P
peary
Guest
**And exactly what “historical event” in the life of the Church can you point to specifically and say that it went into apostasy? **
- Status
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
I was thinking it…but you posted it first…Thank you 
N
Namesake
Guest
The earliest example I can come up with is the notion that Peter was the foundation of Christ’s Church on Earth. But going on, justification by works and sacraments, rejection of sola scriptura, elevating tradition to at least the level of scripture, etc…
P
peary
Guest
**The BIBLE tells us that Peter was the foundation of Christ’s Church on earth due to the revelation he received of Christ being the Son of God. In fact, it is irrelevent to argue as to whether or not Peter was head of the Apostles because Scripture leads us to conclude without doubt that he was.
Matthew’s account of Jesus giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom” cites an obscure oracle of Isaiah about the transfer of “the key of the House of David.” What Jesus confers upon Peter—namely, authority over his Church—corresponds to what Isaiah’s king confers upon Eliakim in making him prime minister of the Davidic kingdom.
As Jesus moves closer to Jerusalem, Matthew shows us a different Old Testament pattern emerging in the life of Jesus. Actually, from the very start, he has told us that he believes Jesus to be the new Son of David and restorer of the Davidic kingdom.
When Jesus announces “the kingdom” for the first time, Matthew adds a curious detail—that Jesus is in Galilee, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali (4:13). Why do we need to know that? Because that’s where David’s kingdom started to crumble, when Assyria invaded this very region some 700 years earlier (see 2 Kings 15:29).
Simon’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” brings together the most important titles the prophets and psalmists had used to describe the promised son of David. He was to be the “anointed one” (“the Christ”) and “the Son of God” ( Psalm 2:2,7; 89:27; 2 Samuel 7:14).
Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (Greek for “rock”), and tells him: “Upon this rock I will build my Church” (16:18).
In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus had spoken of “a wise man who built his house on rock” (7:24). This was a subtle reference to Solomon, who was revered for his wisdom (1 Kings 3:10-12) and who built the Temple on a rock (1 Kings 5:31; 7:10). Matthew sees Jesus as the new Solomon, the new Son of David, building a new spiritual temple—his Church—on the “rock” of Peter’s faith.
As Isaiah had foretold, the keys of David’s kingdom would be given to a new royal steward or prime minister. Isaiah promised that this prime minister would be a father over Jerusalem and would have full authority: What “he opens, no one shall shut.” So Jesus gives Peter the keys and the power to “bind” and “loose.” ( Isaiah 22:20-24).
When Jesus finally reaches Jerusalem, Matthew paints us a picture that looks a lot like the Old Testament scene of the anointing and crowning of David’s son Solomon. (Compare Matthew 21:1-11 and 1 Kings 1:38-45.) In case we don’t get the subtle allusions he makes, Matthew depicts the crowd crying out to Jesus as the “Son of David.”
And the drama in Matthew’s final pages turns on whether Jesus is in fact the Davidic Messiah. Note how often the Davidic phrases—“Son of David,” “Son of God” and “King of the Jews”—appear in these pages.
Matthew leaves no doubt where he stands. In the last scene of his Gospel he depicts Jesus as the king’s heir. As God had promised to David, Jesus is the Son of God, given “all power” over “all nations” until the “end of the age” (28:18-20).
Matthew’s Gospel of fulfillment is complete: Jesus is the long-awaited Son of David and Son of God. His Church is the restored Kingdom of David, which will be the font of blessing for all nations—fulfilling the covenant that God made with Abraham at the dawn of salvation history.**
N
Namesake
Guest
F
fbl9
Guest
****namesake topic of thread=why is it wrong to love Mary?there is nothing about St.Peter in this tittle
N
Namesake
Guest
Got it. You are correct. Carry on…
F
fbl9
Guest
the rest of you all follow, why would every one else answer posts that are not really related.
P
peary
Guest
It is irrelevent as to whether you agree or not. the FACT is, the papacy is based on the office of Peter and it has remained that way since the beginning of the Church. I have no problem with it. That you have is a good indication that you need to pray over the matter and ask for guidance to understand it.
N
Namesake
Guest
It isn’t a fact. It’s the opinion of your Church, nothing more.
