Who founded your denomination?????

[reggie]

Joseph Smith was a con artist in the first degree and as for his being an adulterer, he wanted to sleep with the wives of his cohorts and he convinced them that he had a “revelation” that polygamy was a godly thing. Not all were convinced and they left him at this point. There are so many inconsistancies in his doctrines even his own people couldn’t keep up. As for you comparing him to Jesus, you did when you said that the church was restored through Jesus when he was on earth and then the church was restored through Joseph Smith. That is pretty clear to me. Moses, David, and Solomon were instruments of God to prepare the world for Jesus. All of the Old Testaments point to Jesus, the New Testament is the fulfillment of the old. As for Judas, he was doomed from the beginning to betray Jesus, and Jesus knew this. Peter was weak, and frightened until filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, but He was not a great sinner. Jesus understood that there would be times in all of us when we would doubt, Peter is our rock and we can take comfort in knowing that even he had his weak moments.God has used many people who were not what we could say were ideal but Jesus did not need Joseph Smith to restore His church. He left in the care of the Holy Spirit and it has prevailed since. Joseph Smith and later Brigam Young were so far out of the core beliefs of Christianity that they were run out of some states and were forced to settle outside in US territory. Though we can never judge who God will use to guide us, Jesus was the Word, the final Word and no new revelation has been needed since. Luther was a sad, lost soul who felt that no matter what he did, he could not gain heaven. He finally concluded that there was nothing he could do and that became Sola Fideo. He would have been better to work out the problems within the church but he chose the path he took and had to see the consequences of his actions, Christians killing each other, burning and looting churches and a lot of lost souls. He was not always happy with the events that followed his reform but the door had been opened and there was no turning back. There is one Church with all its faults and flawed leaders, that stands ever true. No new doctrine has been taught, some have been more defined but the core is the same for 2000 years now.

 

[ralphinal]

rod of iron:

There is no documentation from that timeframe that says Peter was made the leader of the church or tells who is successors were. Why would the true church go from being led by the Twelve Apostles to being led by just one man, after Peter died? How was Peter any more special than were the other 11 Apostles?
If Jesus wanted His church to endure, why would He build it upon a sandy foundation such as Peter? Peter was always opening his mouth and putting his foot in it. Peter just did not understand Christ while Jesus dwelt with him. Christ on one occasion told Peter, “Get behind me Satan”. Why would Jesus build upon a man that He compared with Satan? How can you believe that Jesus would make a liar the leader of His church? Peter denied knowing Jesus three times. If Judas hadn’t killed himself, the Catholic church may have likely chosen Judas to build upon. It just blows my mind that anyone would choose the sandy foundation of Peter to build their church on.

Oh my goodness, how misguided you are. Who said that Peter was more special than the other 11? How about the Holy Spirit through Sacred Scripture, or does that not count? His name occurs 195 times which is more than the other 11 combined. Luke 22:32 Jesus tells him that Peter will strengthen his brothers with his faith. John 21:15-17 Peter named as head shepherd (three times told ot feed Christ’s sheep). Look all through the book of Acts. Who was the leader of the others? Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, and 15:19. Some of those he led meetings, including the council of Jerusalem, in some he recieved visions, and in some he led teachings, but in all he led. WHo said Peter was the head? Jesus, and I will not challenge him. There are other verses if you want to learn, as well as history. The Church can tell you who succeeded the other 12, including Paul, though I do not have that information.

You are correct to point that Peter was a shakey type in his faith, but his conversion was greater than Paul! Why? Because a serving girl made him deny Christ but after Penticost, NOTHING COULD, even his own death witnessed by Paul. See, Peter went from impetuous to wise, scared to bold, and he became perhaps the greatest leader in the history of the Church. Paul was a zealot before he converted. He was just as dedicated to Christ once he saw that that was the way. Peter had to have a total personality change, and he got one. Are you ready to say that the Holy Spirit did not do all of this in Peter’s life?

