Bible Study Matthew 23

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

Double Post :

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

This verse says some rather important things. One, it is addressed to BROTHERS as are all the letters, not the leaders, not the elders, not the pastor, but the brothers.

Yes, even today the Pope and the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) write letters to the brethern.

Yes indeed, why to the brothers? Why not to the elders? Could it be because Paul was in a state of authority when speaking to the brethern?

Think about that why didn't he write to the leaders?

You mean like when he would write to St. Timothy?
Speaking of St. Timothy, is the Bishopric an office?

Why the brothers? Today a letter is written to the leaders and the regular folk may never know anything about it.

That's not true. I have accsess to the Vatican documents right at my fingertips. All I have to do is go to any good Catholic bookstore and their are rows of Papal Enciclycals, Church Councils, Documents from the Roman Curia, and Documents from the Bishops. I can even go to http://www.vatican.va and look the Vatican Archives.

Trust me, when a document comes out, I have plenty of notice.

The reason is becuase they where all brothers, as Jesus said in mat 23. The leaders where among and part of the brethren and in no way over and above anyone else.

In human terms. I of course would never address a priest as 'Father' to the same magnitude of All Mighty God. However, I think that religios leaders are absolutely Biblical.

This verse is also used by Catholics to justify the authority of tradtions, the problem that what Paul was talking in the way of what he taught was not what the Catholic church looks to as the tradition.

For the record Scripture itself is a product of tradition. I mean it didn't fall from the sky. If you recognize the Bible as any kind of authority, you would have to accepet the authority from which it came.

I mean, what is the pillar and foundation of truth?

Paul planted ONLY house churches, ane never built any kind of church building. One of the traditions he was talking about was the house church and what we are to do in a church meeting, we know this becuase of his teaching in 1 cor 14, and since Paul says here to keep doing what he taught and he taught house church meetings, then certianly what the Catholic Church is doing is not what Paul was talking about.

A house isn't a building?

So, I agree we should hold to the teachings of the NT and follow the traditions of the apostles

Is this the only tradition they left?

which where small house churches led by elders who where example and
ot lords of the church, and to always eat a full meal as communion

Small churches led by elders (priests).
Sounds like my parish. :

Hey Henry I will be gone from tomorrow until Monday. I would very much like to continue our discussion when I return. 8-)

Before I close, I asked to questions:

1.) What is the pillar and foundation of truth?

2.) Is the Bishopric an office?


I hope to hear from you on Monday!

 

[Henry]

You are deffending the Catholic Church, before you go to far with that know that I think the pope is a fraud. I have absolutely no repsect for him as a man of God, his words are jokes and anything he has to say about God and the Bible I let it go right in one ear and out the other.

If you are going to talk to me, it will be stricly about the bible, not about the pope, not about the vatican or what ever.

To quite honest with you, I am not sure I want to even continue this. I wanted to do a bible study not talk about catholic church, which is in my opinion more pagan then anything else.

So, you must understand that when you start talking about the pope and the vatican and all that I am automatically turned off and none of that stuff holds any weight with me.

 

[gingercat]

Henry,

I don't trust RCC either. RCC created the trinity doctrine.

 

[John the Baptist]

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

****
Good question forum. Another thread asks about believing the book of Acts with a graph of around 50-50% believing both ways?

And here we are asking if we believe Christ, it seems to me?? These are His Words, huh? Does He tell the Truth, I believe that He does! Verse three is loaded with Truth! There is Everlasting Gospel & Everlasting Covenant Truth in the Virgin 'ONE' Doctrine of Christs [ONE FOLD]. Ephesians 4:5, John 10:16 +!, and surely one can readily 'see' in Isaiah 5:3 that the trouble in verse three was not the doctrines as such with Eternal Truth, but the REJECTION of CHRIST!

"And now, O inhabitants of [EARTH] (Jerusalem), ... JUDGE, [I PRAY YOU], [BETWIXT ME AND MY VINEYARD." In case one is not up on what vineyard means? See the Isaiah 5:7 verse! "For the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts [is the house of Israel].." The FOLD, DOCTRINES!! All built from Psalms 77:13. Perfect & flawless and are still required as were taught in the whole Truth. That of Matthew 4:4 & 2 Timothy 3:16

But, what do we see today??? Just the opposite is claimed, huh? I have Christ, most say, yet His Doctrines go by, by, by most! Which includes of course, [this doctrine OF CHRIST] that He is warning us of in 2 John 1:9! Unless you think that Matthew 4:4 is just another remark that carries [no] Truth as the thread question asks??

