This Seems Big.

That is not the only verse, James.

John 21

15So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.”16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, sonof John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.

It doesn't matter if you don't give it a title. Jesus Christ took him to the side, spoke to him personally, and said to shepherd his sheep.

Now if you want to challenge Jesus decree, do so here. Tell Jesus he is wrong Peter does not shepherd Christ's sheep

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are words which could apply to any under shepherd. Every true flock has an under shepherd. How one gets a pontifex maximus out of this text is a serious stretch of the religious imagination. It does matter if you give it a title. There is no vicar of christ outside the magisterium of Rome. Jesus is the Vicar. He sent the Holy Spirit to bear witness to the Truth, not depending on the bishoprics of depraved men. Jesus knows well the depravity of man and the pseudo religions of the world.

An interesting aside on John 21: Jesus uses the word "agape"(love from God), Peter uses the word "phileo"(I am fond of you).

There is a lot to glean from these words, but Vicar of Christ is not one of them. Where does it say Jesus took Peter aside for a personal dubbing? Why are there no witnesses to this momentous occasion? Jesus did nothing in secret. Everything He did is open for the world to see.

Now what? Let's make the stretch from John 21 to the 4th century when St. Constantine, the Great, Pagan Roman Emperor and his mother, St. Helena, propped up a "christian" church on Vatican Hill, Rome. Helena even went to the Holy Land to get artifacts and relics to help get them started. This church was officially married to the state in 380 A.D. It has morphed many times but is still here--as false as ever.

How much counter point do you need? Vicar of Christ is a false doctrine.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Another analogy which may assist, Curtis: consider the human writers of the Bible. Were they infallible? No! Moses (if you attribute the Pentateuch to him) was a murderer who made other errors in the desert. So was David the Psalmist (and an adulterer). Jonah ran away from God. John was arrogant, Peter impulsive and inconsistent. Yet when the Spirit gripped them to write what we now have as Scripture, what God authored through them was infallible.

 

If a man was totally depraved then he would cease to be a man.

I gave you a easy challenge: Tell Jesus he is wrong Peter does not shepherd Christ's sheep.

You want to contend that Peter does not "agape" love Jesus after stating YES LORD and adding phileo?

Then do so! Quit slithering about drawing suspicion and make your accusation plainly.

 

He says Peter does not love Jesus. The church of the bible is not Bro. James' church. His is a sinless perfect church.

30The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?” 31And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. 32“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

Jesus Christ belongs to us, Bro James. Go on to your righteousness.

 

Sounds like Donatism to me...

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus is the Vicar. Peter was an Apostle, one of The Twelve Apostles. No one is saying Peter was not an under shepherd.

The problem comes in with making Peter the first pontiff. The pontifex maximus was the high priest in charge of the pontiffs in
Pagan Rome. This is pagan religious hiearchy. It shows up in the reign of Constantine The Great, the pagan Roman Emperor

who had a religious vision pointing him to Christianity(???). Whatever apostate group this was became the state religion in an

unholy matrimony between church and state circa 380 A.D. The rest is history, even through today. This group still sits a queen

worshiping the Queen of Heaven at Vatican City, a sovereign nation, having once been The Holy Roman Empire. They also did

Inquisitions and Concordats with not so benevolent dictators. They also accompanied the Conquistadors as they raped,

pillaged and plundered the New World. C. Columbus was in that mix too.

This religious system is rotten from the beginning.

Time to slither on...

It is time to repent, our redemption draws near.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Hello, Adonia-

It appears as though you're thinking of a situation involving Pope John XXII back in the 14th Century, not St. Pope John XXIII.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Matthew B., your juris prudence opinion please: Would the above historical references be considered a preponderance of circumstantial evidence or just rumor and malicious gossip?

Bro. James

 

Adonia,

If two married Catholics are living in a separated or "divorced" state but are sexually continent, reception of Holy Communion is permissible.

