First 200 - 300 years - Jesus is God?

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

He wasn't named Emmanuel he was named Jesus. oops!

Yes, Emmanuel is a title.

Hezekiah.

Hezekiah was known as 'Mighty God'?

Because the usage of that term in the Hebrew can also mean "God - LIKE one".

'Mighty God' means God-like?

I would tell you to look up the definition but you probably know it already and are obviously determined to believe what your Church tells you to instead.

As long as the gates of hell don't prevail. :wink:

What is he the only member of?

Only begotten Son of the Father

 

[Imagican]

+JMJ+

NOTHING of the 'flesh' IS infalible.

Why did Jesus give men the ability to bind and loose?
Why did Jesus tell a man to feed his sheep?

I'm not really sure that I understand your question, but here's an answer to what I 'think' you are asking: Jesus 'empowered 'men', (the apostles), with certain 'gifts' in order to 'start' the Church. These were to 'spread the gospel' throughout the 'known' world. 'This' is the 'feeding of HIS sheep.

Now, what this has to do with the statement I made I am unsure. But, let me elaborate on 'my' statement: The 'flesh' IS sin. This being the case, the flesh is MOST certainly 'fallible'. For we are told without 'any doubt' that; 'There is NOT one that is 'righteous' no, NOT ONE. This is ALL the 'proof' that we need to see that there is none that is infallible, PERIOD. We may understand and become PERFECT in our understanding, (of our purpose), but that does NOT make us infallible. For as David's example offers and EVEN Paul's, we WILL sin REGARDLESS of our understanding, so long as we are contained within these 'earthly vessels', (the flesh).

[quote:98390]So, NO I didn't 'set myself up' as being so. I guess that leaves tha alternative according to 'your' understanding.

So then you did contradict youself?

I don't 'think so'. If so, I believe it only appeared that way to 'you'. As I stated for 'your' benefit. You offered ONLY two choices. Either I am infallible or NOT. Since I openly admit that I am NOT infallible, given only the alternative, I admit; 'from YOUR perspective, I MUST be the opposite.

While 'you' will insist that I MUST accept 'trinity' in order to be 'accepted' into or by 'your' religion as able to discern or be 'inspired'. So be it.

Deal.

I choose not to even use the word religion except in reference to others. I couldn't care less about 'man-made' tradition or religions that teach contrary to the Word.

Nothing of the Church is contrary to the Word.

Fulton, You are ABSOLUTELY right. The problem arises when one is forced to 'choose' WHAT is the Church. If you mean the Catholic Church, then I disagree. If you refer to The Church, then you ARE correct. For The Church is NOTHING more than the 'body' of Christ. The Catholic Church is nothing more than a body of men. Men that have chosen to 'create' their 'own' religion regardless of the Word. False doctrine seems to be their 'call sign' and they revel in it, as a dog returns to it's vomit, these insist that 'their way' is more desirable than that offered through the Word.

St. Paul says that we must hold fast to the tradition that he and the apostles past down to us. He didn't say that Jesus past them down, he said himself and the apostles.
If this tradition came from them...wouldn't that make it man-made?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. As already stated, The apostles were empowered to do "JUST THAT", spread the gospel. That men listened and then altered it comes as NO surprise. The Catholic Church insists that their teachings are directly handed down 'from the apostles'. They also insist that Peter was the 'first pope', WRONG. We don't have ANY proof or evidence of this except their statements. But, if you compare their teachings to those offered by the apostles, it then becomes COMPLETELY obvious that they DID NOT follow these teachings or traditions to which you refer; 'being taught them by the apostles'. For the apostles taught the LOVE AND FORGIVENESS of God and His Son. They did NOT teach that the religious order should 'serve themselves' but that they should be the 'servants' of their brothers and sisters. Now, you show me how torturing and murdering ones brothers and sisters is a 'true form of love', I will reconsider my position. But, otherwise, I think I have a basic understanding of love and causing the pain of our fellow man is not a 'part of it'.

"trinity",

This was a beleif before the Church declared it so.

So it was. But declared by those that 'formed' the Catholic Church. And there were even some of the HIGHEST members of it that contested this doctrine. Members within the Body that KNEW that this was nothing but a twisting of Christ into the paganism that existed in the Roman empire previous to the introduction of Christ.

'the confessional'

Do you mean confession?

Jesus did give the authority to bound and loose in heaven and earth...does this not include sin?
Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. John 20:23
St. James did say we should "confess our sins to one another". James 5:16

Yes Fulton, we were told to confess our sin, NOT INDIVIDUAL SINS to A man. By simply openly admitting that 'I am a sinner' is what was indicated in this 'saying'. Not confessing to ONE man who has NO more authority than ANY other, each and every sin that I commit. Yet the Catholics would teach you that a 'bishop' or 'Pope' has MORE authority than you or I. That you need, bow down to them as 'if' they are God or Christ.

Fulton, God KNOWS what is IN OUR HEARTS. It's not so much a matter of WHAT we do or don't do, But WHY we do them. For the sin comes NOT from a deed, but from the state of ones heart. Just as the 'food laws' offered to the Jews had a purpose. Christ stated CLEARLY 'it is NOT was goes into the body but what come OUT of it that is UN Clean. So, as Peter insisted that NOTHING unclean had EVER entered his body, He was then told that, what God hath cleansed let NO man call common.

So, my friend, our needs be that we be cleansed from the inside out, NOT the outside in.

Fulton, my friend, am I bound to 'man's law' any more, any less, than God's law? Your answer WILL determine your understanding.