That is not me my friends! How can Christ state the simple Truth of Matthew 23:3 to the Multitude of verse 1, and then every one has got to question it, is beyond me!!!???
---John

 

[thessalonian]

Henry,

I don't trust RCC either. RCC created the trinity doctrine.

No, the trinity doctrine has been around for all eternity as has Jesus Christ the eternally begotten son of God. To know this is to know God. Can you answer my question from yesterday. If a Church (i.e. Southern Baptists) believe the Trinity and also believe that anyone who does not believe in the trinity is not Christian, are they "phoney Christians" i.e. not Christian. Thank you.

 

[sehad]

The Trinity is (to me) a complicated thing. I believe that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are one. But I have very very close friends that are more in touch with GOD than I that are trinitarian. I do not see it as a Heaven or Hell issue really. There will be both in Heaven I'm sure. From my research on this I found where the first teachings of the trinity were in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[thessalonian]

Sehad,

No. The first teaching on the trinity is in the Bible. It just doesn't use the word. That you cannot understand the trinity is proof of nothing because God is beyond human comprehension. I don't understand it completely either but accept it on faith because it is what God has revealed himself to be.

I am not your judge. But there will not be any division on this matter in heaven. All will agree whether your oneness doctrine is true or trinitarian doctrine is true. For we shall see God as he is. God has revealed who he is in scripture though and to reject it is not without consequence. If you don't know or he has not given you the grace to know that is a matter I cannot judge.

Do you believe in the incarnation? God became man? That word isn't in the Bible either. This is hard for some on this board to grasp as well. So is it without consequence for them to not believe that Jesus Christ was God? What else is without consequence that God has revealed about himself? You nullify the word of God by saying that trinitaring vs. oneness doctrine does not matter with regard to salvation. Don't you believe that God's revelation is for mankind's salvation? Therefore rejection of it cannot be without consequence.

 

[Henry]

gingercat,

I don't trust the RCC but they did not come up with the doctrine of the trinity, it was here before they where around.

Sorry dear but in this area I think you are mistaken and I know it is becuase of the teachings of the JW, who I trust even less then the RCC.

At my work I am sure to grad and toss every WatchTower I find in the waiting areas. Of course I would do that with any thing any church leaves becuase it is wrong to proseltize in the hospital.

 

[gingercat]

gingercat,

I don't trust the RCC but they did not come up with the doctrine of the trinity, it was here before they where around.

Sorry dear but in this area I think you are mistaken and I know it is becuase of the teachings of the JW, who I trust even less then the RCC.

At my work I am sure to grad and toss every WatchTower I find in the waiting areas. Of course I would do that with any thing any church leaves becuase it is wrong to proseltize in the hospital.

Henry, I am not JW but I believe you are wrong about them completely, I'm sorry. I also study the Bible too, you know? I am not a complete idiot. I can tell who is a sincere and honest Christian. I see so much hypocrisy in the mainstream churches but I don't in them (JWs). We know by our fruit if we are true followers of Jesus or not.

When we ostracize obedient Christians, we will be in deep trouble with the Lord.

 

[sehad]

Sehad,

No. The first teaching on the trinity is in the Bible. It just doesn't use the word. That you cannot understand the trinity is proof of nothing because God is beyond human comprehension. I don't understand it completely either but accept it on faith because it is what God has revealed himself to be.

This is what most people say on either side of the board.
Mostly, each person's belief on which it is is determined by their upbringing. I know of a few in my church that were raised Baptist and converted to Pentecostlism and I know a few from my church converted to Baptist, but for the most part it is very rare for someone to accept something other than how they were raised unless what they were taught can be proven without a doubt wrong. Then it comes to a pride issue as to whether they want to admit that everything their parents, pastor, elders, so on taught was and is wrong.

