There are 33830 Xtian denoms!!!!!!!!!

[Orthodox Christian]

The Orthodox and the Catholic Churches are not made of 'denominations', they are made up of cultural groups.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were "cultural groups" as well. Guess you all fall right in line with each other.

That is an obnoxious and contrived attack. The scripture you use below is completely unrelated to the point of your arrogant criticism.

I say arrogant because Protestant churches are no less cultural than Catholic or Orthodox. If your last name is Scandinavian, as is mine, you are likely Lutheran. If you are Black, you most likely are AME or Baptist. If you're a non-denom, you are either a Baby Boomer or the child of Baby Boomers.

Nearly everyone in the world grows up to affiliate with the religion of their parents, including all these nouveau denominations and non-denominations in the Western Protestant world.

So get over yourself.

Matthew 16:1 (KJV) The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven

.
Sounds a whole lot like your followers of 'revivals' among the Pentecostals.

I've seen Catholic churches that use the word Apostolic in their name and there's certainly nothing "Apostolic" about them. Apostolic means "Apostle like" and there's nothing about the Catholic church that's like the Apostles or what they taught. They taught what Jesus taught them and Jesus didn't teach Catholic doctrine.

So sez you.
Your reading of the New Testament is no more compelling than a JW's reading of the New Testament.
Apostolos means 'sent one' or one who is sent/authorized. Catholics, Orthodox, Swedish Lutherans, and Anglicans can trace their episcopal authority back to the Twelve. You draw your authority from your reading of a book which is not even yours.

The scriptures were not given to everyone- they were given to the Jews, and then to the Church. You Protestant Fundamentalists preach them at others, not knowing that this testifies that you are not of the Church.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Our beliefs are consistent with what the apostles taught.

Right. :roll: Does the Catholic church not teach that it has the power and authority to forgive sins? Of course it does. "There is no offense, however serious, that the "Church" cannot forgive (Catechism, Pg 256, #982) Or, "The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ.." Pg 363-364, #1448.

Now, just where did the Apostles teach that lie? I don't recall reading that anywhere.

Mark 2:6-7 (KJV) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

You quote the accusations of the Pharisees as truth, which you have emboldened. I will quote Christ as my source of truth:
Having appeared to the Twelve, minus Judas and Thomas, Jesus breathed upon them and said

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.

That's John 20:23 if you'd like to check it out for yourself.
I won't bother bolding it, cuz it's bold on my heart already.

The Apostles taught only God could forgive sins...never a man or a church. David said, "Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins." Psalm 25:18

Do you disagree that the Apostles taught what we find in John 20:23?

Isaiah 42:8 (KJV) I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

The fifth commandment (fifth word) tells children to chabod (kabad) their parents. This means that they are to glorify them. So there is a glory for parents, a glory for spouses, a glory for those who are heroes of faith, and then there is a glory that God will not share, because He will not share glory with that which is not glorifiable. But He does share His glory with us. I can prove this from scripture- OT scripture- if you'd like.

How about the claim that only the Catholilc church is able to intrepret God's word? Where did the Apostles teach that? " The task of intrepreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted soley to the magisterium of the church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Pg 30, #100

The Catholic Church teaches that the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth, " as it is written.

You don't believe all this? You'd better.

2 Peter 1:20 (KJV) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Did not Jesus also admonish the Jews to "...search the scriptures..."? John 5:39. I submit the Catholic church was founded on deceit, lies and a mixture of paganism and a bit of Christianity. And, as I said in the beginning, there is nothing Apostolic about their teaching. Deception is her game and in that, she is infallible whether it's a pronouncement from the chair or not.

My beliefs go back much further than 500 years... about 2000 years when Christ began teaching the diciples is about how far back it goes. You don't know what I believe and are just speculating I'm just another Baptist or whatever. Well, guess on as I owe no allegiance to a denomination or preacher, but only in the shed blood of my Saviour-him and him alone do I put my trust. I'm a New Testament believer and believe in what Jesus taught and what his Apostles continued preaching. The Catholic church brings in another Jesus and another gospel and they are accursed according to the word of God.

If the authority of your beliefs and teaching is you, I am not compelled to even take you seriously. No offense, but that puts you on equal footing with any yokel.

Galations 1:8-9 (KJV) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Se the "we" there? That's what's missing from your gospel equation. I does not = we.