P
peary
Guest
**Sure it is. and I’m Pope Joan **
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Namesake, it’s relevant, Biblical truth is always relevant**.
**St. Peter the First Pope
Matt 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
16:19 “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Is 22:22 The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.
John 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep.
St. Peter always first
Mt 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him.
Mt 3:14 Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach,
3:15 and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons:
3:16 Simon, to whom He gave the name Peter;
3:17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, to whom He gave the name Boanerges, that is, “Sons of Thunder”;
3:18 Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananite;
3:19 and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him. And they went into a house.
Luke 6:14 Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew;
6:15 Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot;
6:16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor.
**Acts 1:13 **And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James.
Luke 9:32 But Peter and those with him were heavy with sleep; and when they were fully awake, they saw His glory and the two men who stood with Him.
St. Peter speaks for apostles
Mark 8:29 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.”
Luke 12:41 Then Peter said to Him, “Lord, do You speak this parable only to us, or to all people?”
John 6:67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
6:68 But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
6:69 “Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.
St. Peter and miracles
Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, “Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”
3:7 And he took him by the right hand and lifted him up, and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.
The Holy Spirit working through St. Peter
Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
10:45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,
10:47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
It is so easy to defend Catholicism… if you know where to look…the Bible!
It’s all in there Thank you Sir, may I have another? :dancing:
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello again Namesake,
I forgot, “Don’t mess with St. Peter" or I should say, the Holy Spirit, while St. Peter is the POPE!
OK, now where was I… Oh yeah, Why is it wrong to love Mary. I’m getting ready to post my Mary’s verses; I’m just waiting for the right time.
I forgot, “Don’t mess with St. Peter" or I should say, the Holy Spirit, while St. Peter is the POPE!
Namesake, read the Acts of the Apostles again and you might come away with a different view of St. Peter.
OK, now where was I… Oh yeah, Why is it wrong to love Mary. I’m getting ready to post my Mary’s verses; I’m just waiting for the right time.
H
Huguenot
Guest
Well there were already Anabaptists in France ( Alsace ) around 1525, and the first Anabaptist confession of faith was written in 1527 ( “confession of Schleitheim”, that advocated believers’ baptism as opposed to infant baptism for instance ), which means 3 years before the Confession of Augsburg ( Lutherans ) ; Baptists started in England around 1610 …Hello Roy5,
I see two major problems with your thoughts here and this is yet another example of the error, which is “Protestantism”.
As far as the “big tent” comment, most Protestant Non-Catholic Christian religions are uniquely “English” (from England) “American” and “democratic” (small “d”) in nature, and come from a “modern”, less than 500 years ago, perspective. This “modern” perspective is the lens in which, “modern” non-Catholic Christian theology is viewed. It is here that the confusion that is “Protestantism”, begins.
- The truth never changes.
- Christianity was never intended to be a religion of “God on your terms”.
The “truth” transcends” and so does the “Catholic model”, which is the truth.
Note: A vast majority of Protestant Non-Catholic Christian religions were started in America less than two hundred years ago.
Go here and see the *Genealogy of Christian Faith Communities *(All non-Catholic Christian religions). This list does not include the many thousands of non-Catholic Christian religions, which exist today.
Just because something is repeated over and over, does’nt make it true.
So more than 200 years ago, and not in the USA…
As for the Pentecostals, speaking in tongues and prophesying already existed in some groups in Europe at the beginning of the 18th century, for instance among isolated groups of Huguenots ( French Reformed Protestants ) in the region called Cévennes ( in Southern France ) at a time when Protestantism was forbidden in France ( after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes ) ; some migrated to England and their group was called “French prophets”, it didn’t last long ) …
G
guanophore
Guest
Your knowledge of history and the Revelation of God are seriously lacking, Roy5. If you study the history of these doctrines, you will find that they predate the midieval period by many centuries. The Revelation of God sometimes contradicts common sense.
R
Roy5
Guest
JIMMYB
Code:
America's Protestant denominations, with few exceptions, trace their beginnings to the Reformation, which began in Europe, of course, mostly in the 16th century. There were Protestants before that (Wycliffe, Huss, etc.) many of whom were slaughtered as heretics.
The largest Protestant group in the USA, the Baptists, began years and years ago in Europe. (Some Baptists would argue that it started with Jesus!)
