"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th

[ALLFORHIM]

Yes - and when people are in desperate need, where’s the first place they know to come? They come first to the nearest Catholic Church, because they know that even if we can’t give them what they want right away, that we have an agency that they can go to, and get the help that they need.

Have you ever checked out our Catechism?

Yes - but in order to work together, the body parts have to be united together, and all connected to the same nervous system, spinal column, and head. All the body parts have to be receiving the same commands - they can’t be making stuff up as they go along, regardless of the signals they’re getting from the head.

No - but it would exclude any that were not devoting themselves to all of the Apostolic teachings.

Hi,

Everything you said in your 2 posts is fine with me. I believe all you said above. What my point is is that this also happens in non-catholic churches. That is all my point was.

 

[jmcrae]

What my point is is that this also happens in non-catholic churches. That is all my point was.

Sure, I’m sure it does, to some extent, but why do they need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak? Why did they have to start up a bunch of brand new religions, just to do exactly the same things, only not quite as well? (Most non-Catholic churches don’t have the resources to organize the kind of outreach to the poor that we have in the Catholic Church, for example.)

Why not be a member of the Church that Jesus founded, instead of one of the wanna-be imitator churches?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I’m trying the understand where *she’s *coming from. That’s why the questions are addressed to her.

Hi,
I thought I told you where I was coming from. Because I would like to see what your point is I will say yes:thumbsup:

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Sure, I’m sure it does, to some extent, but why do they need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak? Why did they have to start up a bunch of brand new religions, just to do exactly the same things, only not quite as well? (Most non-Catholic churches don’t have the resources to organize the kind of outreach to the poor that we have in the Catholic Church, for example.)

Why not be a member of the Church that Jesus founded, instead of one of the wanna-be imitator churches?

Hi,
I dont know why people do what they do. I also wasnt around back then so who knows.

I was stuck at the dentist office for 2 hours today with my kids so I decided to look up scriptures that specifically talk about the church Christ founded. I went through all the scripture that spoke of church/churches. When the singular church was mentioned I noticed Christ was talking about the people(anyone who believes in Him) When church was used plural it was to many churches all over the region. Revelations 2 and 3 God is pseaking to seven individual churches and giving them instructions on what they better be doing or else. Within these seven churches were believers. From what I noticed God was giving each church a different lecture based on what was going on in each church. Rome wasnt even included here. Now this is the first time I have read these scriptures but I have to say it was clear to me that there was no central heirarchy of authority here except they better follow God or else.

The other scriptures I read also did not speak of any central authority except God/Christ. I really dont see how Rome can make the claim from scriptures. They cant unless they add Tradition and then what you are doing is putting Tradition first which in a sense nullifies scripture. If God is not put above ALL then —I dont even have the words to say.

 

[Keikiolu]

…

I was stuck at the dentist office for 2 hours today with my kids so I decided to look up scriptures that specifically talk about the church Christ founded. I went through all the scripture that spoke of church/churches. When the singular church was mentioned I noticed Christ was talking about the people(anyone who believes in Him) When church was used plural it was to many churches all over the region. Revelations 2 and 3 God is pseaking to seven individual churches and giving them instructions on what they better be doing or else. Within these seven churches were believers. From what I noticed God was giving each church a different lecture based on what was going on in each church. Rome wasnt even included here. Now this is the first time I have read these scriptures but I have to say it was clear to me that there was no central heirarchy of authority here except they better follow God or else.

The other scriptures I read also did not speak of any central authority except God/Christ. I really dont see how Rome can make the claim from scriptures. They cant unless they add Tradition and then what you are doing is putting Tradition first which in a sense nullifies scripture. If God is not put above ALL then —I dont even have the words to say.

Who collected the scriptures?

Define “Church”.

You may claim what you like.

Why should we believe your interpretation?

Have a great day, dude…

 

[jonfan]

Hi,
I dont know why people do what they do. I also wasnt around back then so who knows.

I was stuck at the dentist office for 2 hours today with my kids so I decided to look up scriptures that specifically talk about the church Christ founded. I went through all the scripture that spoke of church/churches. When the singular church was mentioned I noticed Christ was talking about the people(anyone who believes in Him) When church was used plural it was to many churches all over the region. Revelations 2 and 3 God is pseaking to seven individual churches and giving them instructions on what they better be doing or else. Within these seven churches were believers. From what I noticed God was giving each church a different lecture based on what was going on in each church. Rome wasnt even included here. Now this is the first time I have read these scriptures but I have to say it was clear to me that there was no central heirarchy of authority here except they better follow God or else.

The other scriptures I read also did not speak of any central authority except God/Christ. I really dont see how Rome can make the claim from scriptures. They cant unless they add Tradition and then what you are doing is putting Tradition first which in a sense nullifies scripture. If God is not put above ALL then —I dont even have the words to say.

