Peter, the Rock, and the Keys

[ebia]

Is it not possible for all parties concerned to simply say, " Let us go to God's word and see what He teaches?"
Then accept it as the final authority on the matter since it is from God.

Sounds good in theory, but (of course) if it were really that simple it would all have been sorted out years ago.  What happens in reality is no-one will agree on which is the correct interpretation of scripture.

[michael_legna]

Hi michael_legna,
Anybody who says Martin Luther was a heretic is a heretic.
[Re:To any "confused" posters
« Reply #14 on: Today at 06:53:46pm » ]
I grant you he got it wrong putting consubtantialism in place of transubstantiation [a halway house] but he generally got it right.  The only thing I never fully understood was why your church didn't burn him at the stake like they did to all the other "rebels" who broke away from your church.  I suppose it was that powerful prince who protected him.  Well zeal is one thing but murder is another.  I don't know why you come here pedling your Catholic doctrine.  You must know you will be opposed.  Perhaps it is to get some recogniition from the "holy father."

I come here to discuss scripture but since you don't want to offer any (or if any logical argument based on facts for that matter) to support your claims, and rely instead on just statements of your personal opinion,  I can't really address them.

If you are prepared to defend his doctrine from scripture I am more than willing to discuss them with you and search for the truth.

Until then I maintain that anyone like Luther who removes entire books from the Bible (refering here to the Epistle of James) is a heretic.

[ollie]

Is it not possible for all parties concerned to simply say, " Let us go to God's word and see what He teaches?"
Then accept it as the final authority on the matter since it is from God.

Sounds good in theory, but (of course) if it were really that simple it would all have been sorted out years ago.  What happens in reality is no-one will agree on which is the correct interpretation of scripture.

I would not say "no-one" but rather there are those that will not agree on God's word, while at the same time there are those that do.
The scriptures however must be used as the basis for agreement and not the adulterations that man may try to add in and of himself.


The church in the first century seemed to be in agreement in Christ. Why can not men be in this same agreement and unity in Christ in the 21st century?
To say they can not be is denying the power and authority of God's word through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit..

[Petro]

Wrong michael,


you say;

Until then I maintain that anyone like Luther who removes entire books from the Bible (refering here to the Epistle of James) is a heretic.

Heh, heh...

Everybody knows the Roman Catholic Chruch added books to the Bible, no one in their right mind would argue this point as you do, in this century.

History proves it.

But what the heck, we will just leave you the dark on this one..

Petro

[cris]

Heh, heh...

Everybody knows the Roman Catholic Chruch added books to the Bible, no one in their right mind would argue this point as you do, in this century.

History proves it.

But what the heck, we will just leave you the dark on this one..

Petro

Are you talking about the Apocrypha in the OT?  If so, do you know when these books were added and why they were added?

Thanks

cris

[ebia]

They never were "added".  They were in the LXX (the greek translation of the jewish scriptures), as used by St Paul et al.

When the Jew's formalised their canon AFTER Christianity had got started, they decided not to include them.  St Jerome noticed that they didn't appear in the Hebrew version of the scriptures and so some people gradually started to get suspicious about them, moving them to a separate section in between the OT and the NT.  More recently, hebrew/aramaic fragments of many of the books have been found.  When the reformation came along, many protestants wanted to throw them out completelt (since they lend support to a few doctrines they didn't like, such as praying for the dead), so the RCC, at the council of trent, formally stated that they are part of scripture.  They didn't add anything, just formally stated what had been decided over a millenium earlier.  It should be noted that the original version of the A.V. (K.J.V. if you will) did include them and they were only removed in 1885.

[Lance]

This topic seems to be deteriorating to the uneven playing field of the world so I won't be contributing anymore to it.  I dare say certain Catholic people will lick their lips and say they have won but history will tell the truth; unfortunately for some.

[The Crusader]

"just like Peter is the head of the New Israel, the Church in the NT."


Ephesians 5:23.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
 24.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 1:18.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
 19.  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


 1 Peter 2:5.  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
 8.  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 9.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 10.  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.



Why do some of your uninspired statements seem to contradict those inspired of God?

Ollie

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now Read:

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The Crusader

[michael_legna]

Wrong michael,


you say;

Until then I maintain that anyone like Luther who removes entire books from the Bible (refering here to the Epistle of James) is a heretic.

Heh, heh...