The next largest US Protestant group, the Methodists, were started by John Wesley in England - a 'Reformation' growing out of the Anglicans.
The Lutherans, of course, started out under the leadership of a Catholic priest in Germany.
The Calvinists (Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Reformed, etc.) were begun by a Catholic priest-lawyer named John Calvin of France.
Anglicanism developed in England.
Quakers, Mennonites, Evangelical Free Church, Covenant Church etc came from various countries overseas.
The only two 'denomination families' of any consequence that come to mind which can't trace their history back to Europe (or to Jesus?) are the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, neither of them Protestant.
Keep smiling.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
Hello Roy5, I can hear you I am not deaf….I like you, you’re funny
What happened, did you run out of room. I think that it is going to take you several hundred posts to list all of the non-Catholic Catholic Christian and “Protestant” religions today and you don’t see a problem with this. :doh2:
Let’s see…,
Some guy leaves the Roman Catholic Church, because he “discovered” that he was smarter than the entire Roman Catholic Church, all of the Great Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church, all of the Saints and all the Catholics in the entire world, past and present… So he starts his own religion so that he can now have “God on his own terms”. He develops a following and then…
A second guy leaves the first guy’s Church, because he too “discovered” that he was smarter then the entire Roman Catholic Church, all of the Great Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church, all of the Saints and all the Catholics in the entire world, past and present…he also ‘discovered” that he was smarter than the founder of the first Protestant Church and all of his follower’s …So he starts his own religion so that he can now have “God on his own terms”. And he develops a following and then…
And so and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on and so on…
Why? :banghead:
R
Roy5
Guest
JIMMY B
Code:
The Reformers - like Luther and Calvin - wanted to reform the church and not leave it. The problem was, in a nutshell, that the Papacy responded with fierce hostility, demanded repentance, declared them outlaws who could be killed with Papal blessing - etc. This was followed by the Council of Trent which succeeded in making the Church even more rigid rather than focus on the urgency of reform. Some Protestants went too far in the other directions, such as those iconoclasts who ripped beautiful art out of church for fear that they were man-made images forbidden by the ten commandments.
Fortunately, Vatican II finally made some great changes. These threads demonstrate quite clearly, however, that some Catholics ache for the 'good old days' when the Mass was in Latin, when Protestantism was denounced as evil heresy, when there was no sense of ecumenism between Catholics and Protestants, when it was a grave sin to attend even a wedding or a funeral in a Protestant church, etc. Those days helped create bitterness toward Catholicism which still lingers among some.
Many of us - from mixed families, especially, I presume - want to see this foolishness stop and appreciate other faiths. A major stumbling block is the unceasing insistence of Catholicism that it is the one and only True Church. I have come to believe that the world is simply too mammoth, magnificent and mysterious to know the full Truth, that God is so marvelous (I lack the right word) that none of us can understand him. Who was it who said: "I can only believe in a God I cannot understand." Sounds right to me. God is much too big for any one religion. I have even come to appreciate certain aspects of non-Christian religions after spending time in India and Korea and elsewhere. I don't think this makes me less a Christian, but a better one actually.
So we need to get rid of our sense of spiritual superiority and live together as fellow Christians in an atmosphere of mutual acceptance and love, acknowledging our limitations. I have come to believe that no human institution, including Catholicism, has all the answers. But I don't need all the answers. I live by faith in God without fretting over unimportant doctrines and such that serve to divide us. We argue over too many trivial things, We are not saved by doctrine but by the grace of God, who commanded us to (1) love Him and (2) love one another.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have discussion and even debate over beliefs. It's good for the brain and important to come of us. It's the superior attitude that can offend, whether displayed by Catholics or Protestants. And the Orthodox, by the way, can demonstrate that same religious arrogance.
Happy Leap Year Day!
F
fbl9
Guest
hi Roy 5 did Luther reform anything regardin Mary. as far as i know of he -did not-…did he change anything regarding vernation of the saints not. the early JKV bibles used St. before the tittles of the gospel writers.Luther saw the sad state of the spiritually of the priests in his area,there were way more just preists serving the people than what Luther saw,and concluded the whole of the church was like that.Luther was a man of pride and he felt he could do better with out the church.
- Status