 

[D46]

The scripture you use below is completely unrelated to the point of your arrogant criticism.

Arrogance? My dear OC, no one exceeds you in arrogance-bar none! To listen to your dialogue you probably believe you could have helped Nietzsche and Sartre write a better book on Existentialism as I believe you're still trying to find yourself.

No-I'm not of "the Church" if that means the Catholic or Orthodox church and have no desire to be as I plan on going to Heaven.

Do you disagree that the Apostles taught what we find in John 20:23?

I disagree with your intrepretation and belief of what this means. The Apostles were to carry on the teachings of Christ. He confered on them the power of declaring and pronouncing authoritatively whose sins are forgiven, and whose sins are not forgiven. He bestowed on them the office of pronouncing who are pardoned, and who are not, just as the Jewish high priest pronounced who were clean and who were unclean in cases of leprosy. Nothing more than this authority to declare can be got out of the words, and I entirely repudiate and reject the strange notion maintained by anyone that our Lord meant to depute to the Apostles, or any others, the power of absolutely pardoning or not pardoning, absolving, or not absolving, any one’s sins!

The power of forgiving sins, in Scripture, is always spoken of as the special prerogative of God. The Jews themselves admitted this when they said, ‘Who can forgive sins but God only?’ (Mark 2:7). It is monstrous to suppose that our Lord meant to overthrow and alter this great principle when He commissioned His disciples.

The language of the Old Testament shows conclusively that the Prophets were said to do certain things when they declared them to be done. Thus Jeremiah’s commission runs in these words, 'I have this day set thee over the nation and over the kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant’ (Jeremiah 1:10). This can only mean to declare the rooting out and pulling down, etc. So, also Ezekiel says I came to destroy the city’ (Ezekiel 43:3).

There is not a single instance in the Acts or Epistles of an Apostle taking on himself to absolve, or pardon, any one. When Peter said to Cornelius. ‘Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins’ (Acts 10:43), and when Paul said, Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 13:38), they pointed to Christ alone as the Remitter." John 20:23 , as others, has been twisted to mean something different in order for some churches to even exist.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

The scripture you use below is completely unrelated to the point of your arrogant criticism.

Arrogance? My dear OC, no one exceeds you in arrogance-bar none! To listen to your dialogue you probably believe you could have helped Nietsche and Sartre write a better book on Existentialism as I believe you're still trying to find yourself.

Your criticism was arrogant, and based in logical fallacy- that's just plain truth. The Christian equivalent of Argumentum ad Hitlerum is Argumentum ad Pharisaium.

I described your criticism as arrogant, you describe me as arrogant. Aside from this being a personal attack on your part, it's also a Pee Wee Herman "I Know You Are, But What Am I."

I have read Nietzsche and Sartre, and would have desired to help neither in their quest to make man the center of the universe.

Thanks for asking, but to quote that peculiar pop psychology coolloquialism you used, I "found myself" when He revealed Himself to me.

Now see if you can keep your wounded pride from turning this personal again.

No-I'm not of "the Church" if that means the Catholic or Orthodox church and have no desire to be as I plan on going to Heaven.

So you are saying that all Catholics and Orthodox are going to hell. But OC is the arrogant one. :roll:

Do you disagree that the Apostles taught what we find in John 20:23?

I disagree with your intrepretation and belief of what this means.

Stop there. I've given no intrepretation, so put down your sword and leave the windmills alone, Don Quixote.
Here is you quoting the Catholic Catechism

The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ

and here is what you say the gospel passage means

He confered on them the power of declaring and pronouncing authoritatively whose sins are forgiven, and whose sins are not forgiven.

So the rest of your post is superfluous.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Nearly everyone in the world grows up to affiliate with the religion of their parents, including all these nouveau denominations and non-denominations in the Western Protestant world.

So get over yourself.

lololololol...........

Thats pretty true I must say OC....

Why doesnt anyone ever see this fact?

Then they go and judge other peoples religious denom or sect....

What a joke.... :roll:

 

[D46]

So the rest of your post is superfluous.

