All ya need is love... All ya need is love.

What "sheep," Singer? Peter does not address this to any other except
to Peter, who is to become the very "Shephard of the flock that belongs
to Jesus - THE CHURCH!

Do you think that the other apostles plus the 70 were NOT expected to feed sheep?
Ridiculous..! Your installation of the term "THE CHURCH" is a suppository. (That's a good
term for an imaginary Catholic statement).

I asked:
If the ''church'' that existed at the time was named, please NAME IT FOR ME !!

You replied:
Actually, I just did, THE CHURCH!

It was the only one around! It was "Christ's Church," which would also qualify as a good
title and name for that church, don't you think?

Yes, that's fine. Let's refer to that first church as "Christ's church" then. I'm a member
of that. Where does Catholicism come into play though?

Singer, capitalized or not, do you deny that Christ established a Church? Did "the church"
exist when Christ created it?

Christ did not establish a church as you think of a church with a name.
All believers are referred to as the body of Christ and they gathered in churches
that had no names at that time. They could just as well have been the forerunners of
our modern day Beaeans or Baptist. There is no requirement upon us to belong to a
church either before or after being saved. The ''church'' can't save us and the "Church"
can't save us.


Can't answer the question, can you, Singer?

I just did.


The Old Testament covenant existed before Christianity, or the establishment of the
church either, so get busy and answer the question.

Christ didn't create a Church, the resulting believers formed groups to worship with...known
as churches. You wrongfully hinge everything on Peter. Salvation existed before Peter and
since Peter died.

If you're naive enough to belive that creation was enacted by God to
bring forth the Catholic Church, then I guess you are capable of believing
that God put his emphasis on creating the Catholic Church...vs a body of believers
known as a church or "the church".


The very creation of the church with authority is not a clue for you that
to be the faith believing Christian, following Christ, is not to also join in
the very "flock" that Peter is given the helm to lead? It is under your very
nose and you avoid it? Again, incredible!

Not any more incredible than by inability to adhere to the Mormon who told me that
same thing.....or the 2x2 who told me that same thing......or the Adventist who told
me that same thing. There are alot of you exclusivists out there saying "Lo, Christ is Here"


In light of what you see as incredible, I see as disgusting. Coming from a possible cult,
I look upon exclusivity and claims of superiority, favor and "Firstness" as all falling into
the realm of deception.


One more time - all He commands you to do, including obedience to
the church which just may excommunicate you from the community
if you don't repent of your sinful ways - perMatthew 18:15-18!

Oh that's cute, WP...now you classify my refusal to join your denomination
as sin. How can I be excommunicated if I don't belong in the first place ?
It is only Catholics who can be excommunicated from their own Catholic Church
and it is the fear of eternal damnation for missing mass and the vicehold that the
perpetrators have on their unenlightened members that makes this possible in the
first place. Once again, "The Church" does not refer to the Catholic Church.

Show me those Christians called Methodests, Baptists, Episcopalians, and yes, even
Catholics when in those days, there was only one group of Christians belonging to one
church - Christians!

Christians in those days as in the present are belonging to ''the church''.
(The body of Christ). I even give you the leniency of including Catholics
in that number. Many of you do carry extra unnecessary baggage to the
cross though; and make some claims that are unneeded.

The same requirement in OT days is the same that is upon us in the NT times.
(To Believe). God resented mankind for their unbelief in the times of Noah
and Lot. As Moses led his followers throughout Egypt, they were plagued
with unbelief. Yet those who were faithful were considered believers.
Those in the days of Jesus' walk on earth were either believers or unbelievers.
God's plan for salvation that included the sacrifice of his Son requires belief
in that sacrifice. Denomination is not even a factor WP. Men were saved by
Jesus himself because of their faith. They were healed because of their faith.
They could not have faith in Him without believing in Him.

Once again, the words church or Church or Catholic Church or universal, generic
or katholicos has no affect on salvation. The work was done on the cross...to pursue
a denomination is a work.

Can you find that church today, Singer?

There was no "Church" in "those days, WP. Just because the Catholic Church evolved
from the maze of believers gives you no grounds for claiming that those early believers
were the forerunners of Catholicism. Jesus said he had sheep of another fold that "you
know nothing about". He also said "if they are not against us they are for us". The Cart
was not a Ford any more than it was a Chevy...WP. You cannot base a church on only
one scripture that fails in itself to name your imaginary church.