'torture and murder'

,

I'll be sure to look up a document that condones torture and murder. :roll:

See, you laugh and make light of those that have MURDERED the Saints themselves. Beware my friend, of what you condone through the lightness with which you seem to take these deeds.

Yes, men in the Church did horrible things. This does not mean that the gates of hell did in fact prevail.
When Martin Luther came by he was right about one thing. The Church needed reform; we needed reform in behavior not in doctrine.

That is your opinion and I respect that, but CERTAINLY don't agree with it. Martin Luther saw 'some' things that the church was doing against the Word, but, having been 'raised' as a 'good Catholic', there were MANY MANY more things that he was utterly 'blind' to and simply carried this 'baggage' right into his 'reformation' as it is known as. From my perspective, the ONLY way that these 'horrible' things were possible for the church to create and administer was ONLY possible from a 'twisted' doctrine to 'start with'.

'a pope',

"Thou are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church" Mathew 16:18

Peter is commissioned to fee Christ's lambs. Why Peter?

I know NOT the heart of Peter. And I am NOT sure that 'your' interpretation of these WORDS even is the 'correct' interpretation of them. Regardless of this point, let us FIRST find the 'proof' that Peter EVER EVEN VISITED THE ROMANS. Show me the 'proof'. Peter was an apostle to the Jews, read the Word. He was STEEPED in the tradition of the Jews to the point that he didn't even believe that the gospel pertained to the Gentiles. It took much effort from God and Christ to 'change' this understanding of Peter. If you will read the Word, it was Paul who chose to deliver the gospel to the Gentiles and Peter was to spread the Word to the Jews. I know that the Catholic Church 'teaches' something different, but that just goes to further prove that these disobedient 'children' are the kind that INSIST that they have things 'their way' instead of that offered as guidance by their PARENT.

'Mary as the 'queen' of heaven,

For starters, if she's good enough for Christ, she's good enought for me.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ!
Think about it. Jesus...the Son of God. Submitting himself to the authority of a woman!
Jesus became man. By doing so, was he not then subject to His Father's law? The law is summarized in the Decaloage (sp?).
We are commanded to honor our father and mother.
'Honor' comes from the Hebrew 'kaboda' which means to give glory and honor to greatest of one's ability. Did Jesus fail to do this? If he did he would have been a sinner. He wasn't of course. In fact, he was perfect . Which means he honored Mary perfectly. Whether you beleive Jesus is God or not, I'm sure you acknowlege that He does have 'all things under His feet', right?. As I have said before, Jesus honored His Mother perfectly. If you were in Jesus' position (quick summary: Lord of all things, and perfect in everyway) wouldn't you honor your mother in this way?
If Jesus did not honor His mother to the best of His ability , he would have failed to be without sin.

Catholic 'psycho babble'. Making EXCUSES for their disobedience to the Father; nothing more, nothing less. You continue in your 'female' worship and one day, your folly will become apparent to both you and SATAN.

'indulgencies',

Bind and loose.

I don't know what you offer here, but it appears that you understand the word and defend it as if it was something Biblical or 'right'. Please!!

But, We can go into purgatory if you would like.

No, I think I will pass on a 'fantasy place'. I don't think that I will choose to flow down the 'river styx' either.

'the iron maiden', 'denying the cup'

Never heard of these.

I'll explain: Iron maiden, a device of torture 'invented' by your 'precious' Catholics, to instill a maximum amount of fear in those being accused of heresy. Also, something created to increase the 'thrill of the kill' to those that employed it.

Upon the re-enactment of the communion, we were told to 'do this in remembrance'. yet the Catholic Church has altered even this too. For they offer the Body, but deny the Blood. My friend, understand this, the LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. So, to offer part instead of the whole alters the WHOLE PURPOSE. So, this is nothing more than more pagan ritual as performed by the Catholic Church.

'bowing down to idols',

When you say 'bow down' I can assume you mean worship. I don't worship statues.
Bowing down is not always worship.

More 'twisting' of words to serve 'your' purpose. Yet you don't even recognize that it isn't even YOUR purpose that you serve.

'building 'mini towers of Babel',

...What?

There was once a people known as the Babylonians. They decided that they were 'great' enough to 'build a tower to heaven'. Not satisfied with their 'gift' of God, (life), they decided that they wanted MORE. For this cause they were divided up and sent in different directions throughout the world.

The Catholics, with NO different intent in their hearts, have done NO less in their Cathedrals. Creating that which offers them a 'feeling' of heaven on earth. 'Places' that they can 'worship' and spending mass fortunes to have them erected.
Fulton, God NO longer dwells in a temple. From the moment of Christ's death, 'God has left the house' so to speak. The 'true' temple is NOW within. WITHIN those that accept Christ into their hearts. So, no amount of elaborate 'gold leaf' or carvings of idols is able to bring ANY one tiny step closer to God or heaven.It would appear that the Catholics don't 'get it'.

'Jesus IS God',

This beleif was held before the Council of Nicea.

Yes Fulton and so was a belief in Baal. What is important to understand is that it was NOT taught to us by God, Christ OR the apostles. We have NO record of it EVEN mentioned until 'after' the apostles had ALL died off.

'the rack',

Never heard of it.

Just another 'cute' invention by the church. a 'bed' of sorts, that was designed to be 'cranked' or 'mechanically lengthened. One would strap the 'heretic' upon this device and then crank it to 'stretch the victim' until their joints POPPED out of place. Very painful I would imagine, (but then there's NOTHING like a little physical pain to 'get the spirit flowing eh?).