Hi AllForHim,
Those are good questions. In Rev God is giving different instructions to each individual church so these churches can fall in line and be one. These churches were not following what Jesus had laid out. If Rome is not mentioned one can only assume Rome was not out of line. Jesus directed us to be one:

John
10:15. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep.

10:16. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: **And there shall be one fold and one shepherd. **

Below we see St. Paul mentioning “offices” and stating unity:

Rom
12:4. For as **in one body **we have many members, but all the members have not the same office:

12:5. **So we, being many, are one body in Christ; and every one members one of another: **

*So if we have different private interpretations that claim truth we are not one. We are divided. *

As far as “traditions” these were taught as word by St. Paul. as we see here:

**2:14. Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. **

Also The Heiarchy of the Church was already set up. Here is just one example of this:

Phil
**1:1. Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ: to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. **

In Conclusion we see that we are meant to be one body of Christ and not seperated by private intepretations. We also see that Tradition is just as solid as Scripture and the Church did have a hiearchy. Hope this helps.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Who collected the scriptures?

Thanks. Im a dudette

 

[jmcrae]

Hi,
I dont know why people do what they do. I also wasnt around back then so who knows.

No, but you’re here now, and so is Christ’s Church. Why not become a member of Christ’s Church, since you have the opportunity to do so?

I was stuck at the dentist office for 2 hours today with my kids so I decided to look up scriptures that specifically talk about the church Christ founded. I went through all the scripture that spoke of church/churches. When the singular church was mentioned I noticed Christ was talking about the people(anyone who believes in Him) When church was used plural it was to many churches all over the region.

Yes, these were the various different Dioceses of the Church, exactly the same as today. For example, if the Pope wanted to write to the people of the Catholic Church here in my Diocese, he could say, “To the Church at Calgary, beloved brothers and sisters …”

Revelations 2 and 3 God is pseaking to seven individual churches and giving them instructions on what they better be doing or else. Within these seven churches were believers. From what I noticed God was giving each church a different lecture based on what was going on in each church. Rome wasnt even included here. Now this is the first time I have read these scriptures but I have to say it was clear to me that there was no central heirarchy of authority here except they better follow God or else.

Uh - the Book of Revelation didn’t fall out of the sky, and those letters didn’t just fly all by themselves to the different churches mentioned.

Notice how Jesus did NOT go directly and in person to each of these different churches. Instead, He worked through the Apostle who had authority over these churches - that is, John.

**Jesus observed the Church’s chain of command, by giving the message to the Apostle in charge, rather than directly to the people. **

The other scriptures I read also did not speak of any central authority except God/Christ. I really dont see how Rome can make the claim from scriptures. They cant unless they add Tradition and then what you are doing is putting Tradition first which in a sense nullifies scripture. If God is not put above ALL then —I dont even have the words to say.

God is the God of the Catholic Church. The Pope doesn’t think he is operating in God’s place. No - instead, the Pope is the guy through whom God speaks to us, in exactly the same way as the eight writers of the New Testament were being used by God to give us the Scriptures - that is, there is an identifiable way of knowing for sure (without relying on our personal feelings, or our own personal interpretations) what God wants us to do.

 

[jmcrae]

The word church comes from the Greek word “Ecclesia” which is defined as "an assembly,” or “called out ones.” The root meaning of “church” is not that of a building, but of people. It is ironic that when you ask people what church they attend they usually say Baptist, Methodist, or another denomination. Many times they are referring to a denomination or a building. Read Romans 16:5: “…also greet the church that is in their house…” Paul refers to the church in their house, not a church building, but a body of believers.

Well, guess what, the Catholic Church is not a building, either - it’s the assembly of those who have been called out to follow Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth.

The church is the Body of Christ. Ephesians 1:22-23 says, “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” The Body of Christ is made up of all believers from the time of Pentecost until the End.

Yes. And if they have rebelled and broken away from the Body of Christ, then can they still be said to be part of it? In a limited and imperfect way, they can be, but those who have broken away and created their own alternative religions are not part of the same assembly of people that were originally called out to follow Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth. That assembly is still found only in the Catholic Church - which isn’t a building; it’s a community.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi AllForHim,
. Jesus directed us to be one:

I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that the traditions aul was referring to was the gospel message whether they heard it by word of mouth or read one of His letters.

**2:14. Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. **

What I said above:thumbsup:

**1:1. Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ: to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. **

Notice He is including all the saints/believers. We have bishops and deacons:thumbsup:

*In Conclusion we see that we are meant to be one body of Christ and not seperated by private intepretations. We also see that Tradition is just as solid as Scripture and the Church did have a hiearchy. *The church does have leadership roles and heirarchies that were established biblically but ti stops at Bishop and never talks about supremecy. This set up is for all the hurches that follow apostolic biblical teaching.

Hope this helps.