Or are you going to continue to be your "own pope" and be your own
congregation with bible in hand? (A bible, by the way, that did not exist
in the New Testament form in the very early infant church.)

Other things that did not exist in the very early infant church was the Catholic
denomination and people were being saved by the thousands.

No one needs a pope my friend. All of the apostles who were saved and died did
not need a pope and if that was good enough for Peter, it's good enough for me.
Moses didn't need a pope and Lot didn't need a pope. Peter didn't need a pope.
Mary didn't need a pope and none of the above were Catholics or even heard
of such a group.

And the question you fail to address:

You still haven't explained why Jesus' followers didn't eat his flesh and
drink his blood when he was right there with them , but yet that
is the policy today of modern Catholics. (Actual Body and Blood). They
couldn't have gotten any more "actual" than having Him there and
available to them...yet they ate bread and wine.

Already explained in another message.

No you didn't WP. You have no answer except to hide from it.
Same as my question "Why didn't Jesus tell us that the name of His church was
"Catholic" then if God had created the world for the purpose of revealing that visible
entity"? It's because that statement is a lie also. There are 66 books in the bible
that prophesies and reveals the coming of a savior that would come "that we might
have life and have it more abundantly". The emphasis is upon a savior, not a Church.
Your claim that there is a savior revealed "through the church" is a fallacy. The savior
didn't need or appoint a ''church'' to do the work of the Father. Salvation is available to
"whosoever believes" and it surpasses any mention of a denomination.

"Lo Where" WP ?

[ May 14, 2003, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

So, faith is the rock upon which Jesus builds his church? Let me assure you, every human who ever lived had/has faith in something so they must all be part of Jesus' church!

Faith must be based on something relevant to be a consideration. The relevancy exists only in the who and what of Jesus.

The object of faith is the foundation of the church. The object of faith is what the church is built upon. Faith is the building material.

You may have faith, and therefore be part of the building, but you are not what the church is built upon, and neither was Peter!

Faith is the building blocks for the church, but the revelation that Jesus IS the Son of God, the Christ is the foundation upon which the church is built.


So, You think that Divine God would build His church upon mortal sinful man! That seems somewhat out of character. However, building his church upon divine truth, that Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah, is wholly compatible with the rest of scripture.

 

Singer replied, where I said:

What "sheep," Singer? Peter does not address this to any other except
to Peter, who is to become the very "Shephard of the flock that belongs
to Jesus - THE CHURCH!

Do you think that the other apostles plus the 70 were NOT expected to feed sheep?
Ridiculous..! Your installation of the term "THE CHURCH" is a suppository. (That's a good
term for an imaginary Catholic statement).

Individual bishops are all "shephards," Singer, but there is a "Chief Shephard" that Christ obviously established on Peter!

I will ignore the obvious dig you make about my church...............

Singer, concentrate on the subject for the moment concerning Peter, the only apostle Jesus addresses here.

But yes, the other apostles are shephards for their flocks, just like my bishop is for the diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee here in Florida. The very point of the discourse in John 21:15-17 is, Jesus does this with Peter alone, without the other apostles. Why? Simply because Peter is to become the Chief of the Apostles, sir! The "sheep" Peter is to feed, include the the other apostles, let alone the whole church that Jesus previously declared He would found.

I asked:
If the ''church'' that existed at the time was named, please NAME IT FOR ME !!

You replied:
Actually, I just did, THE CHURCH!

It was the only one around! It was "Christ's Church," which would also qualify as a good
title and name for that church, don't you think?

Yes, that's fine. Let's refer to that first church as "Christ's church" then. I'm a member
of that. Where does Catholicism come into play though?

Have I covered this ground before with you? Did I not indicate that, yes, in an imperfect or incomplete way, you are a member of that "church." The trouble is, you seemingly refuse to recognise exactly which "church" it is that holds the credentials that Christ instilled in it. For about 1500 years, there was only one "church community." Somewhere along the line, it got the handle of "catholic" attached to it.

I last said:

Singer, capitalized or not, do you deny that Christ established a Church? Did "the church"
exist when Christ created it?

Christ did not establish a church as you think of a church with a name.
All believers are referred to as the body of Christ and they gathered in churches
that had no names at that time. They could just as well have been the forerunners of
our modern day Beaeans or Baptist. There is no requirement upon us to belong to a
church either before or after being saved. The ''church'' can't save us and the "Church"
can't save us.

Singer, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, there was only one "church of believers" in existence. Are there others you are keeping from me?