 

[ralphinal]

Let me appologise if my last post seemed less than charitable. I hold no malice towards anyone in this forum. It has been a long day. Anyway, as I stated, Jesus made Peter head. You can also look to the Apostolic fathers, early Church Fathers, et al, to see that this has always been the accepted doctrine.

As an aside, do you doubt the changes in Peter after Penticost? Is it not right there before you?

Personally, if not Peter, I would have pulled for John to be head.

 

[Delgadoajj]

rod of ironwrote:

If Jesus wanted His church to endure, why would He build it upon a sandy foundation such as Peter? Peter was always opening his mouth and putting his foot in it. Peter just did not understand Christ while Jesus dwelt with him. Christ on one occasion told Peter, “Get behind me Satan”. Why would Jesus build upon a man that He compared with Satan? How can you believe that Jesus would make a liar the leader of His church? Peter denied knowing Jesus three times. If Judas hadn’t killed himself, the Catholic church may have likely chosen Judas to build upon. It just blows my mind that anyone would choose the sandy foundation of Peter to build their church on.

rod of iron:

The Catholic Church never chose anyone to build the Church on. This choice was made by Jesus. :bible1: Please read 1 Corinthians, verses 18 - 25, which talks about the Paradox of the Cross. Here, you may see what I’m referring to. The wisdon (or the logic) you are using to discredit Peter as the first leader of the Church after Christ’s Ascension, is not the Wisdom of God. That may be why these events baffle you, as they did the Jews.

Rod of iron, you are not any better than Peter, yet if Jesus were to instruct you in a similar manner as he did with Peter, I’m sure you would do everything in your capacity to accomplish your assignet task. Everything else needed to accomplish the task, woul flow from God’s Grace, assuming you are open to that Grace.

As far as Peter and his human ignorance, God turned this stumbling block into a solid Rock to build his Church, because His power works most marvelously in the weak. This applies also to people like you and me. Thus, God turns weakness into strength. This is part of the Paradox of the Cross , which may be illogical for some humans, but not for those who are open to God’s Grace.

I’ll continue on another post.

Jorge.

 

[Delgadoajj]

This is in continuation of my previous post.

I’d like to share this quote with you:

"THE CORE OF HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH IS THE CAUSE OF HOLINESS OF IT’S MEMBERS, IT IS NOT MEASURED BY THE HOLINESS OF ITS MEMBERS"

Please think of this: :tsktsk: Apostacy means the rejection of one’s faith. Since Peter denied Jesus three times even before the creation of the Church, then the apostacy you talk about must have begun before the creation of the Church, which occurred on the day of Pentecost. This goes against Jesus’ words that nothing would prevail against it (the Church), and the promise that the Holy Spirit would guide it throughout time.

Thus, the so-called apostacy and the words of Jesus are contradictory assertions, and go against each other. This means that only one of the two assertions is true. For my part, I bet on Jesus’ words, not the supposed apostacy assertion, which not even History supports, and even less the Bible. I pray that you some day see the Paradox of the Cross in Jesus’ choice of Peter as the first leader of His Church.

In Christ,

Jorge.

P.S.: Jesus also chose Paul as one of His apostles. Paul was responsible for the deaths of many of the first christians, including the first Martyr of the Church, St. Stephen (Acts 7, 54 - 60). Now then, how do you explain Jesus choosing a murderer to propagate His Gospel? I explain it with the Paradox of the Cross.

 

[rod_of_iron]

ralphinal:

Oh my goodness, how misguided you are. Who said that Peter was more special than the other 11?

The Catholic church sure does. They lift Peter upon a pedestal as if he is almost as great as Christ.

ralphinal:

How about the Holy Spirit through Sacred Scripture, or does that not count? His name occurs 195 times which is more than the other 11 combined.