Everybody knows the Roman Catholic Chruch added books to the Bible, no one in their right mind would argue this point as you do, in this century.

History proves it.

But what the heck, we will just leave you the dark on this one..

Petro

Once again just your saying something doesn't make it true Petro.  You really need to stop thinking so highly of yourself.

Of course the books you refer to are the ones in the Deuterocanonicals and they weren't added to the Bible by the Catholics, they were included in the Septuigant by the Israeilites and used by them from around 200 BC until after the times of the Apostles.  That is why the Apostles regularly quote from them in the writings of the New Testament and why a majority of the quotes in the New Testament use the wording from the Septuigant not the Hebrew scriptures.  

The books in question were only removed from the Jewish Bible at the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD, the same council were they pronounced an anathema on the Gospels and the Christian cult.   Of course they were removed once again in the 1500's by the Protestants.  

The Christian Chruch continued to use them after Jamnia and they were included in the Canon approved at both the Council of Hippo and of Carthage.  It is ironic that Protestants reject the inclusion of the deuterocanonicals at councils such as Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), because these are the very same early Church councils that Protestants appeal to for the canon of the New Testament.

You can side with the Jews at Jamnia who hated Christians but I prefer to side with the Christians at Hippo and Carthage.

[michael_legna]

"just like Peter is the head of the New Israel, the Church in the NT."


Ephesians 5:23.  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
 24.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 1:18.  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
 19.  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;


 1 Peter 2:5.  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
 8.  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 9.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 10.  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.



Why do some of your uninspired statements seem to contradict those inspired of God?

The Crusader

The key here is they only seem to.  Once you stop and listen or read all that I have said you will see I am not in disagreement with scripture.  I was talking about the Church on earth.  Catholics accept Christ as the head of the Church, there is no question of that.  Peter or his successor serve as the head of the Church on earth, only because Christ set him up as that.  The Church on earth needs to be a physical entity so it can serve as final arbitrator of disputes as in Mt 18:17.  That requires a hierarchy, one that we also find established in scripture with bishops and elder.  The Bishop of Rome since he follows Peter is seen by the Roman Catholic Church to be the prime Bishop of the Church.  None of this contradicts the fact of Christ being the head of the Church as I have explained many times in this thread.

[michael_legna]

This topic seems to be deteriorating to the uneven playing field of the world so I won't be contributing anymore to it.  I dare say certain Catholic people will lick their lips and say they have won but history will tell the truth; unfortunately for some.

Uneven playing field?  Two defending the Catholic position and the other half dozen or so attacking it?  Yeah I guess that is uneven but then why are you leaving?  

[Petro]

Chris,

In answer to your query at reply #64


First you should familiarize yourself with the history of this work;

Http://students.cua.edu/16kalvesmaki/lxx/

Having done this, you should recognize that at about 90 AD, the Jews held a Council at Jamina,  Jaminia, Jami, and several other names...........[/b]

But here is one site

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Aqum

of many, which explain the history, of the "Palestinian Canon"[/b], the Septuagint which was translated at Alexandria, was referred to as the "Alelxandrian Canon"


Finally you might search what the early church fathers thought of the Alexandrian canon which contained the additional books.;

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

The RC never considered the OT canon, until it became an issue in the fourth century, and never really canonized the entire collection until the sixteenth century at the time of the reformation.

The early church fathers rejected the  Deuterocanonical  books as spurious, but the RC embrace them as inspired, the Jews should have known what was and what  was not inspired, and the Jews in Palestine during the first century resolved this at the above refernced council.

By now the RC rely on the Deuterocanonicals books heavly for the teaching of  the doctrine of purgatory, which is based on some obscure reading in the book of 2d maccabees, among other teachings.

This is a good start..
Petro

[michael_legna]

The RC never considered the OT canon, until it became an issue in the fourth century, and never really canonized the entire collection until the sixteenth century at the time of the reformation.

That is nonsense Petro.  The RCC accepts the Councils at Hippo and Carthage as infallible Church councils.  Both of these Councils included the Deutercanonical books in the Canon of the Old Testament.  The Church only restated their inclusion at Trent to respond to the heresy put forward by the reformers in an attempt to remove them.

The early church fathers rejected the  Deuterocanonical  books as spurious, but the RC embrace them as inspired, the Jews should have known what was and what  was not inspired, and the Jews in Palestine during the first century resolved this at the above refernced council.