'stealing in the name of God'

Yep

murder in the name of God'

Yep

Once again an action committed by man. This does not reflect the doctrine of the Church.

I disagree Fulton, I believe that their actions are a 'DIRECT' Reflection of their doctrine. How could it be any other way. For those that reflect the TRUE gospel, (doctrine of Christ), were COMMANDED to love God ABOVE all else, and to love their neighbors AS THEMSELVES. I don't recall these that tortured and murdered others, strapping THEMSELVES in their demonic devices.

'perdition',

I'm not sure what that is.

Me either, some fictional place, created by the Catholics. Ask Thess, he can explain it much better than I.

'sprinkling'

, '

Sprinkling what? Holy Water at Baptism? That's forbidden.

No, not forbidden. Just twisted by the Catholics who, I guess, were too lazy to do it the way it had been instructed. So, the poops or bishops or priests, not wanting to 'get wet' or 'dirty', decided that they had to authority to alter the emersion and simply 'sprinkled' instead. which, I guess, is OK after one prays and 'makes' holy water first.

the rosary',

Little 'worry beads'. A pagan Persian thing. Once again, ash Thess.

Which part? What do you have against the Gospels?

I have absolutely NOTHING against the gospels. In fact, I have spent years trying to understand and follow them.

'prayer to the Saints'

As far as we know the Saints 'sleep' now as ALMOST every person that has ever lived upon this planet. So, if this is so, can they hear and offer interjection EVEN WHEN THEY SLEEP? More pagan ritual.

Have you ever asked someone to pray for you?

Yes

Scripture says that the Saints have prayers too.

Ah, Ok..........

the list is getting quite lengnthy huh?

Yeah, my fingers are starting to get cramped up.

'celibate priests'

Please don't go there Fulton, for you can ONLY have your 'feelings hurt'. We were commanded by Paul, "Forbid NOT to wed". Period. And to further the point, we were warned that there would come a time when 'false prophets' would offer that exact doctrine; forbidding to wed.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

1 Corinthians 7:8

'nuns'

Is their something wrong with women giving up their lives to pray, serve the poor, and teach?

Never said anything of the sort. What I am doing is what you asked. You ask for those things that the Catholic Church had 'created' that didn't exist BEFORE their 'hijacking' of the Christian religion. Just offering examples. For their ain't NUNS in the Bible.

a belief that the communion is REAL instead of 'symbolic'.

Where in Scripture does it say it's symbolic?

Do this in remembrance. Get it. NO, not; DO THIS AS I DID IT.
For this is IMPOSSIBLE. There is NO way that ANYONE could convince ANYONE that has the Spirit, that a 'man' is able to offer what Christ did. It can ONLY be performed as 'symbolic' for Priest cannot BECOME Christ for a moment to perform this ritual and then 'turn back into nothing more than flesh. Come on.

It's seems more like it's geared in the other direction.

This should be a pretty good start. We can go over others later if you wish.

Sure! [/quote:98390]

I'll return with the continuation of the 'others' later. First let me confront the barrage of Thess's probable attack first.

Love ya brother. And Please Fulton, do not think for one second that I hold any anger, resentment or ill feelings toward you in the LEAST. That our beliefs may differ changes NOT ONE iota of my feelings towards you. It is NOT a personal thing. Oh, and by the way, the Catholics seem to believe that if I DON'T agree with their poop in EVERY respect, I am an heretic and worthy of NOTHING short of an excruciating death. I am an ENEMY worthy of NOTHING but pity. No, love, no forgiveness, JUST PITY AND DEATH. Think about that one for a moment...........

Until next time my brother.

All in LOVE,

MEC

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

I'm not really sure that I understand your question, but here's an answer to what I 'think' you are asking: Jesus 'empowered 'men', (the apostles), with certain 'gifts' in order to 'start' the Church. These were to 'spread the gospel' throughout the 'known' world.

So…At one point people were in a sense under men’s authorityâ€Â

'This' is the 'feeding of HIS sheep.

Jesus only asked St. Peter to feed his sheep.

Now, what this has to do with the statement I made I am unsure. But, let me elaborate on 'my' statement: The 'flesh' IS sin. This being the case, the flesh is MOST certainly 'fallible'. For we are told without 'any doubt' that;

If I understand you correctly you are saying no one is perfect.
I've never claimed to Pope was perfect.
When, I as a Catholic, say that the Pope is infallible, I mean he is the one with the keys. He has the final say in doctrinal matters.
You may want to look up what the Catholic Church means by infallible.

'There is NOT one that is 'righteous' no, NOT ONE. This is ALL the 'proof' that we need to see that there is none that is infallible, PERIOD.

No one has authority on earth? Who's going to feed Christ's lambs?

We may understand and become PERFECT in our understanding, (of our purpose), but that does NOT make us infallible. For as David's example offers and EVEN Paul's, we WILL sin REGARDLESS of our understanding, so long as we are contained within these 'earthly vessels', (the flesh).

The Pope never claimed spiritual perfection.

I don't 'think so'. If so, I believe it only appeared that way to 'you'. As I stated for 'your' benefit. You offered ONLY two choices. Either I am infallible or NOT. Since I openly admit that I am NOT infallible, given only the alternative, I admit; 'from YOUR perspective, I MUST be the opposite.

First you said that you offer scripture as you understand it, then you said that your understanding is not from you, but something "beyond your fleshly understanding".

Do believe, that through the power of the Holy Spirit you can define scripture?

In all fairness, would you tell me what you meant?