Yes I love talking with you Jon:thumbsup:

I wrote in post 306 (i Think) the definition of the church from my beliefs–let me expand below:
The Body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:(1The universal church is the church that consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.” We see that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ. The true church of God is not any particular church building or denomination. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

(2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2, “Paul, an apostle…and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches - what we call a local church. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc. is not THE church, as in the universal church – but rather is a local church. The universal church is comprised of those who have trusted in Christ for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

In summary, the church is not a building, or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the Body of Christ - all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). There are members of the universal church (the Body of Christ) in local churches.

I hope this helps you understand my beliefs.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

No, but you’re here now

How did we get from 12 Apostles/disciples to ONE man in the whole world that we are to listen to? Again not biblical.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes I love talking with you Jon:thumbsup:

I wrote in post 306 (i Think) the definition of the church from my beliefs–let me expand below:
The Body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:(1The universal church is the church that consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 12:13 says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.” We see that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ. The true church of God is not any particular church building or denomination. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

I’m with you up to here.

(2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2, “Paul, an apostle…and all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches - what we call a local church.

I’m also with you up to here.

A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc. is not THE church, as in the universal church – but rather is a local church. The universal church is comprised of those who have trusted in Christ for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.

Actually, no. Baptist, Lutheran, and other Protestant churches are not “local churches,” but separated communities.

The local Church is your local Catholic diocese - for example, the local Church where I live is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary. The parishes that belong to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary are the member communities of the local Church, and the individual parishioners are members of both the Church Universal (aka, the Catholic Church - “Catholic” is Greek for “Universal”) and the local church.

But Lutherans, Baptists, etc., are members of different religions that were created within the past 500 years or so. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention has no formal relationship with or membership in the Missouri Lutheran Synod (nor vice versa), and neither of these two organizations have any relationship or membership in the Catholic Church - that is, the Church Universal.

In summary, the church is not a building, or a denomination.

Neither is the Catholic Church.

According to the Bible, the church is the Body of Christ - all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). There are members of the universal church (the Body of Christ) in local churches.

That’s a perfect description of the Catholic Church, right there.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Well, guess what, the Catholic Church is not a building, either - it’s the assembly of those who have been called out to follow Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth.

How do you know?

 

[jmcrae]

How did we get from 12 Apostles/disciples to ONE man in the whole world that we are to listen to? Again not biblical.

Well, we went from ONE man in the whole world that we had to listen to (Jesus) who then gave His authority to Peter and the Apostles, and now, their direct successors are, the successor of Peter, who is the Pope, and the successors of the rest of the Apostles, which are the Bishops.

 

[jmcrae]

People who have broken away for silly personal non-biblical reasons I would say may not have been part fo God to begin with. Pride would probably be the reason they broke away and started their own false religion.

Yes, I have no doubt that that’s correct - which is why, when I found out about that, I decided I didn’t want to be part of a religion that had been started by a prideful man who didn’t even want to be part of God’s church anymore, but thought he had a better idea than God’s idea, and instead I decided to join the Church that Jesus actually started, which is the Catholic Church.

That assembly is still found only in the Catholic Church - which isn’t a building; it’s a community.

How do you know?

Because that’s what history shows us - we can actually trace the Apostolic Succession of the Pope and all of the Catholic Bishops, name by name, all the way back to Jesus Himself, but we can’t do that with anybody else.

For example, the ordination of the pastor of the church that I used to go to, only goes back to 1925, to a guy named George Pigeon, who quit the Presbyterian Church (thus, any titles he had received from the Presbyterian church became null and void - he was no longer a valid minister in that church), and was elected by like-minded people to become the Moderator of a brand new church, the United Church of Canada.

He and the people who elected him had no discernable authority from God to start up a new religion, no matter how “Christian” or “Bible-based” it may have been at the time - and by quitting their previous religions, they also gave up any authority they may have previously been given by those organizations to preach or to distribute the Sacraments - one does not reject the authority of the one who has given you authority to do something, and yet somehow retain the authority to do that thing. Once you reject your “boss,” so to speak, you also reject any responsibilities, rights, or privileges of authority that he may have given to you.

(For example, if a police officer rejects the authority of the government and quits the police force, he doesn’t have the right to start up his own police force. Nor does someone who has rejected Christ’s church have any right to start up their own church.)

 

[jonfan]

Originally Posted by jonfan
Quote:
Hi AllForHim,
. Jesus directed us to be one:

Hi Jon,
Where have you been?
Yes He did want us to be one but under Him or should I say united with Him not uited with the See of Rome. If the bible said to follow One man being the Pope in Rome, I would,but God nor Jesus, nor the Apostles say to do this.

**Hi AFH,
I have been here! Ok Catholics follow Christ. The Pope was appointed by Christ when he gave that authority to Peter. There needs to be somebody to lead that has been ok’d by Christ. The Pope does not replace Christ. You have been here long enough to know that.