It is true some of the Father's questioned them, even Jerome who translated the Vulgate did not intend to include them.   He was ordered to by the Pope, which shows that the RCC did accept them as part of the Canon.  But while you can pick and choose quotes from some Early Church Fathers to show they occasionally expressed doubt,  in general the Deuteroncanonicals were accepted by the Fathers as can be shown if you do a thorough study of their letters and writings.  This was because these same writings were relied upon and quoted from by the Apostles in the New Testament, not just once in awhile but scores of times.

By now the RC rely on the Deuterocanonicals books heavly for the teaching of  the doctrine of purgatory, which is based on some obscure reading in the book of 2d maccabees, among other teachings.

Since the doctrine of Purgatory goes back to the 100's this again proves that the Church accepted the Deuterocanonicals since the beginning.  Gee you just can't catch a break can you Petro, your own analysis even goes against you.

[Tibby]

I never react to Darwinism Tibby.  Not even Darwin believed his theory when he died

That isn’t proven. The Circumstances in which this claim was made public are in great question. Evolution is wrong, God doesn’t need Darwin’s endorsement.

but a lot of those who were anxious to put the boot into the church for supporting Creation, they used it as a weapon. I put his theory in the same bracket as the phlogiston theory.  Eternity will show who was right; God or man.  Who do you think ?

I think “Creationism” the science stretches things kind of far, and they have this boarder-line heretical Jesuit thing going on. I believe Genesis.  As I said above, God doesn’t need Darwin’s endorsement, and that goes for all Science. God doesn’t want man to prove he is real, he wants man to have Faith to believe he is.

[Petro]

posted by michael at reply #72
It is true some of the Father's questioned them, even Jerome who translated the Vulgate did not intend to include them.   He was ordered to by the Pope, which shows that the RCC did accept them as part of the Canon.  

So there you go, the Roman Catholic church added the pseaudapedigraphical and deutorocanonical books to the bible.

By the way you are wrong, the pope never ordered Jerome to add anything, he translated them into latin and included them on account of Augustine's encouragement.

Since the doctrine of Purgatory goes back to the 100's this again proves that the Church accepted the Deuterocanonicals since the beginning.  Gee you just can't catch a break can you Petro, your own analysis even goes against you.

Hah...purgatory never existed as a teaching until much much later..


http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcromeh.htm

HERESIES EXPOSED
A Brief Critical Examination in the Light of the Holy Scriptures of some of the Prevailing Heresies and False Teachings of Today
Compiled by
WM. C. IRVINE
Roman Catholicism
By Wm. C. Irvine

Concerning the Roman Catholic Church this is what is written at P.146;

We again make use of Dr. Scroggie's article:-

The Doctrine of Purgatory, for which there is in Scripture not the slightest warrant, is one of the most abhorrent doctrines of the Roman Church.
The priest, summoned to the bed of a dying man, administers to him extreme unction, and solemnly pronounces full and final absolution; and yet, after the man is dead, money is cruelly extracted from his mourning relatives and friends  to pay for masses to be said in order to shorten the period of his torment in Purgatory.
Anything more utterly absurd and wicked could not be imagined. How different is the Protestant teaching, that at death the spirit of the believer, relying entirely on the merits of Christ, goes immediately into the Divine Presence, and is for ever with the Lord.
Paul declares that to depart is, to be with Christ, which is far better: A Voice from Heaven says, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord;" and the Master Himself says to the faithful servant, "Well done, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."




Purgatory was a place of fire and torment for the expiation of the sins of the deceased, however evne that has changed according to a Toronto Globe article which quoted the present pope, as describing it as a rosy not really such a bad place to spend time while having sins cleansed away.

It really is a place believed by faith, which does not exist, but is a product of  the RC churches teachings, to extract money from

"mourning relatives and friends to pay  for masses to be said in order to shorten the period of his torment in Purgatory.

I know this from first hand experience, that one must pay a fee to have a mass said for a deceased person, no $ no mass.

Literally it is a form (indulgence) of buying with money forgiveness of sins

My own dear elderly parents (who still consider themselves roman catholics thou they do not attend church), had to pay 600.00  dollars, because they desired to have a priest hold a mass for one of my brothers, who died last year, the fee was set by the perish priest through the funeral director who contacted the church upon the request of my own mother.

It makes me sick of the deception, to even think about it..

And that is the truth.

Petro