I last said:

The Old Testament covenant existed before Christianity, or the establishment of the
church either, so get busy and answer the question.

Christ didn't create a Church, the resulting believers formed groups to worship with...known
as churches. You wrongfully hinge everything on Peter. Salvation existed before Peter and
since Peter died.

Singer, do you deny the words, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..."?

If that is not building a church, then I cannot comprehend the simplest of sentence structures, and certainly this is an undeniable sentence that anyone who has an open mind cannot deny!

If you're naive enough to belive that creation was enacted by God to
bring forth the Catholic Church, then I guess you are capable of believing
that God put his emphasis on creating the Catholic Church...vs a body of believers
known as a church or "the church".

Singer, what is so "naive" about seeing Christ build His church, and noting the history of this church for the first 1500 years of it's existence? Open your eyes! Study the history of Christianity and discover for yourself, where the church was, is and continues to be from the moment the Holy Spirit descended upon the faithful at Pentecost!

I last said:

The very creation of the church with authority is not a clue for you that
to be the faith believing Christian, following Christ, is not to also join in
the very "flock" that Peter is given the helm to lead? It is under your very
nose and you avoid it? Again, incredible!

Not any more incredible than by inability to adhere to the Mormon who told me that
same thing.....or the 2x2 who told me that same thing......or the Adventist who told
me that same thing. There are alot of you exclusivists out there saying "Lo, Christ is Here"

Singer, don't confuse the issue by bringing in other Christians sects that have no more claim on the original commissioning by Christ for the mission He has assigned it, then any other sect that can only find as a founder, a defector from the original church founded by Christ!

Who founded the Lutheran Church? Luther did, a former Augustinian priest of the Catholic Church!

Who founded the Anglican Church? ("Church of England") King Henry VIIIth, who did not like the idea of the pope denying him a divorce from a valid marriage!

I could go on and on and on..........

In light of what you see as incredible, I see as disgusting. Coming from a possible cult,
I look upon exclusivity and claims of superiority, favor and "Firstness" as all falling into the realm of deception.

Singer, can I help it if I find the only church who can claim authorship with it's founder, Jesus Christ? Show me any other church outside of the Catholic Church who can make that claim (and you Orthodox people, hush up for the moment! )

Does the facts of her authorship grate against you that much, Singer? Get over it, as the facts are the facts, and you have yet to give counter to what I present to as to the authorship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I last said:

One more time - all He commands you to do, including obedience to
the church which just may excommunicate you from the community
if you don't repent of your sinful ways - perMatthew 18:15-18!

Oh that's cute, WP...now you classify my refusal to join your denomination
as sin. How can I be excommunicated if I don't belong in the first place ?

No, I do no such thing, Singer! You are in what is called {i]sublime ignorance[/i] of the truth for which you are not nearly as accountable as for say, a practicing Catholic who then falls into apostasy from the faith.

It is only Catholics who can be excommunicated from their own Catholic Church
and it is the fear of eternal damnation for missing mass and the vicehold that the
perpetrators have on their unenlightened members that makes this possible in the
first place. Once again, "The Church" does not refer to the Catholic Church.

Do you actually think that I, a Catholic, grovels in total fear of being condemned to hell for "missing Mass" somehow? Being in total submission to the Church, in her authority, is not the burden you make of it, Singer. In fact, for me, it was a release from uncertainty as to my salvation. I know what I must do to gain salvation from the "tools" of the sacraments of the Church, formost being that of baptism, Reconsiliation and that beautiful privilage of receiving My Lord in His body and blood in the Eucharist! Oh, what sweet joy I have in my "bondage" to my church!

Show me those Christians called Methodests, Baptists, Episcopalians, and yes, even
Catholics when in those days, there was only one group of Christians belonging to one
church - Christians!

Christians in those days as in the present are belonging to ''the church''.
(The body of Christ). I even give you the leniency of including Catholics
in that number. Many of you do carry extra unnecessary baggage to the
cross though; and make some claims that are unneeded.

Who were the Christians who suffered at the hands of Nero in his infamous circus? Answer: The same Christians, we belong to the same "community" as Christ established, without a parallel competing community that history does not record.

Perhaps you can find this mystical "remnant church" others attempt to foist upon me without one scrap of historical evidence. And on, thank you for including us Catholics in that number, a term applied later on in history to that very same Christian community, Singer.