Fulton, You are ABSOLUTELY right. The problem arises when one is forced to 'choose' WHAT is the Church

The Body of Christ.

Men that have chosen to 'create' their 'own' religion regardless of the Word.

May I be honest with you? I don't think you understand Catholic history or dogma. I think you have developed a sincere hatred for the Church. You now look at scripture, tradition, and the magesterium through an Anti-Catholic lense. I'll keep you in my prayers.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. As already stated, The apostles were empowered to do "JUST THAT", spread the gospel.

Did the Apostles have succesors? If they did not, then that would mean that this empowerment to spread the gospel (the way they did) is now extinct.

That men listened and then altered it comes as NO surprise.

What have we altered?

But, if you compare their teachings to those offered by the apostles, it then becomes COMPLETELY obvious that they DID NOT follow these teachings or traditions to which you refer; 'being taught them by the apostles'

Have you heard of early church fathers? These men lived in the time of the Apostles and soon after. These men taught, the real presence in the Eucharist, a Pope, honor of Mary, and that Jesus was in fact God.

They did NOT teach that the religious order should 'serve themselves' but that they should be the 'servants' of their brothers and sisters

Would you mind telling me where their is a document stating that our leaders 'serve themselves'?
Priests are servants of their brothers.

So it was. But declared by those that 'formed' the Catholic Church. And there were even some of the HIGHEST members of it that contested this doctrine.

Would you give me a reference?

Members within the Body that KNEW that this was nothing but a twisting of Christ into the paganism that existed in the Roman empire previous to the introduction of Christ.

Scripture clearly states that Jesus is God.

Yes Fulton, we were told to confess our sin, NOT INDIVIDUAL SINS to A man

The early church fathers disagree. Their are records for confession of sins all the way back to 70 AD. That's only 40 years after Christ ascended into heaven! That's 20 years before Revalation was even written.
Confession was around before the Bible was even completed.

Why not confess your sins to a man? After all (according to you) Jesus was just a man.

The Apostles were men too, why did they have the authority to forgive sins?

See, you laugh and make light of those that have MURDERED the Saints themselves. Beware my friend, of what you condone through the lightness with which you seem to take these deeds.

I apologize, my intention was not to make light of this matter.
I only said what I said because the sinful actions of these men does not reflect doctrine.

I know NOT the heart of Peter. And I am NOT sure that 'your' interpretation of these WORDS even is the 'correct' interpretation of them

Jesus called Peter the Rock and said on this rock he would build his Church.
Their isn't much room for interpretation.

Catholic 'psycho babble'. Making EXCUSES for their disobedience to the Father; nothing more, nothing less. You continue in your 'female' worship and one day, your folly will become apparent to both you and SATAN.

In other words you have no answer.
I don't worship Mary. I imitate Jesus by honoring someone whom He honored.

I'll explain: Iron maiden, a device of torture 'invented' by your 'precious' Catholics, to instill a maximum amount of fear in those being accused of heresy. Also, something created to increase the 'thrill of the kill' to those that employed it.

Just another 'cute' invention by the church. a 'bed' of sorts, that was designed to be 'cranked' or 'mechanically lengthened. One would strap the 'heretic' upon this device and then crank it to 'stretch the victim' until their joints POPPED out of place. Very painful I would imagine, (but then there's NOTHING like a little physical pain to 'get the spirit flowing eh?).

I disagree Fulton, I believe that their actions are a 'DIRECT' Reflection of their doctrine. How could it be any other way. For those that reflect the TRUE gospel, (doctrine of Christ), were COMMANDED to love God ABOVE all else, and to love their neighbors AS THEMSELVES. I don't recall these that tortured and murdered others, strapping THEMSELVES in their demonic devices

Ah....Because men in the Church committed these actions this somehow implies that their is something wrong with the doctrine of the Church?

So then those who read the Bible and still sin, are a reflection of the Bible?

No, not forbidden. Just twisted by the Catholics who, I guess, were too lazy to do it the way it had been instructed. So, the poops or bishops or priests, not wanting to 'get wet' or 'dirty', decided that they had to authority to alter the emersion and simply 'sprinkled' instead. which, I guess, is OK after one prays and 'makes' holy water first.

I have never seen a sprinkling baptism before.
Have you seen one?

Little 'worry beads'. A pagan Persian thing.

Have you ever studied the Rosary?

I have absolutely NOTHING against the gospels. In fact, I have spent years trying to understand and follow them.

The Rosary is a meditation on the gospels.

As far as we know the Saints 'sleep' now as ALMOST every person that has ever lived upon this planet. So, if this is so, can they hear and offer interjection EVEN WHEN THEY SLEEP? More pagan ritual.

I thought our God was the God of living?

Please don't go there Fulton, for you can ONLY have your 'feelings hurt'. We were commanded by Paul, "Forbid NOT to wed". Period. And to further the point, we were warned that there would come a time when 'false prophets' would offer that exact doctrine; forbidding to wed.

It's not my feelings you should be concerned about

The Church doesn't forbid marriage. Celibacy is not even doctrine.

Do this in remembrance. Get it. NO, not; DO THIS AS I DID IT

1 Corinthians 11:26

When then were they suppose to do?

It can ONLY be performed as 'symbolic' for Priest cannot BECOME Christ for a moment to perform this ritual and then 'turn back into nothing more than flesh. Come on

So...your'e saying it's impossible for God?