However, after a "civil divorce" (and in the absence of a decree of nullity regarding their marriage) either individual is "re-married" (outside of the Church) and seeks to receive Holy Communion, such is not allowable due to the fact that such a person is, by participating in the conjugal act with someone other than his spouse, acting in an adulterous manner. And that is where clarity from the Pope is being sought with regard to the question of the appropriate application of Amoris Laetitia.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Which ones?

 

Papal infallibility does not pertain to everything spoken by a pope. It only pertains when he speaks authoritatively about Catholic dogma.or when speaking excathedra with full authority from the chair of Peter.

 

Pontifex maximus, Pagan Rome, Pagan Emperor, Marriage of Church and State, Queen of Heaven, Conquistadors, C. Columbus--the tyrant for starters.

Bro. James

 

Well, 'pontifex' simply means 'bridge builder' which, arguably, all Christians are since we are tasked with the mission of bridging Heaven and Earth. Although used in pagan Rome, it wasn't widely used to refer to the Pope until at least a thousand years after Constantine and is not an official Catholic title for the Pope.

Rome was pagan although increasingly Christian until the 4th century. Constantine tolerated Christianity but never really understood it, converting only on his deathbed. It was Theodosius in 380 who made it the official state religion and hence married Church and State which I accept was a Bad Thing. Interestingly at the same time though we get the canonization of the NT, beginning with Athanasius and concluding in the 420s. Plus before Constantine you already have a lot of Catholic/ Orthodox doctrines and practices to which many evangelicals today object: the Real Presence in the Eucharist, veneration of the saints including Mary, prayers to and for the dead, a developed liturgy etc

Queen of Heaven, complete with a twelve-starred crown, arguably dates from the end of the first century, following Rev 12 in particular.

The conquistadors undoubtedly perpetrated atrocities and genocide...but so also did the Protestant Pilgrim Fathers and their descendants.

So, I'll give you marriage of Church and State plus the Columbian atrocities (as long as they are not viewed as exclusively Catholic), but the evidence is wanting concerning your other allegations.

 

The problem is your lack of faith in Jesus Christ:

Jesus gives direct orders how to handle this issue.

15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. 17“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18“Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.



Have you tried this? No. Because by the time we get to TAKE IT TO THE CHURCH, You looked at the NUMBERS, and said to yourself there is no way I could win.

You have no faith in Jesus Christ. So you split off.

Lets have a council...... lets get all our people together. You get your 40 or so, Ill get my 1.2 billion.

No faith in Christ. You split just like you probably split from another baptist denomination, constant rebellion against the command of Jesus.

 

How would a man ceased to be a man if he were totally depraved since everyone is totally depraved? Only God is good. Good is an absolute.

 

Everything God creates is natural and good. Evil can only diminish and corrupt, nothing about it is natural. So when you get to the point something is totally depraved its total nature is gone too. So if a human is totally depraved its no longer a human at all.


It would be a joke to say God is a perfect creator but everything he makes is flawed. In Genesis God announces everything he makes as GOOD.

If all you were was totally evil it would be akin to being equal to murder, there is nothing to save in murder.

The whole concept of Total Depravity comes from humility taking a wrong turn into false humility.



Just by association of Jesus Christ being a human is a good thing even if just 1% good. So if you jump and say well nothing good exists, then we have to take it all away even that 1% in other words its not human at all.

1 Corinthians 8

6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

If all evil were to disappear, you would not disappear. Now if Jesus leaves you would be gone poof.

Your entire existence hinges on Jesus Christ . No where have I seen that your entire existence hinges on SIN and EVIL. Those things are not a part of you not even close.

If you were totally depraved you would be equatable to murder. One does sin but for me to judge you totally depraved that point your just ARE SIN.

We are told love your neighbor, Do you love murder? no you don't. That would be an example of loving something totally depraved.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I left out Inquisitions. We need to publish a list of things which the Vatican has apologized for in recent years.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

I thought the subject was pontiffs, vicar of Christ, ex cathedral and infallibility. It must be time to close.

Peace.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James