The same requirement in OT days is the same that is upon us in the NT times.
(To Believe). God resented mankind for their unbelief in the times of Noah
and Lot. As Moses led his followers throughout Egypt, they were plagued
with unbelief. Yet those who were faithful were considered believers.
Those in the days of Jesus' walk on earth were either believers or unbelievers.
God's plan for salvation that included the sacrifice of his Son requires belief
in that sacrifice. Denomination is not even a factor WP. Men were saved by
Jesus himself because of their faith. They were healed because of their faith.
They could not have faith in Him without believing in Him.

Denomination not a factor? Then why are there so many of them, each claiming to have the truth, each going in their own individual way?

And don't confuse the issue by statements about the now closed Old Testament covenant that has not been fulfilled by Christ and His new covenant, which includes His church (singular) and not a profusion of babbling voices at every street corner.

Once again, the words church or Church or Catholic Church or universal, generic
or katholicos has no affect on salvation. The work was done on the cross...to pursue
a denomination is a work.

Who is persuing a denomination, when all I have done is seek out the very singular church Christ founded? It is that simple, Singer!

Can you find that church today, Singer?

There was no "Church" in "those days, WP. Just because the Catholic Church evolved
from the maze of believers gives you no grounds for claiming that those early believers
were the forerunners of Catholicism. Jesus said he had sheep of another fold that "you
know nothing about". He also said "if they are not against us they are for us". The Cart
was not a Ford any more than it was a Chevy...WP. You cannot base a church on only
one scripture that fails in itself to name your imaginary church.

Have you considered taking a pair of sissers and removing from scripture, Matthew 16:18-19? You might as well, as you have done this already in your own mind. I am constantly told to "read my bible," yet when I point out the "embarassments" that non-Catholics avoid like the plague, they become less adherers to scripture then us Catholics!

I last asked the question:

Or are you going to continue to be your "own pope" and be your own
congregation with bible in hand? (A bible, by the way, that did not exist
in the New Testament form in the very early infant church.)

Other things that did not exist in the very early infant church was the Catholic
denomination and people were being saved by the thousands.

That went right over your head, didn't it, Singer? Where was the New Testament, the only "source of faith and doctrine" (Sola Scriptura)to most non-Catholic Christians when there was an embarassing period of time when it did not exist in the Christian community!

And no, the church in the very early times after Pentecost was not "catholic" in the sense that it was not "universal" in the known civilized world, a condition that would change rapidly over time, until indeed, Christ's Church is a Universal Church - ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

No one needs a pope my friend. All of the apostles who were saved and died did
not need a pope and if that was good enough for Peter, it's good enough for me.

Singer, I have news for you - Peter was the first pope!

Moses didn't need a pope and Lot didn't need a pope. Peter didn't need a pope.
Mary didn't need a pope and none of the above were Catholics or even heard
of such a group.

But Christ established the office of "Chief of the Apostles" as so plainly seen in (here we go again!) Matthew 16:18-19

And the question you fail to address:

You still haven't explained why Jesus' followers didn't eat his flesh and
drink his blood when he was right there with them , but yet that
is the policy today of modern Catholics. (Actual Body and Blood). They
couldn't have gotten any more "actual" than having Him there and
available to them...yet they ate bread and wine.

And I replied:

Already explained in another message.

No you didn't WP. You have no answer except to hide from it.

Sigh! It is not conceiveable to you that His followers, puzzled as they were over the stark literal meaning of His words, simply take Him on faith, to see the revelation of what he meant on the occasion of what happened at the Last Supper?

I am probably at the end of this discussion, banging my head on a brick wall, I guess..........

Same as my question "Why didn't Jesus tell us that the name of His church was
"Catholic" then if God had created the world for the purpose of revealing that visible
entity"?

Singer, I have absolutely no idea why it was that Jesus did not elaborate upon a more specific name for His church, other then to simply say "church." But I also see no reason at all why He must do so, other then to satify a "brick wall" requirement you have in your mind before you will accept the concept of a church, founded with great authority, that you would accept contrary to your prideful independance, it would seem.

It's because that statement is a lie also. There are 66 books in the bible
that prophesies and reveals the coming of a savior that would come "that we might
have life and have it more abundantly". The emphasis is upon a savior, not a Church.
Your claim that there is a savior revealed "through the church" is a fallacy.

Only 66 books?

Here is a good read for you:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

(You can tell I am tiring of this run-around on your part, Singer........)

b]he savior didn't need or appoint a ''church'' to do the work of the Father. Salvation is available to "whosoever believes" and it surpasses any mention of a denomination.