Upon the re-enactment of the communion, we were told to 'do this in remembrance'. yet the Catholic Church has altered even this too. For they offer the Body, but deny the Blood. My friend, understand this, the LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. So, to offer part instead of the whole alters the WHOLE PURPOSE. So, this is nothing more than more pagan ritual as performed by the Catholic Church.

You have never been to a Catholic Mass have you?
I receive the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ every Sunday.

I'll return with the continuation of the 'others' later. First let me confront the barrage of Thess's probable attack first.

Love ya brother. And Please Fulton, do not think for one second that I hold any anger, resentment or ill feelings toward you in the LEAST. That our beliefs may differ changes NOT ONE iota of my feelings towards you. It is NOT a personal thing. Oh, and by the way, the Catholics seem to believe that if I DON'T agree with their poop in EVERY respect, I am an heretic and worthy of NOTHING short of an excruciating death. I am an ENEMY worthy of NOTHING but pity. No, love, no forgiveness, JUST PITY AND DEATH. Think about that one for a moment...........

I understand completely. As a brother in Christ, I know you are just looking out for me.

I can only do the same.

Pax Vobis

 

[Sothenes]

John 1:18 - In this verse Jesus is called the 'Only begotten Son'. In the Greek the word used is 'monogenes' which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

I was reading page 586 of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words where it says,"In Heb. 1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word 'again' is rightly placed in the RV,"when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." This points on to His second advent, which is set in contrast to His first advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (SEE FIRSTBORN)."

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Imagician, you have Christ being created sometime after the beginning in John 1:1 but Jesus is praying in John 17:5 to the Father and Jesus reveals that He existed before the world was and Hebrews 1:5 in the RV shows that Jesus wasn't created but rather came into the world again. I suppose you won't believe even if the Greek says otherwise.

 

[Bnerd]

Hi brethren, As a newbie to the forums this will be my first post.

I'm not really sure that I understand your question, but here's an answer to what I 'think' you are asking: Jesus 'empowered 'men', (the apostles), with certain 'gifts' in order to 'start' the Church. These were to 'spread the gospel' throughout the 'known' world.

So…At one point people were in a sense under men’s authority

The scripture in Acts 1:8, - "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth".

power: doo'-nam-is:
From G1410; force (literally or figuratively); specifically miraculous power (usually by implication a miracle itself): - ability, abundance, meaning, might (-ily, -y, -y deed), (worker of) miracle (-s), power, strength, violence, mighty (wonderful) work.

says nothing about authority over men. Implies that they had been given abundance of power, strength, might , for (direction and purpose) and abilities to face the opposition / hardships that would lead them to prison, torture ect.. and even death.
These low-lifes (as the educated priest saw them) needed help so Jesus sent them the Spirit. The Spirit also gave them the ability to perform miracles to validate their message.
Seems funny to me many so called religions claim to have that apostle's
power has been handed down to them yet to this day have I seen one of them raise the dead, heal sickness or give sight to the blind.

Why did Jesus give men the ability to bind and loose?

bind and loose? Context, context..... Jesus speaking to his disciples,

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. .....

"That if two of you shall agree" The ones having a dispute in this case, if there were three having a dispute he would have said If you all shall agree that agreement would be written as we would say in STONE in heaven as a testimony to whether we forgave one another or not.

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Christ will also be a witness.

Yes even PETER got what Jesus meant.

Mat 18:21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
Mat 18:22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

This has nothing to do with salvation or damnation it has to do with personal relationships / fellowships in this life.
I do believe we should confess our faults (not sin) to another brother in Christ. Doing so we admit our weaknesses and can get counsel and prayer to help encourage us to become the victor and not a victim!
Confess (acknowledge):
1. We confess our sins to God and god alone. 1Jn 1:9; Psa 32:5
3. We are only to confess Jesus to men. (every occurrence in the NT)

Mary as the 'queen' of heaven

For starters, if she's good enough for Christ, she's good enought for me.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ!
Think about it. Jesus...the Son of God. Submitting himself to the authority of a woman!
Jesus became man. By doing so, was he not then subject to His Father's law? The law is summarized in the Decaloage (sp?).
We are commanded to honor our father and mother.
'Honor' comes from the Hebrew 'kaboda' which means to give glory and honor to greatest of one's ability. Did Jesus fail to do this? If he did he would have been a sinner. He wasn't of course. In fact, he was perfect . Which means he honored Mary perfectly. Whether you beleive Jesus is God or not, I'm sure you acknowlege that He does have 'all things under His feet', right?. As I have said before, Jesus honored His Mother perfectly. If you were in Jesus' position (quick summary: Lord of all things, and perfect in everyway) wouldn't you honor your mother in this way?
If Jesus did not honor His mother to the best of His ability , he would have failed to be without sin.

Showing honor (respect) is not worship. Jesus never prayed to her. For her or with her I can believe. Mary is a just like the rest of us, chosen by God to accomplish His divine will. She had to confess her sins just like we have to or pay the price. Jesus did honor his mother perfectly! We should honor our mothers the same as he did.

Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Sprinkling what? Holy Water at Baptism? That's forbidden.

What he is saying is that there is one way and one way only to baptize, and that is full emersion. Anything other way is wrong therefore forbidden.

Jesus only asked St. Peter to feed his sheep.

Jesus asked Peter 3 times, Do you LOVE me?
Jesus told him 3 times FEED MY SHEEP!

Last one for now .....

Jesus called Peter the Rock and said on this rock he would build his Church.
Their isn't much room for interpretation.

Humm...
Setting:
Mar 3:13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
Mar 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
Mar 3:15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

For two and one half years, Jesus had about seventy disciples who walked, ate and sleeped with him. Then about year before his death He went to a mountain top and prayed and the next morning he ordained 12 men.