I am not your judge. But there will not be any division on this matter in heaven. All will agree whether your oneness doctrine is true or trinitarian doctrine is true. For we shall see God as he is. God has revealed who he is in scripture though and to reject it is not without consequence. If you don't know or he has not given you the grace to know that is a matter I cannot judge.

Agreed, and ditto from me to you.

Do you believe in the incarnation? God became man? That word isn't in the Bible either. This is hard for some on this board to grasp as well. So is it without consequence for them to not believe that Jesus Christ was God? What else is without consequence that God has revealed about himself? You nullify the word of God by saying that trinitaring vs. oneness doctrine does not matter with regard to salvation. Don't you believe that God's revelation is for mankind's salvation? Therefore rejection of it cannot be without consequence.

In a parable Jesus relays to us the message "To whom much is given, much is required." Meaning that the BASIS of salvation is the same, but it is possible for someone to go to hell over something that would not send me there. I'm of the opinion that if GOD revealed his PERFECT will everything about him all at once, that we as humans would not be able to fathom it and would subsequently cease to be Christians. The bible states that his word is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path, not a light to where we are going, just light enough to show us a little of what is in front of us so we don't fall. I agree that trinitarinism is debatable. Men and women of great faith and knowledge of the bible and great power from the Holy Ghost cannot see eye to eye on this subject. I have once thought that trinitarinism is was right, but then certain scripture seem to contradict that. I'm of the opinion that oneness is right now, but there are still scriptures that seen to contradict that. I'd be willing to debate this with you, but over PM. Public posts seem to jump from topic to topic so please PM me(as this one started out that calling someone teacher was wrong.) You are Catholic correct?

 

[John the Baptist]

gingercat,

I don't trust the RCC but they did not come up with the doctrine of the trinity, it was here before they where around.

Sorry dear but in this area I think you are mistaken and I know it is becuase of the teachings of the JW, who I trust even less then the RCC.

At my work I am sure to grad and toss every WatchTower I find in the waiting areas. Of course I would do that with any thing any church leaves becuase it is wrong to proseltize in the hospital.

Henry, I am not JW but I believe you are wrong about them completely, I'm sorry. I also study the Bible too, you know? I am not a complete idiot. I can tell who is a sincere and honest Christian. I see so much hypocrisy in the mainstream churches but I don't in them (JWs). We know by our fruit if we are true followers of Jesus or not.

When we ostracize obedient Christians, we will be in deep trouble with the Lord.

****
You say J.W. are Christians as a fold? Henry is right, (bottom line) you best do a 'real' Bible study in the K.J. before you come onboard with that stuff! (with some few ignorant Christians in any fold does not make the satanic fold Christian, there is a world of difference!)

And you can tell who is what??? A True Christian MUST LOVE CHRIST! And pass His test!

Christ makes it simple!! "If ye love me keep my commandments" J.W. are sun worshipers and are included with all of the ones of Revelation 17:5 & their mom, Rome! Daniel 7:25 1 John 2:4, Isaiah 8:20 for starters!

---John

 

[gingercat]

John,

I repeat the same thing to you too.

I read the Bible just like everyone else. We know by our fruit if we are His followers or not. If you falsely accuse His servants wrongfully or ostracize them, you will be in trouble with the Lord.

I am non-trinitarian, and trinitarians are accusing me of not being Christian and am anti-Christ. I hope you don't join them. I know I am Jesus' servant and His follower.

 

[Henry]

The bible the JW use is a bad translation and can not be trusted at all. Russel didn't know what he was doing, and I would be carefull with this obedient thing, the mormons are VERY OBEDIENT.

Faith and Grace is what makes a Christian as soon as you add works you are outside of both.

Sorry by the JW are a cult and teach bad bad stuff.

 

[John the Baptist]

John,

I repeat the same thing to you too.

I read the Bible just like everyone else. We know by our fruit if we are His followers or not. If you falsely accuse His servants wrongfully or ostracize them, you will be in trouble with the Lord.

I am non-trinitarian, and trinitarians are accusing me of not being Christian and am anti-Christ. I hope you don't join them. I know I am Jesus' servant and His follower.

****
You miss the content of the 'post' that I posted up completely! : The denominations of Rome & her daughters have been around much longer that Noah preached, at God's COMMAND! They all are called by God as the Abomination of the Earth! (Revelation 17:5 both mother & daughters)

We see that God's told [mankind] that His Holy Spirit would not ALWAYS STRIVE WITH MAN. Got that? He even stated how long that that would be before the Ark Door of Probation would close. 120 Years! Compare Matthew 25:10.

