one know what is an essential and what is secondary?

For example, is Malachi 1:11 an essential verse or secondary?

What about 1 Peter 3:21?

 

[Esdra]

What are these essentials, friend? And what verses tell us so?

And how does one know what is an essential and what is secondary?

For example, is Malachi 1:11 an essential verse or secondary?

What about 1 Peter 3:21?

Did I ever say that parts of the Bible are secondary or primary/essential?
No, I think I didn’t…

The Bible is the Word of God and thus ALL verses are essential.

What are these for strange verses? - I mean, are they only examples and you have chosen them randomly or did you want to tell me something with them?

Malachi 1:11

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

1 Peter 3:21

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (both KJV)

Anyway, nice to read you Prmerger! How you’ve been doing?

in Christ,

 

[PRmerger]

Did I ever say that parts of the Bible are secondary or primary/essential?
No, I think I didn’t…

Ok. So what beliefs are essentials and what beliefs are secondary?

IOW: what are these “essentials” that you are talking about? And how do you know they are essential?

Originally Posted by Esdra
Because in their **essentials **ALL of those Churches in this tree (which is of course by far not complete, but I think one gets the idea!) are the same.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible is the Word of God and thus ALL verses are essential.

'zactly!

What are these for strange verses? - I mean, are they only examples and you have chosen them randomly or did you want to tell me something with them?

I like them. This one in Malachi describes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I’m pretty sure your church does not fulfill this verse. For you church does not offer any “pure offering”, yes?

Malachi 1:11

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

And I like this one because it speaks of baptism, just as Catholics speak of baptism: it “doth save you”!

1 Peter 3:21

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (both KJV)

Anyway, nice to read you Prmerger!

Right back at cha!

 

[RTully]

I think in simplistic terms it means that the Bible defines the church, not the church that defines the bible. The Church IS very important but it is not any final authority and is subject to corruption like any other institution.

 

[PRmerger]

I think in simplistic terms it means that the Bible defines the church, not the church that defines the bible. The Church IS very important but it is not any final authority and is subject to corruption like any other institution.

If it is subject to corruption, then how is it that you know that the Bible, which is a product of this corruptible Church, is not corrupt?

 

[RTully]

If it is subject to corruption, then how is it that you know that the Bible, which is a product of this corruptible Church, is not corrupt?

We don’t other than faith, which I have. Technically there is no historical proof Jesus actually walked this earth other than faith. In fact some books of the New Testement were heavily debated on their canonicity till 4-500 AD. However history proves the “infailible” Church, not the Bible started the Crusades, an attempt to occupy the holy lands that was a losing effort and cost millions of lives. Do Roman Catholics believe they should still invade the holy lands or did God change his mind? Or the fact that the Catholic Church damned all to hell {or at least denied salvation} those who were not Roman Catholic until the last 75 years or so. Has God changed his mind on this also? Or the fact both Catholic and Protestant churches burned “witches” and “heretics” at the stake. These historical facts prove the church is and can be corrupted. I don’t believe there is historical proof the New Testement was corrupted.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe there is historical proof the New Testement was corrupted.

This is begging the question, Tully. “I believe the NT is uncorrupted because the NT is uncorrupted.”

It is not an argument.

You must provide some reason or logic that argues why the NT is incorrupt yet the Church that produced it was capable of corruption.