Called out...
Ordained men....
Sent to preach..... might send (set apart)
Given power (howbeit temporary)......

Mar 3:16 tells us that he sunamed Simon to Peter. Sometimes the bible tells you something and later tells you how it was done. Trust me the chapters are NOT written in order.

What does this sound like? A Church in the rough? (foundation being layed?)

Moving on, Context, context.......

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Jesus is looking for an answer to a question.
They said: Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.

Jesus said: But whom say ye that I am?
Jesus is still looking for an answer to a question.

Then Simon Peter says, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus said: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus got the answer he was looking for! All the teaching he has done, all the praying he had done, FINALLY is paying off!

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Notice the name change! Simon Bar-jona then Peter.
Now notice upon this rock I will build my church. Remember He was looking for the truth of who he was and it is Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is on this simple confession of faith that Christ is going to build his church not Peter. Simon believed (salvation) got a new name (sound familiar?)
How can satan ever take salvation away? Try as he may when you come to Christ and you are changed its forever and the gates of hell cant take that from you. As long as Christ is in you the church shall prevail.

Next He tells now Peter, He will give him keys. We already saw what this meant before what about now? It fits just perfect. Yet, After studing the word "church" for 18 months I have come to the conclussion ....(based on what we know now compared to what Peter was told for he wasn't ready to handle everytime just yet, he didnt even know that his friend was going to die) It may go something like this.......

Simon you are now part of my family. You have been born again. From this day forward you will be called Peter. On my death, burial and ressurection, shortly thereafter you will be given the keys to unlock the mysterys of the kingdom of heaven and the word of God. Be warned, whatever you bind (do with your life ie.. good or bad) will be recorded forever into eternity. When you stand before me you will be judged by fire based on that which you have bound here on earth. Peter, love me and feed my sheep the words I have given to you. Note:
1. Peter is pet'-ros which means a (piece of) rock (G4074)
2. Rock is pet'-ra which means a (mass of) rock (G4073) (Feminine of the same as G4074)
3. Paul had more to do with the Church as we know today than Peter did.

 

[Imagican]

John 1:18 - In this verse Jesus is called the 'Only begotten Son'. In the Greek the word used is 'monogenes' which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

I was reading page 586 of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words where it says,"In Heb. 1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word 'again' is rightly placed in the RV,"when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." This points on to His second advent, which is set in contrast to His first advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (SEE FIRSTBORN)."

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Imagician, you have Christ being created sometime after the beginning in John 1:1 but Jesus is praying in John 17:5 to the Father and Jesus reveals that He existed before the world was and Hebrews 1:5 in the RV shows that Jesus wasn't created but rather came into the world again. I suppose you won't believe even if the Greek says otherwise.

No, I haven't gone into ANY detail of Christ's creation up to this point. But what I have offered is that Christ was created BEFORE MAN. Exactly 'when' I have NOT stated, nor do I intend to. We have NO idea what existed 'before' the 'creation' of this planet. We DO know that Christ and the angels, (including Satan), existed 'before' man. What else may or may not have been 'in existence' we simply do not know.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

The scripture in Acts 1:8, - "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth".

So then the Apostles power to spread the gospel is no longer being dispensed?

says nothing about authority over men

Except that the Apostles did have it.

We confess our sins to God and god alone

St. James says that we are to confess our sins to one another.
Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins.

As I have stated before, confession of sins dates back even before Revalation was written.

Showing honor (respect) is not worship

I'm totally on the same page with you their.

Jesus never prayed to her

Why would Jesus pray to His mother? When Catholics pray to Mary we ask her to take them (our prayers) to her son...Not the other way around.

Mary is a just like the rest of us, chosen by God to accomplish His divine will

Do you know of any other woman who was chosen to give birth to the Word made flesh?

God has plans for certain people, and He knew them from all eternity "before I formed you in the womb I knew ye". God knew His Son would become man. He would do this by a woman. How fitting is that?
Through a woman was brought death.
Through a woman was brought life.

Jesus did honor his mother perfectly!

Which means that she had to have been worth Almighty God's honor.

Jesus asked Peter 3 times, Do you LOVE me?
Jesus told him 3 times FEED MY SHEEP

Why did Jesus commission St. Peter to feed His sheep?

Humm...
Setting:
Mar 3:13 And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
Mar 3:14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
Mar 3:15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

For two and one half years, Jesus had about seventy disciples who walked, ate and sleeped with him. Then about year before his death He went to a mountain top and prayed and the next morning he ordained 12 men.

Called out...
Ordained men....
Sent to preach..... might send (set apart)
Given power (howbeit temporary)......

Mar 3:16 tells us that he sunamed Simon to Peter. Sometimes the bible tells you something and later tells you how it was done. Trust me the chapters are NOT written in order.

What does this sound like? A Church in the rough? (foundation being layed?)

Moving on, Context, context.......

Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

Jesus is looking for an answer to a question.
They said: Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.

Jesus said: But whom say ye that I am?
Jesus is still looking for an answer to a question.

Then Simon Peter says, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus said: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus got the answer he was looking for! All the teaching he has done, all the praying he had done, FINALLY is paying off!

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Notice the name change! Simon Bar-jona then Peter.
Now notice upon this rock I will build my church. Remember He was looking for the truth of who he was and it is Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. It is on this simple confession of faith that Christ is going to build his church not Peter. Simon believed (salvation) got a new name (sound familiar?)
How can satan ever take salvation away? Try as he may when you come to Christ and you are changed its forever and the gates of hell cant take that from you. As long as Christ is in you the church shall prevail.