The frequency of the mention of the name of Peter does not prove that he was greater than the other 11. This just proves that Peter was an extrovert. He was always opening his mouth, and most the time, saying something foolish. When Jesus was transfigured, Peter had no idea why Moses and Elijah were on the mountain, too. If you talk more than everyone else, and if most of your statements are foolish or ridiculous, you will be mentioned quite a bit by others, too.

ralphinal:

Luke 22:32 Jesus tells him that Peter will strengthen his brothers with his faith.

This verse does not say that Peter would strengthen his brethren. Rather, it shows where Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren. Peter still had his agency. In the preceding verse, Jesus spoke of Satan’s desire to have Peter. But Jesus, because He prayed for Peter, spoke of a time when Peter would be converted. Why would Jesus speak of Peter being converted, unless Peter had not yet been converted to the truth? This verse does not represent Christ’s favoritism for Peter. Instead, Jesus is still working on Peter to persuade him into being converted.

ralphinal:

John 21:15-17 Peter named as head shepherd (three times told to feed Christ’s sheep).

The head shepherd? What are you talking about? Peter had denied Christ three times. Because of this, Jesus was making a point when He asked Peter if he loved Him. Jesus asked once for each time Peter had denied Him. Jesus was trying to bring Peter up to par with the other Apostles who hadn’t denied Him. Obviously, Peter had not yet been fully converted to the truth. For you to claim that Jesus named Peter as His head shepherd is completely alien to the passage of scripture you quoted.

ralphinal:

Look all through the book of Acts. Who was the leader of the others? Acts 1:13-26, 2:14, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, and 15:19. Some of those he led meetings, including the council of Jerusalem, in some he recieved visions, and in some he led teachings, but in all he led.

You have no evidence that Peter led these meetings. He spoke in these meetings, but this does not mean that he led the meetings. In Acts 15, at the council in Jerusalem, Peter did speak, but he was answered by James. This would indicate the James led the meeting. I don’t definitively see in any of the other meetings where Peter was the leader.

 

[faith_ful1953us]

Since we, as Catholics, are not a “denomination”, how are we to answer the question, “What denomination are you?”

 

[Stylite]

Rod of Iron,

Sorry to add to this as there are so many words flying about. Was Jesus a foolish builder who built his Church upon sand, or the master builder who built upon Rock?

It would seem that you believe Jesus must have been the foolish builder since his Church was so easily defeated in the first few centuries.

Also, does the doctrine of the LDS Church hold that God was at one time a man of flesh and bones?

Thanks,
Stylite

 

[Stylite]

Stylite:

Rod of Iron,

Sorry to add to this as there are so many words flying about. Was Jesus a foolish builder who built his Church upon sand, or the master builder who built upon Rock?

It would seem that you believe Jesus must have been the foolish builder since his Church was so easily defeated in the first few centuries.

Also, does the doctrine of the LDS Church hold that God was at one time a man of flesh and bones?

Thanks,
Stylite

Oh, forgot to add, defeated not only once, but twice if you count what happened over here in the New World according to your doctrine.

 

[mark_a]

Carl:

Did Christ’s Church cease to exist for a thousand years and then resurface under a thousand different flags, all of them united by one mere gesture … thumbing their nose at the Successor of Peter?

Not to mention the fact that most of the reformers hated each other’s guts.

 

[Scottvhm]

Mr Rod of Iron,
rod of iron:

The Catholic church sure does. They lift Peter upon a pedestal as if he is almost as great as Christ.

The frequency of the mention of the name of Peter does not prove that he was greater than the other 11. This just proves that Peter was an extrovert. He was always opening his mouth, and most the time, saying something foolish. When Jesus was transfigured, Peter had no idea why Moses and Elijah were on the mountain, too. If you talk more than everyone else, and if most of your statements are foolish or ridiculous, you will be mentioned quite a bit by others, too.

I must contest that at the Transfiguration Peter’s comment was not foolish or ridiculous. The following passages will make this clear: The Transfiguration of Jesus in Luke 9:28-36, and Moses on the Mountain in Exodus 19, 24, and 34.