"Lo Where" WP ?

Here I am!

Insisting that you take your bible and eliminate from the gospel of Matthew, those verses you don't like!

That way, you can have your bible your own way, Singer.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

WPutnam, Singer is giving you some very large clues as to why he believes as he does. IMO, it is strictly an emotional issue with him. He is blind to truth because he is hurting from his experiences in the 2X2 church.

Beliefs based on emotional experiences seem to be pretty common among the sola scriptura crowd. In their anger or pain, every verse in the Bible takes on a whole new and unique meaning for them, and some special new truth is revealed to them which no one else has previoulsy known.

And tadaaaa... yet another protestant denomination is born!!!!

Ron

 

Singer, concentrate on the subject for the moment concerning Peter, the only apostle
Jesus addresses here.

That's the failure of Catholicism. (Putting Wayyyyy too much emphasis on Peter.
Your "Good News" would seem to be inferior without mentioning Peter. There is
a better figure that stands out ahead of a mere man who Christ referred to as
"satan"; a man who lied and denied even knowing the son of God; a man who
made a fool of himself in public for all of history; who forsook his savior to save
his own hide and went down in history as someone unworthy to base a whole
denomination on.

Looking to a "Lo Here is Christ" through Peter seems a waste of time when you
could be glorying in scripture like St John 11:26,27

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of
God, which should come into the world.

All of us who attempt to " get right" with God should first sort out what is important
and what is the object of our faith. What is important sure isn't relying on a contemptible statement concerning the terminology of what a "rock" is.

Martha was given advice by Christ himself that revealed just what it is that
we are to believe and what it means to "believe in". The answer, of course, is.....
"believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

If the Vatican Councils had held to that simple truth, they could have
saved themselves the many volumes of unnecessary lingo and the time
spent in hailing Mary, promoting Peter, kissing the pope and counting beads.

 

But yes, the other apostles are shephards for their flocks, just like my bishop is for the
diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee here in Florida. The very point of the discourse in John
21:15-17 is, Jesus does this with Peter alone, without the other apostles. Why? Simply
because Peter is to become the Chief of the Apostles, sir! The "sheep" Peter is to feed,
include the the other apostles, let alone the whole church that Jesus previously declared
He would found.

Verse 19 contains yet a better and more important truth than "Feed my Sheep"
It is the inspiration and an appeal to all of mankind; taking our eyes off a mortal
Peter. After the advice to Peter to "feed my sheep"....Jesus proclaimed "Follow Me".
He did not say "Exault Thyself" to Peter and He did not appoint a successor.



Have I covered this ground before with you? Did I not indicate that, yes, in an imperfect or
incomplete way, you are a member of that "church." The trouble is, you seemingly refuse
to recognise exactly which "church" it is that holds the credentials that Christ instilled in it.
For about 1500 years, there was only one "church community." Somewhere along the line,
it got the handle of "catholic" attached to it.

If you see me as a member of "that" church (although incomplete), then you have nothing
to preach about as I'm on equal grounds as you. Even though I don't consider myself a
member of "that" church, I also don't feel inferior for taking that stance. As for Christ
instilling credentials in your denomination, that is highly controversial and is the factor that
divides us.

If there was Catholicism for about 1500 years, then there was saving grace through
faith for 1501.

Whenever Catholicism reared its face; it was AFTER the standards of "Whosoever
believes in Me" was declared. Jesus was from the foundation of the world....you might say
Catholicism was at least 4000 years too late to be classified as "First".

 

Singer, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, there was only one "church of believers" in
existence. Are there others you are keeping from me?

No, I'm not keeping them from you. They're right there in scripture in those Jesus
referred to as "sheep of another fold" and "if they are not against us they are for us".
Isn't it alarming to you that for 1500 years there was only one "church of believers'',
but during the time Jesus was here there was no evidence that this supposed entity
even existed. Did He come to proclaim HIS Kingdom or to establish one
that would have the priviledge to name itself...?

You do wrongfully assume that your pet church was the result of the early believers.
With the threat of death hanging over their heads, I guess they could have all been
Catholic; much like it's hard not to be a Muslim in Iraq.

 

Singer, do you deny the words, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..."?

The words are there alright. It's just that you emphasize them as being the basis for
starting another Catholic Church and I see it as meaning what Jesus intended: Faith
upon Christ's message of salvation by the example of his sacrifice.