Next He tells now Peter, He will give him keys. We already saw what this meant before what about now? It fits just perfect. Yet, After studing the word "church" for 18 months I have come to the conclussion ....(based on what we know now compared to what Peter was told for he wasn't ready to handle everytime just yet, he didnt even know that his friend was going to die) It may go something like this.......

Simon you are now part of my family. You have been born again. From this day forward you will be called Peter. On my death, burial and ressurection, shortly thereafter you will be given the keys to unlock the mysterys of the kingdom of heaven and the word of God. Be warned, whatever you bind (do with your life ie.. good or bad) will be recorded forever into eternity. When you stand before me you will be judged by fire based on that which you have bound here on earth. Peter, love me and feed my sheep the words I have given to you. Note:
1. Peter is pet'-ros which means a (piece of) rock (G4074)
2. Rock is pet'-ra which means a (mass of) rock (G4073) (Feminine of the same as G4074)
3. Paul had more to do with the Church as we know today than Peter did

I would be happy to have a discussion with you in a new thread if you would like. However, I will answer as best I can.

Why would Peter receive a title like 'Rock'? A title that is most commonly used for Christ?

It is common in sacred Scripture for a persons name to be changed. (Abram Abraham; Jacob Israel) Every time this happens it means a distinct change in the person has occured.

Abraham as the Father of a Nation.

Israel as the Father of the twelve tribes.

Kepha as the Shepherd who will feed Christ's sheep.

 

[Vic C.]

So then the Apostles power to spread the gospel is no longer being dispensed?

Are they still alive? Plus, they did their job; they did spread the Gospel throughout their whole known world.

Why would Jesus pray to His mother? When Catholics pray to Mary we ask her to take them (our prayers) to her son...Not the other way around.

Why, when Jesus says we can take them straight to Him.

Which means that she had to have been worth Almighty God's honor.

Of course she was, but not for the reasons you think. Would Jesus have broken this, or any commantment?

Exo 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Why would Peter receive a title like 'Rock'? A title that is most commonly used for Christ?

He was given the name "rock", though it was petros, small rock. Jesus referred to Himself as petra, large rock.

“You are petros, and on this petra I will build my Church.â€Â

In Aramaic, kepha can be used interchangably but in Greek Peter would have had to been given the masculine name, petros. Don't think I need to explain why. lol Fortunately for us, when the writer wrote this in Greek, it was translated the way Jesus has intended it to be written.

So...

Since this is how it stands in the Greek and we have NO indication of what Jesus actually said in Aramaic, or if He really spoke this in Aramaic, anything above and beyond what was recorded (in the Greek) in this case, is spectulation.

I can just envision Jesus standing there, pointing at Peter as He says, "You are petros" then pointing down at Himself as He says. "and on THIS petra I will build my church".

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Are they still alive? Plus, they did their job; they did spread the Gospel throughout their whole known world.

Why did the Apostles "lay hands" men to continue this ministry?

Why, when Jesus says we can take them straight to Him.

I'm not saying we can't or even shouldn't. But Mary is His Mother. He must honor her reqeusts.

In Aramaic, kepha can be used interchangably but in Greek Peter would have had to been given the masculine name, petros.

The problem with this is that Kepha is Aramaic, and it means literally Rock. In this verse the word Rock is used twice. Both times referring to Peter.

Fortunately for us, when the writer wrote this in Greek, it was translated the way Jesus has intended it to be written.

Actually the New Testament was written in Koine Greek.
In Koine Geek, Petra (Rock) and (Petros) are synonymous. If Christ wanted to make a distinction He would have named him 'Lythos' (Small Stone).

In the Attic Greek you would be right. Yet, the Attic Greek (used for poetry) was alomst extinct at the writing of Matthew.

Since this is how it stands in the Greek and we have NO indication of what Jesus actually said in Aramaic, or if He really spoke this in Aramaic, anything above and beyond what was recorded (in the Greek) in this case, is spectulation.

Actually, we do know that Jesus named Peter in Aramaic. St. Paul often refers to Peter as 'Cephas', which is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic 'Kepha'.

Which brings up another point. Peter was not the only disciple who's name was changed by Christ (St. James and St. John). Yet their names are not permanenlty changed thoughout Scripture. Interestingly enough, after Simon is called Peter, he is referred to as Peter thoughout the remainder of Scripture.

 

[Vic C.]

Actually, we do know that Jesus named Peter in Aramaic. St. Paul often refers to Peter as , which is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic 'Kepha'.

Paul also calls Jesus petra... and it is in Greek, not Aramaic.

kai pantev to auto pneumatikon epion (5627) poma; epinon (5707) gar ek pneumatikhv akolouqoushv (5723) petrav; h petra de hn (5713) o Xristov.

1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[Sothenes]

John 1:18 - In this verse Jesus is called the 'Only begotten Son'. In the Greek the word used is 'monogenes' which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

I was reading page 586 of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words where it says,"In Heb. 1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word 'again' is rightly placed in the RV,"when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." This points on to His second advent, which is set in contrast to His first advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (SEE FIRSTBORN)."

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Imagician, you have Christ being created sometime after the beginning in John 1:1 but Jesus is praying in John 17:5 to the Father and Jesus reveals that He existed before the world was and Hebrews 1:5 in the RV shows that Jesus wasn't created but rather came into the world again. I suppose you won't believe even if the Greek says otherwise.