Some interesting parallels come into play here to draw the reader into the story.

Moses and Jesus

1. Feast of Booths/Feast of Tabernacles (Lv 23.36 “After eight days…” Commemorates the exodus and the giving of the law. Booths were erected on the eight day. Ex 19, 24, 34)
   1b. “About eight days after he said this…” (Lk 9:28)

2.Went up the Mountain (Ex 24:12, 34:4)
2b. “…up the mountain to pray” (Lk 9:28)

1. Cloud came down (Ex 24:5, 34:5)
   3b. "… a cloud came and cast a shadow over them, and they became frightened when they entered the cloud (Lk 9:34)
2. Face became radiant (Ex 34:29)
   4b. Lk 9:29
3. Afraid of the cloud and the glory of the Lord (Ex 20:18, Ex 34:30)
   5b. Lk 9:34 (see above)
4. Voice from the cloud “… he called to Moses from the midst of the cloud.” (Ex 24:16. Also Ex 34:5 on)
   6b. "Then from the cloud came a voice that said, ‘This is my chosen Son, listen to him.’ " (Lk 9:35)

The Gospel account uses “about eight days after he said this…” to draw attention to the feast of Booths, the only Jewish feast of eight days. Jesus’ face, appearance, and clothing became “dazzling white” and Moses and Elijah converse with him. (Lk 9:29-30). Moses and Elijah represent the Law and Prophets, respectively, which the people of Israel were to listen to. God proclaims Jesus “This is my chosen Son, listen to him.” So Jesus is the new law and prophet, which we are to listen to.

In all this, what does Peter do? He and his companions had been overcome by sleep (Lk 9:32a), but now became fully awake (Lk 9:32b), and Peter says, “…let us make three tents, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” (Lk 9:33) This draws even more attention to the link between Moses receiving the old law, and the apostles receiving Jesus, the New Law.

Now, Peter “did not know what he was saying” (Lk 9:33b) but what he said was certainly not “foolish or ridiculous.”

 

[Delgadoajj]

Excellent points, Scottvhm.

Jorge.

 

[Delgadoajj]

It’s curious that some people think that what God instituted is not good enough for them, and needs to be improved by men.

How can God institute a Church that, according to some people, will fail shortly after being instituted, with Jesus’ guarantee that it will not fail?

Jorge.

 

[montanaman]

It sounds like the protestant infiltrators (sorry guys–you know I love you ) are making the classical mistake of not seeing the distinction between impeccability and infalibility, or at least a shade off from that.

Catholics don’t worship Peter, or put him on a pedastal higher than Christ. It’s just a simple understanding that’s existed for 2000 years, reflected in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Peter is no higher than Christ, and he was a sinner just like the rest of us. (But I hear he had a killer jump shot…)

 

[JoaoMachado]

faith_ful1953us:

Since we, as Catholics, are not a “denomination”, how are we to answer the question, “What denomination are you?”

Are you referring to my initial post, on this thread?

Joao

 

[ralphinal]

OK, Rod Of Iron,

In Acts 1, Peter was the one who started the election of a new Apostle: no one questioned him. Acts 2:14 Peter lead the teaching, in fact no other Apostel is quoted in the chapter. Acts 3:6-7 Peter healed the man with John present. Acts 3:12-26 again Peter teaches while John stays silent. Acts 5 Peter passed judgement on Ananias and Saphira, no other Apostle spoke. I can go on. Don’t you see, silence is a sign of deference to a superior. All of the Apostles had the Holy Spirit within them by this time. All were capable of healing and teaching, as we see in the Acts, but when Peter was present, he taught and healed while the others defered to him. You feel that Jesus did not give Peter any special authority, but the Apostles seem to disagree. Look back at Luke 22:32 “but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you turn again, strengthen your brethren.” That is not a “persuasion to be converted,” but a command! Besides, a person cannot choose to be converted, God converts through the Holy Spirit, as happened with Peter at Pentecost.