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

You can read more here:

catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp**

Quote:
10:16. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

One shepard Im sure you realize is Christ. The sheep He is speaking o are those who believe–they heard the gospel and believed therefore becoming part of His church.

OF Course I know the shepard is Christ! This actually intertwines with the above papacy issue and lays more valid claim to the papacy. Take a look:

21:15. When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to** Simon Peter:** Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

21:16. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

21:17. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: **Feed my sheep. **

***Feed my sheep… Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church. ***

Rom

Quote:
12:4. For as in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office:

Yes

Quote:
12:5. So we, being many, are one body in Christ; and every one members one of another:

Yes
Quote:
So if we have different private interpretations that claim truth we are not one. We are divided.

Yes for the reasons I stated in my OP.

Quote:
I]As far as “traditions” these were taught as word by St. Paul. as we see here:

I wonder if it has occurred to anyone that the traditions aul was referring to was the gospel message whether they heard it by word of mouth or read one of His letters.

**It was both AFH. For instance the celebration of the Eucharist is not spelled out in the Scripture. How did they know what to do? Tradition. Sacred Tradition doesn’t contradict scripture. **

Quote:
2:14. Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

What I said above

Quote:
Hope this helps.

 

[jonfan]

Cont:

Quote:
1:1. Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus Christ: to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.

Notice He is including all the saints/believers. We have bishops and deacons.

Right but this is the hiearchy of the Church. Remember Jesus was the High Preist. He instituted the Sacraments. I was just refuting your claim that there was no hierarchy.

Quote:
In Conclusion we see that we are meant to be one body of Christ and not seperated by private intepretations. We also see that Tradition is just as solid as Scripture and the Church did have a hiearchy.

The church does have leadership roles and heirarchies that were established biblically but ti stops at Bishop and never talks about supremecy. This set up is for all the hurches that follow apostolic biblical teaching.

**Hi AFH,
Who do you think is the supreme Bishop of the chruch rep on earth. We just don’t have A vice president and then it stops. Please refer to above post when Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep.

**

 

[apophasis]

No, He can’t. But the Scriptures did not fall fully formed from out of the sky. They were written by human beings. Not everything that was written was Scripture. Not every human being who was writing was divinely inspired.

But some writings were Scripture, and some writers were divinely inspired.

Without the infallible protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have no way of knowing which writings were inspired - after all, if II Timothy is not an inspired writing, then the statement that “all Scripture is inspired” doesn’t have to be true - any more than the Book of Mormon’s claims of divine inspiration are true, or than the Koran’s claims are true.

I’m sure you don’t believe that just because the Koran says so itself, that it was actually dictated by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed, or that, even though it is written in the pages of the Book of Mormon itself, that Joseph Smith was taking dictation from the Angel Moroni.

Believing that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible itself claims such, isn’t enough - otherwise (in order to be consistent) we’d also have to believe the claims of every other holy book that claims Divine authorship.

In the case of the Bible, we rely on Apostolic Tradition to tell us that, first of all, II Timothy is one of the inspired books of the Bible, and secondly, that the Scriptures to which St. Paul was referring were, in fact, the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, that’s what we believe - and we also believe that the infallibility of the Pope and the Magesterium does not come from their personal merits, but from God.

That’s why it doesn’t matter if they are sinners - even if they behave as badly as Peter did (and I am not aware of any Pope after St. Peter who actually denied knowing Christ - some of them did some bad things, but nothing that bad, I don’t think - St. Peter was the very worst of the lot, and he was the one appointed by Christ Himself - which is more proof that everything good is from God).

Do you think that Catholic tradition happens without me? Do you think that I am off sleeping in a corner while all these things are going on, or that there is a “they” out there somewhere doing some kind of secret stuff that isn’t the “we” of which I became a member when I became Catholic?

I know that this is how we do Bible study because this is how I do Bible study in the Catholic Church. This is what happens when we - my Catholic friends and I - gather in the church basement and open our Bibles.

Jm, with all due respect, did you at least feel the breeze on your forehead when everything I wrote went over your head?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Well, we went from ONE man in the whole world that we had to listen to (Jesus) who then gave His authority to Peter and the Apostles, and now, their direct successors are, the successor of Peter, who is the Pope, and the successors of the rest of the Apostles, which are the Bishops.

Hi,
So are we not to listen to Jesus anymore only the Pope?

 

[jmcrae]

Hi,
So are we not to listen to Jesus anymore only the Pope?

We can’t hear Jesus with our ears any more, because Jesus is up in Heaven. The Pope helps us to know what Jesus is saying to us. The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit in exactly the same way that the writers of Scripture were protected when they were writing down Jesus’ words in the New Testament.

We can trust the Pope for exactly the same reasons that we can trust the New Testament.