If that is not building a church, then I cannot comprehend the simplest of
sentence structures, and certainly this is an undeniable sentence that anyone
who has an open mind cannot deny!

Compare it to the analysis that I have suggested and ask yourself if it is more important
to look upon Peter and an earthly kingdom or to Jesus and the eternal kingdom.

 

Trying2Understand responded:

(Quoting previous stuff from Singer)

WPutnam, Singer is giving you some very large clues as to why he believes as he does. IMO, it is strictly an emotional issue with him. He is blind to truth because he is hurting from his experiences in the 2X2 church.

Run this "2X2 church" thing by me again. I think I remember you (or someone) mentioning this, but I am not sure of what this is.

Beliefs based on emotional experiences seem to be pretty common among the sola scriptura crowd. In their anger or pain, every verse in the Bible takes on a whole new and unique meaning for them, and some special new truth is revealed to them which no one else has previoulsy known.

And tadaaaa... yet another protestant denomination is born!!!!

Indeed, and why we have, what is it now? 10,000 or more denominations? (Some quotes put the figure near 30,000.)

This is the great embarassment of Christianity, our fractured self that sees us split into a babbling sea of error.

Thanks, Ron, for your contribution. I do think you are right here about Singer, wondering how it is that he is a "church within himself" and being his "only pope" but perhaps he was hurt in some way by a church denomination he previously attended.

I can only guess and pray about it....

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

Singer replied:

(Where I last said)

Singer, concentrate on the subject for the moment concerning Peter, the only apostle
Jesus addresses here.

That's the failure of Catholicism. (Putting Wayyyyy too much emphasis on Peter.
Your "Good News" would seem to be inferior without mentioning Peter. There is
a better figure that stands out ahead of a mere man who Christ referred to as
"satan"; a man who lied and denied even knowing the son of God; a man who
made a fool of himself in public for all of history; who forsook his savior to save
his own hide and went down in history as someone unworthy to base a whole
denomination on.

Singer, why do you avoid Peter when he sticks out at you in the gospels? I forget the figure now, but do you know that Peter is mentioned far more then any of the other apostles by about two or three to one with the closest other?

And remember, we are talking about Matthew 16:18-19 who is all about Peter (once called Simon, now is called Peter "ROCK.")

Looking to a "Lo Here is Christ" through Peter seems a waste of time when you
could be glorying in scripture like St John 11:26,27

Indeed, "Lo, here is Christ" who exaulted Peter to his position, even his own humiliation for having denied his Lord three times!

Now, more and more, I think if you had your druthers, you would indeed, take your scissors and cut-out Matthew 16:18-19. Too much talk about Peter, right, Singer?

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of
God, which should come into the world.

All of us who attempt to " get right" with God should first sort out what is important
and what is the object of our faith. What is important sure isn't relying on a contemptible statement concerning the terminology of what a "rock" is.

Martha was given advice by Christ himself that revealed just what it is that
we are to believe and what it means to "believe in". The answer, of course, is.....
"believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.



Yawn, and all of this is to prove..........what?

If the Vatican Councils had held to that simple truth, they could have
saved themselves the many volumes of unnecessary lingo and the time
spent in hailing Mary, promoting Peter, kissing the pope and counting beads.

What? Cut out all references to Peter and concentrate on Christ only? How about Paul, Singer? Shall we forget about him as well!

Sheeeeeesh!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

But yes, the other apostles are shephards for their flocks, just like my bishop is for the
diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee here in Florida. The very point of the discourse in John
21:15-17 is, Jesus does this with Peter alone, without the other apostles. Why? Simply
because Peter is to become the Chief of the Apostles, sir! The "sheep" Peter is to feed,
include the the other apostles, let alone the whole church that Jesus previously declared
He would found.

Verse 19 contains yet a better and more important truth than "Feed my Sheep"
It is the inspiration and an appeal to all of mankind; taking our eyes off a mortal
Peter. After the advice to Peter to "feed my sheep"....Jesus proclaimed "Follow Me".
He did not say "Exault Thyself" to Peter and He did not appoint a successor.

And of course, what Jesus says here is certainly important. But what about verses 15 through 18, Singer, or shall you exercise your scissors here as well and cut out those verses as well?

Now, since you brought it up, exactly what is the significance for the commande "Follow me" that Jesus gives here?