Now: Once again. Inside of even the J.W. fold, there are a few [ignorant], but still sincere folks. That is why God has a Revelation LAST FATAL CALL in Revelation 18:4.
BUT, NEVER BELIEVE THAT ANY OF THESE IN REVELATION 17:5's ['FOLDS'] are to be called Christian, that which God 'Inspired' as (even in capes) the ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH!
Get this settled in your mind.

All of the reformers of old, who were sincere perhaps? now have their new followers who have NEVER changed one lick, they still preach & teach the same old stuff. For well over the 120 years!
Daniel 7:25 magnified by them in every direction except toward the Word of God! See Jude 1:11-13 'Winds' of doctrine!

---John

 

[gingercat]

Henry and John,

You cannot convince me to believe they are cult. I will not continue this anymore. I refuse to call faithful brethren anti-Christs and non-believers. It is so wrong.

 

[John the Baptist]

Henry and John,

You cannot convince me to believe they are cult. I will not continue this anymore. I refuse to call faithful brethren anti-Christs and non-believers. It is so wrong.

Whatever? :o
But, I did not say cult???
Yet, it is God that does say's.. THE ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH! And I do [believe] God.

Just wondering if you are judging by feeling (emotion) or by the.. Thus Sayest The Word Of God?

---John

 

[gingercat]

Just wondering if you are judging by feeling (emotion) or by the.. Thus Sayest The Word Of God?

---John

John, All you have to do is to read my posts to see if I am reading the Bible and follwing Jesus. I make discernment according to the Bible and their fruit. I have been posting A LOT.

 

[Bick]

Gingercat, I've been away so will give now my understanding of Matt.23 vs.

First, while there are many principles Jesus in His earthly ministry set forth, that are applicable in every age: such as love, forgiveness, faith, humbleness, having a servant's heart, etc, it is important to remember that He came unto His own, to Israel, and only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt.15:24).

I believe that the special titles the Jewish leaders loved to be called, was to build up their ego, their false pride, and were condemned for it, for even though they could quote the law of Moses, which the people should adhere to, they were hyprocrites in what they did.

So, I believe that these admonishments by Jesus were for Israel during His earthly ministry.

Bick

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

You are deffending the Catholic Church, before you go to far with that know that I think the pope is a fraud. I have absolutely no repsect for him as a man of God, his words are jokes and anything he has to say about God and the Bible I let it go right in one ear and out the other.

Wow…

If you are going to talk to me, it will be stricly about the bible, not about the pope, not about the vatican or what ever.

This thread is about Matthew 23, yes? You have made your point that you believe that all religious titles are forbidden based on the said verse. I then brought up that Paul called himself a father. You said that he called himself father because that was his relationship with a person, his function as it were. I then explained that, as a Catholic, I address religious leaders based on their function.

Deacon: The word ‘Deacon’ means servant. I address him as such because his function in the Church is to serve.

Priest: The word ‘Priest’ comes from the Greek ‘presbuteros’, which means ‘elder’. I call him Father, because that is the function that he plays in my life. (Which you stated was okay for St. Paul)

Bishop: The word ‘Bishop’ means ‘overseer’. I address a bishop as such because that is his function, to oversee.

Pope: The word ‘Pope’ means ‘Papa’ (Father). I address him as such because his function is the spiritual Father of Christ’s flock.

You yourself said that it was okay that St. Paul was called ‘Father’ because that was the function he played in someone’s life.

To quite honest with you, I am not sure I want to even continue this. I wanted to do a bible study not talk about catholic church, which is in my opinion more pagan then anything else.

You didn’t want to talk about religious titles? That was my intention. Were you only speaking to Protestants on this thread?

I just thought I would explain why I address Deacons, Priest, Bishops, and the Pope the way I do.

So, you must understand that when you start talking about the pope and the vatican and all that I am automatically turned off and none of that stuff holds any weight with me.

You are the one who began insulting the Pope, did you expect me to ignore that?

You still haven’t answered my question.

Is the Bishopric an office?