In the end, you will choose not to see this. If you look at the monarchy of David in the Old Testement, you see that there was a Prime Minister who held the authority when the King was not able to. Why would Christ not have created the same thing with his kingdom? If only the Holy Spirit is needed to guide us to the Truth, why is there more than one denomination? Is one right and the rest a creation of the Devil? If so, come out and tell me which is right and which are diabolical so that I can be persuaded to be converted.

 

[bbas_64]

faith_ful1953us:

Since we, as Catholics, are not a “denomination”, how are we to answer the question, “What denomination are you?”

Good Day, faith_ful

Websters;

denomination:

A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

How are you exempt from this group what qualities do the RCC fail to meet. You are large, you share a common faith, your structure is desiegned to be hierarcial. You have many congregations.

What have I missed?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[rod_of_iron]

faith_ful1953us:

Since we, as Catholics, are not a “denomination”, how are we to answer the question, “What denomination are you?”

Not a denomination? The definition of a denomination is not just the breakaway groups from a pre-existing organization. When an organization splits, as was seen by the Great Schism, both of the new groups would be a denomination. It is not logical to assume that the Eastern Orthodox church became a denomination and the Roman Catholic church did not.

Money is often referred to by its denominations. It would equally be illogical to suggest that a $100 bill is not a denomination, while $50 bills, $20 bills, $10 bills, $5 bills, $2 bills, and $1 bills are denominations.

Catholics just need to get over the idea that they are the only church that can trace back their history 2000 years. This misconception is what leads them to the incorrect conclusion that they are not a denominaton.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Stylite:

Rod of Iron,

Sorry to add to this as there are so many words flying about. Was Jesus a foolish builder who built his Church upon sand, or the master builder who built upon Rock?

Jesus most certainly built His church upon the Rock. Since Peter could not possibly be a rock, because he was too shaky like sand, it would be a misconception to believe that Jesus built His church on a fallible man as Peter. Since Jesus could not build His church on a sandy foundation if He wanted His church to endure forever, He couldn’t have built His church on any human or on anything that was created.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Jesus is the Rock that He built His church upon?

Stylite:

It would seem that you believe Jesus must have been the foolish builder since his Church was so easily defeated in the first few centuries.

Not at all. Who said that the church was defeated? If it was completely defeated, Satan would have won, and he would have overthrown God. If the Church of Christ had been defeated, God would no longer be in control and there would be no ability to restore His church without God being in control. When I speak of the church falling into apostasy, I am not suggesting that the church was defeated or that God has lost control. God is so powerful, that He is able to give every human being their agency to choose. His ultimate power allows for humans to make the wrong choices that will lead them to corrupt His church, yet not defeat it. When the church fell into apostasy, God let the people in the apostatized church suffer the consequences of their unrighteous decisions. But in God’s wisdom, He eventually restored His church back to the pristine condition in which He originally established His church in the beginning…

I understand it may be hard for you to understand and accept what I have said about the apostasy, but I believe that God must allow humans to make choices, even if they are the wrong choices, or else God would not allow humans to have their agency. If we do not have freedom to make decisions, God cannot punish us or reward us for our actions, because we wuld have no control over them. We would be forced to believe in God without this agency that He has granted us.

Stylite:

Also, does the doctrine of the LDS Church hold that God was at one time a man of flesh and bones?

So I have heard. Since I am not a member of the LDS church, I can only tell you what Mormons have told me. I understand that the LDS still believes that their God has a body of flesh and bones, even now that he has attained godhood.

 

[JoaoMachado]

rod of iron,
You have not yet responded to my earlier post, all of your claims stand on one idea, the Church Christ left on earth fell into apostacy. Yet you have nothing to back this up, when did this happen? Who was the cause of this? Because if this truly happened, where is the proof? It boils down to two things, either you are a prophet or there is written proof? Show me one or the other.

Christ is risen…

Joao