You only cut and pasted what you wanted...no regard for the rest of it so, I'll reiterate a little further. It is worthy to remark here that Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He gives to no one of them any peculiar authority. If Peter, as the Papists pretend, had been appointed to any peculiar authority, it is wonderful that the Saviour did not here hint at any such pre-eminence. This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing and governing the church. The authority which he had given Peter to preach the gospel first to the Jews and the Gentiles, does not militate against this. This authority given them was full proof that they were inspired. The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins--that belongs only to God (Isaiah 43:23), but that they should be inspired; that in founding the church, and in declaring the will of God, they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins. It was not authority to forgive individuals, but to establish in all the churches the terms and conditions on which men might be pardoned, with a promise that God would confirm all that they taught; that all might have assurance of forgiveness who would comply with those terms; and that those who did not comply should not be forgiven, but that their sins should be retained. This commission is as far as possible from the authority which the Roman Catholic claims of remitting sin and of pronouncing pardon.


So, I'll offer you the same advice you offered..get over yourself Mr. Wizard.

lololololol...........

Thats pretty true I must say OC....

Yuk, yuk...duh.

Proverbs 26:5 (KJV) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

The scripture you use below is completely unrelated to the point of your arrogant criticism.

Arrogance? My dear OC, no one exceeds you in arrogance-bar none! To listen to your dialogue you probably believe you could have helped Nietsche and Sartre write a better book on Existentialism as I believe you're still trying to find yourself.

Your criticism was arrogant, and based in logical fallacy- that's just plain truth. The Christian equivalent of Argumentum ad Hitlerum is Argumentum ad Pharisaium.

I described your criticism as arrogant, you describe me as arrogant. Aside from this being a personal attack on your part, it's also a Pee Wee Herman "I Know You Are, But What Am I."

No-I'm not of "the Church" if that means the Catholic or Orthodox church and have no desire to be as I plan on going to Heaven.

So you are saying that all Catholics and Orthodox are going to hell. But OC is the arrogant one. :roll:


.

I agree whole heartedly. D46, you need to tone down the personal attacks as they are out of line and not at all allowed. I won't expect to see another one.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

So the rest of your post is superfluous.

You only cut and pasted what you wanted...no regard for the rest of it so, I'll reiterate a little further. It is worthy to remark here that Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He gives to no one of them any peculiar authority. If Peter, as the Papists pretend, had been appointed to any peculiar authority, it is wonderful that the Saviour did not here hint at any such pre-eminence.

As one who is a non-papist, I disagree. Peter was the preeminent among the Apostles, and Jesus made it so. (Matt 16:18). This is made clear in Acts, also, when Peter "stood up among the brethren." Rome also had a preeminence among the churches, the Church made it so.

Even though Peter was preeminent, he was not 'the boss.' This is made clear in Acts 15, where James is the preeminent at the council, for it was held in his bishoprick. We see there the way that the Church gave honor and headship, but how it also acted in concilliar fashion.

This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing and governing the church. The authority which he had given Peter to preach the gospel first to the Jews and the Gentiles, does not militate against this. This authority given them was full proof that they were inspired. The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins--that belongs only to God (Isaiah 43:23), but that they should be inspired; that in founding the church, and in declaring the will of God, they should be taught by the Holy Ghost to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins. It was not authority to forgive individuals, but to establish in all the churches the terms and conditions on which men might be pardoned, with a promise that God would confirm all that they taught; that all might have assurance of forgiveness who would comply with those terms; and that those who did not comply should not be forgiven, but that their sins should be retained. This commission is as far as possible from the authority which the Roman Catholic claims of remitting sin and of pronouncing pardon.

I agree with you in part, and you have made an unproved statement, in part. Orthodox understanding of the power to forgive sins is that it remains with God, but that Christ authorized the Church. This is why when we do confession, the priest stands beside the confessor as a witness, and when confession is made before the icon of Christ, ie TO CHRIST, then the priest, on behalf of the Church, declares forgiveness, asking Christ to forgive the sins, and declaring it so. This power was most assuredly invested in the Church, not in a book, not in altar call.

I will make no attempt to prove whether Rome maintains that power or not, but you have said that they do not. You have not proven this, only stated it.

So, I'll offer you the same advice you offered..get over yourself Mr. Wizard.

Sometimes we can't help ourselves. Please forgive me for offending you. I shall "get over myself" everyday, by the grace of God, I pray.

 

[Vic C.]

Two pages into the thread and already people are offending others. :-?

Lets debate the topic, not attact the person.

Thank you.