No, I haven't gone into ANY detail of Christ's creation up to this point. But what I have offered is that Christ was created BEFORE MAN. Exactly 'when' I have NOT stated, nor do I intend to. We have NO idea what existed 'before' the 'creation' of this planet. We DO know that Christ and the angels, (including Satan), existed 'before' man. What else may or may not have been 'in existence' we simply do not know.

If Jesus was created and separate from God then why is the Baptism formula say to baptize in the "name" (singular) instead of "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In the "name" is in the singular because they are the one Lord or Trinity.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Double Post

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

Paul also calls Jesus petra... and it is in Greek, not Aramaic.

kai pantev to auto pneumatikon epion (5627) poma; epinon (5707) gar ek pneumatikhv akolouqoushv (5723) petrav; h petra de hn (5713) o Xristov.

1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The difference, however, is that the Apostle is saying that Jesus is the Rock from whom we receive our nourishment. Their is no reason to call Him 'Petro' becuse St. Paul is not applying a name to Jesus, but a symbol of His nourishing us (Eucharisic?).

Peter, on the other hand his called 'Kepha'.

Why would St. Paul have called him 'Cephas', instead of 'Petros'?

 

[Vic C.]

Why would Matthew refer to Peter as petros and not petra if Jesus' intentions were to refer to Peter as the begger of the two rocks? Did Jesus make a mistake when calling Peter pertros and then Matthew corrected it by writing petra?

 

[thessalonian]

Why would Matthew refer to Peter as petros and not petra if Jesus' intentions were to refer to Peter as the begger of the two rocks? Did Jesus make a mistake when calling Peter pertros and then Matthew corrected it by writing petra?

First of all, the distinction you make that petros is small stone and petra is rock is only found in some greek poetry and was not commonly used. There is in fact a name for stone used in other places, i.e. matt 10, lithos. But lithos is not used here so it is not likely the meaning of petros is stone or Matthew would have used lithos. Second of all Greek is gendered and so calling Peter petra would be like calling him with the name of a woman. Can you imagine running around with the name Victoria? You can't say Matthew corrected it as petros is a proper translation of Kepha.

 

[Vic C.]

Oh, ok... it's all good and not worth me arguing about it anymore. 8-)

 

[Imagican]

John 1:18 - In this verse Jesus is called the 'Only begotten Son'. In the Greek the word used is 'monogenes' which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

I was reading page 586 of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words where it says,"In Heb. 1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word 'again' is rightly placed in the RV,"when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." This points on to His second advent, which is set in contrast to His first advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (SEE FIRSTBORN)."

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Imagician, you have Christ being created sometime after the beginning in John 1:1 but Jesus is praying in John 17:5 to the Father and Jesus reveals that He existed before the world was and Hebrews 1:5 in the RV shows that Jesus wasn't created but rather came into the world again. I suppose you won't believe even if the Greek says otherwise.

No, I haven't gone into ANY detail of Christ's creation up to this point. But what I have offered is that Christ was created BEFORE MAN. Exactly 'when' I have NOT stated, nor do I intend to. We have NO idea what existed 'before' the 'creation' of this planet. We DO know that Christ and the angels, (including Satan), existed 'before' man. What else may or may not have been 'in existence' we simply do not know.

If Jesus was created and separate from God then why is the Baptism formula say to baptize in the "name" (singular) instead of "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In the "name" is in the singular because they are the one Lord or Trinity.

This has been 'tried' before. Here's a simple explanation:

I went to Fern Creek Elemenatary School and I went to Howard Jr High School and I went to Edgewater High School. Now it would mean NOTHING different for me to say I went to Fern Creek Elementary, Howard Jr High, and Edgewater Hgh School. Get it? This does NOT make all three schools the 'same' by any means. Or if this isn't a good enough analogy, try this one; In the name of truth, justice and the American Way. You see, this takes NOTHING away from the meaning behind what is being stated, it just saves words.

Yes, in the name of is singular, yet taken in the context that I have offered here, it becomes obvious that your explanation is by NO means ANY proof of ANYTHING. Read what I have offered again and see if you do not see the sense in it.

God Bless,

MEC

 

[BradtheImpaler]

If Jesus was created and separate from God then why is the Baptism formula say to baptize in the "name" (singular) instead of "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In the "name" is in the singular because they are the one Lord or Trinity.

The reason the Baptismal formula reads the way it does in your bible is because it, like quite a few other verses, was ALTERED by scribes to represent an evolving doctrine, the Trinity. You have to take off your "the bible is perfect and no passages have been significantly changed since the original MSS" blinders and wake up to REALITY. You are citing an intentionally corrupted NT when you argue for the Trinity.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/ca ... w2819.html

 

[thessalonian]

If Jesus was created and separate from God then why is the Baptism formula say to baptize in the "name" (singular) instead of "names" (plural) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? In the "name" is in the singular because they are the one Lord or Trinity.

The reason the Baptismal formula reads the way it does in your bible is because it, like quite a few other verses, was ALTERED by scribes to represent an evolving doctrine, the Trinity. You have to take off your "the bible is perfect and no passages have been significantly changed since the original MSS" blinders and wake up to REALITY. You are citing an intentionally corrupted NT when you argue for the Trinity.

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/ca ... w2819.html

That's one way to get around things you don't like in the Bible I guess. It is corrupted. Well the problem with it is among the Church Fathers, who quoted and referred to scripture liberally, and the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources, the Bible that has come down to us is in fact verified as being very accurate.

 

[thessalonian]

What you offer is a God limited to your rationalizations.