Have I covered this ground before with you? Did I not indicate that, yes, in an imperfect or
incomplete way, you are a member of that "church." The trouble is, you seemingly refuse
to recognise exactly which "church" it is that holds the credentials that Christ instilled in it.
For about 1500 years, there was only one "church community." Somewhere along the line,
it got the handle of "catholic" attached to it.

If you see me as a member of "that" church (although incomplete), then you have nothing
to preach about as I'm on equal grounds as you. Even though I don't consider myself a
member of "that" church, I also don't feel inferior for taking that stance. As for Christ
instilling credentials in your denomination, that is highly controversial and is the factor that divides us.

Singer, as for myself, I am inferior to all others! I fall far short of the Glory of God!

What divides you from me is your obstinance in seeking the truth, Singer, sorry......

If there was Catholicism for about 1500 years, then there was saving grace through
faith for 1501.

Meaning what, Singer? Do you imply that the only church around that could trace her history back to Christ Himself was in error all of that time? If so, again, I appeal to you; explain the words (speaking of the church He is to establish) "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Whenever Catholicism reared its face; it was AFTER the standards of "Whosoever
believes in Me" was declared. Jesus was from the foundation of the world....you might say
Catholicism was at least 4000 years too late to be classified as "First".

How many "Chick comics" do you read in a day, Singer?

Did Christ establish a church or not?

If you don't like the idea that He did not precisely name it with some grand glorious title, capital letters and all, then explain the word, "Trinity," for me.

You do believe in the Trinity, don't you, Singer, or are you going to off the rails and go with the "oneness" crowd that denies that doctrine?

After all, if Christ wanted to proclaim a doctrine, why did He not use the title "Trinity" to indicate the Three Persons in the One God doctrine that is implied in scripture?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not
thine heart be glad when he stumbleth:
Lest the LORD see it, and it displease him, and he turn
away his wrath from him.
Proverbs 24:17-18

 

I'm not familiar with 2X2 either, but apparently Singer is. He has dropped references to it all over the board. Seems that he was not happy there. He stops just short of calling it a cult.

It's a common enough theme though.

Back at "such and such church" they believed "so and so" and I had some unhappy moments at "such and such church" so now I reject "so and so".

Ron

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

Singer, for the first 1500 years of Christianity, there was only one "church of believers" in existence. Are there others you are keeping from me?

No, I'm not keeping them from you. They're right there in scripture in those Jesus
referred to as "sheep of another fold" and "if they are not against us they are for us".
Isn't it alarming to you that for 1500 years there was only one "church of believers'',
but during the time Jesus was here there was no evidence that this supposed entity
even existed. Did He come to proclaim HIS Kingdom or to establish one
that would have the priviledge to name itself...?

He also seeks out sheep that is not of His fold that He would add them to His own fold (can you find that in scripture?)

But you avoid my question: Were their other Christian denominations that you can identify in history that existed from Pentecost to about 1500 years later? Give it a shot, Singer, and let's see you do it....

You do wrongfully assume that your pet church was the result of the early believers.
With the threat of death hanging over their heads, I guess they could have all been
Catholic; much like it's hard not to be a Muslim in Iraq.

I "wrongfully" presume? How am I wrong, Singer? Do some legwork and prove me wrong if you can.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

Singer replied, where I last said:

Singer, do you deny the words, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church..."?

The words are there alright. It's just that you emphasize them as being the basis for
starting another Catholic Church and I see it as meaning what Jesus intended: Faith
upon Christ's message of salvation by the example of his sacrifice.

"Another Catholic Church"? There is only one Church I am interesting in, Singer, and today, it happens to be called "Catholic"!

Christ never said "...and upon this 'faith message'I will build my church." Or are you going to rewrite scripture to say so, Singer?

If that is not building a church, then I cannot comprehend the simplest of
sentence structures, and certainly this is an undeniable sentence that anyone
who has an open mind cannot deny!

Compare it to the analysis that I have suggested and ask yourself if it is more important
to look upon Peter and an earthly kingdom or to Jesus and the eternal kingdom.

Singer, Jesus is God, not Peter! It is Jesus' church, not Peters! But Jesus does put Peter in charge of it! It is that simple!

No matter what Jesus does with Simon now called Peter, Jesus is always in charge! Nothing changes in that regard as Jesus sits on His throne in heaven!

Jesus died and resurrected and saved us from our sins if we only accept Him and obey His precepts.

Peter, a man, was given the "keys of the kingdom" that he (and his successors) would rule this church as it's earthly head, Christ is always the ultimate head in heaven!

Or, if that hurts too much, break out the scissors, Singer.............

God bless,

PAX

Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Ah yes, it almost rhymes: 2 X 2" and "so and so."

Well, it has the same metre to it!

Trying2Understand, I think we are seeing a poor soul trying to find his way in a sea of error, going from church to church, finding conflicting doctrines.

He has now isolated himself to the corner of his bedroom, forming his own church with "me, myself, and I."

Oh, but if only he could find the Barque of Peter that same church Christ founded on Peter's name, that he would find the truth that has existed unchallenged for the first 1500 years of it's existence!

Come, Holy Spirit!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

[ May 14, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Hang on Paxman.....I ain't answered all of your lengthy post yet .

I'm answering in segments for your reading enjoyment.!!!

Don't think that massive posting will deter me....take some time and
reinforce your stance with TryingtoUnderstand.

You need a break....I detect a weakness occuring.

Your friend in Christ
Singer

p.s. Had a tabletalk discussion with a faultering Catholic this noon.
He said they (young people in the RCC) were encouraged not to read
the bible back in the 40s. Said maybe it was because they feared more
Martin Luthers ...maybe. (You know...someone who would read the bible
and find out the REAL Truth)

Keep Smiling Paxman

 

SINGER is RIGHT, The observable Catholic church is not the Church that Jesus builded. It is instead a megalopolous built by the hands of man! The Observable Catholic Church is not even a good representation or likeness of the Church built by the Hand of God!

Has the Catholic church been Faithful to God? No, It has not even been faithful to it's own tenets. At its heart we find deceipt and wickedness. Among its priests we find letchers and Frauds. Among its people we find many good spirit filled Jesus worshippers, the sheep among the wolves.

The True Church of Jesus Christ is not built by human hand or help. It is the very spirit of God that indwells those who believe in Jesus. It is not visible to the human eye, but is readily apparent to the spirit filled man. The true church of Jesus Christ is the collective redeemed spirits of believers regardless of their physical organizational affiliation. This collective of believing spirits is the true Bride of Christ, not some wannabee run by a pope and college of cardinals.

The true church has as it's foundation Jesus, the son of God, the Christ. It is the revelation of who and what Jesus is alone that is the rock upon which Jesus builded his church. There is no greater truth regarding the church than the who and what of Jesus! The Faith of those who believe that truth is the building material of Jesus' church, but Jesus Himself is the Foundation.

Peter was merely the first to confess who and what Jesus is. Therefore, Peter's Confession is the Cornerstone of faith, not the foundation upon which Jesus is building His church.

So Mr Putnam, your argument is not convincing! It persuadeth none!

 

Singer, Jesus is God, not Peter! It is Jesus' church, not Peters! But Jesus does put Peter in
charge of it! It is that simple!

Peter is dead and he left no successors. Papal leadership was not a creation of Jesus.

No matter what Jesus does with Simon now called Peter, Jesus is always in charge!
Nothing changes in that regard as Jesus sits on His throne in heaven!

Good man, WP. That's what I've been trying to tell you. (Peter doesn't matter).
No man cometh to the Father but by Who, Paxman? Jesus or Peter ?
Show me where it says "No man cometh to the Father but by Me via Peter".

But you avoid my question: Were their other Christian denominations that you can identify
in history that existed from Pentecost to about 1500 years later? Give it a shot, Singer,
and let's see you do it....

Good point..Jesus didn't give names to any of them did he?
Tell me what denomination those present at Pentecost were.

He also seeks out sheep that is not of His fold that He would add them to His own fold
(can you find that in scripture?)
His fold could not have been Catholicism because He never named those who believed.


I "wrongfully" presume? How am I wrong, Singer? Do some legwork and prove me wrong if
you can.

Prove me wrong Paxman... without referring to Catholic doctrine. Bible only.
I'll even give you the advantage of using the adjective "catholic" in your efforts.

Hey, I'm going to go pick mushrooms along the river in the sunshine with the birds
singing and the quietness of His Spirit. Praise the Lord for the beauty of the earth.
Thank you Jesus !!

 

This is hilarious. So, have you pulled 1 and 2 Peter out of your Bible? How about Acts of the Apostles? I mean, if Peter was such a nasty, distrustful guy, why do you trust that the letters he wrote and the books that speak of him are infallible? I'm waiting for you to make sense.

God bless,

Grant