• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ as long as sin stands in the way, and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin.
Well, I guess you are calling God a liar.

Matthew 16:19, when Jesus gave the power and authority to Peter, "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18, Jesus gave this power to all of the Apostles, "Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

John 20:21-23, "He therefore said to them again, 'Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you'. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'."

2Corinthians 5:17-20, "Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

2Corinthians 2:10, "Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST."
</font>[/QUOTE]Lets try this post again L4H.
"You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ as long as sin stands in the way." (See previous verses posted). Now what do these verses (if anything,) have to do with having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Try and stay on topic this time.
DHK
 

Living4Him

New Member
Now what do these verses (if anything,) have to do with having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
They don't.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, my Lord and My Savior.

I don't believe that you are in a position to sit in judgement as to what my personal relationship with Jesus is.

Also, using the Bible only philosophy, where does it state to have a personal relationship with Jesus?
 

Living4Him

New Member
The scriptures were inscripturated hundreds of years prior to Constantines decisions which resulted in the "pagan/religious" entity known as the Catholic Church to come into existance."
D28guy,

Okay, so help me understand. Are you saying that because Constantine ended the emperor's persecution of Christians, that this resulted in the Christians becoming pagan and thus the Catholic Church came into existance?


Also, what do you mean by inscripturated?
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by violet:
I think it's a Homer Simpsonesque "DOH!"
Violet is correct.
thumbs.gif
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by DHK:
There is nothing directed to the Apostles here.
Context, DHK--He's the directly addressing the apostles, the foundation of the Church, since that is to whom
He's talking.
(DOH!! DOH!!...now I'm really wishing there was a Homer Simpson emoticon.)

Don't read anything more into the Scripture than that which is written.
I'm not reading anything "more" into Scripture, since the fact that He's talking to the Apostles is right there.

Christ was also directly addressing either one of the apostles or some of them when he said:
"Get thee behind me Satan."
You're right...He was.


The Bible does not contradict itself. We have already established in Mark 2, that only God can forgive sins. Jesus Christ is God, therefore he can forgive sins.
And yet this same Jesus Christ empowered the apostles to do the same. We have established this in John 20. If Christ had not so empowered the apostles, then I'd agree with you. But since it says that very thing right there in the text, I'm going to have to pass on agreeing with you. Sorry.

The bible does not contradict itself. Do you contradict the Bible. Having said that, what does the Scripture mean? Not so self-explanatory anymore is it?
Nope, despite your leaps of illogic, it's still self-explanatory. The apostles are able to declare sins forgiven or retained by the power of God given to them by Christ Who is God. Seems like God can grant that power to whomever He desires. If He wants to forgive sins through the agency of men whom He has chosen, I have no problem with that. Afterall, He is God, and who are we to argue with God???
thumbs.gif



I am not begging the question. You are avoiding Scripture.
Looks like you're the one avoiding Scriptures you don't like. How very Protestant of you! :D
Christ never empowered the disciples to forgive sins. You just don't know what the verse means.
This is pretty comical! Do you actually have a straight face when you type this stuff? I mean it's almost hilarious how you can read a verse which plainly says "x" and turn around and write "this verse is not saying "x"! PLEASE stop it, man, you're killing me!
laugh.gif


You had better (using SS) find out what the verse means.
DHK
Already have. And looking at the context and the plain meaning, Christ gives His authority to His apostles to carry on His work which includes the forgiveness of sins. No "magisterium" had to tell me that. :cool:
 

Living4Him

New Member
DT,

Is it just me or do you also get the impression that a few people here appear to hold to the notion that Jesus spoke in parable/metaphors/riddles in all of His teachings?

It is as if "Jesus didn't mean what He said."
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by Living4Him:
DT,

Is it just me or do you also get the impression that a few people here appear to hold to the notion that Jesus spoke in parable/metaphors/riddles in all of His teachings?

It is as if "Jesus didn't mean what He said."
I'm getting that impression as well. It's as if more than few people are quick to exclaim "Parable!...metaphor!...riddle!..." when the plain statements of Christ cause offense to them. In this manner they are able to summarily dismiss any of the plain teachings of Christ with which they happen to disagree. As a result, they've turned their private (or their denomination's) interpretation of the Bible into an idol. How sad.
:(
 

D28guy

New Member
Living4Him,

"Okay, so help me understand. Are you saying that because Constantine ended the emperor's persecution of Christians, that this resulted in the Christians becoming pagan and thus the Catholic Church came into existance?"
Constantine didnt wake up one day and call a bunch of people togther and say "OK! Lets get together and creat a religious organisation that will blend together some chrstian truths, some pagan ideas, some ridiculous and idolatrous things it will invent on its own, and we'll call it the Roman Catholic Church!"

But he made certain decisions, in some part due to a religious experience he claimed to have had, that initially appeared to only be the end of christian persecution...but in time it led to the monstrocity now know as the "Catholic Church".

Constantines decisions are universally regarded...but christians and secular historians...as being the beginning of the Catholic Church. A slimy blended together mess of *some* christian truth, idolatry, "christianised" Paganism, extreme false teachings, cultlike control mechanisms that are inflicted upon her victims, etc etc etc.


The only people who would argue would probably be Catholics, since they seem very determined to perpetuation the ridiculous and comical idea that Catholicism goes back to the 1st century, with...incredibly..."Peter is the 1st Pope!" probably being the most hilariously comical.

"Also, what do you mean by inscripturated?"
When Gods truth was 1st recorded in some way for reference.

Chisled in stone tablets by God Himself, or recorded in scrolls, manuscripts or letters. Such as the OT ones found in the dead sea scrolls or NT ones sent to a particular fellowship or believers by a particular believer.

God bless,

Mike
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by D28guy:
Constantine didnt wake up one day and....
...But he made certain decisions, ......but in time it led to the monstrocity now know as the "Catholic Church".
What specific "decisions"? are you talking about?

The only people who would argue would probably be Catholics, since they seem very determined to perpetuation the ridiculous and comical idea that Catholicism goes back to the 1st century,
The first recorded mention of the "catholic" church was by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch at the very beginning of the 2nd century. (His usage indicating that the term was already in use.) Ignatius was a follower of the Apostle John.

... with...incredibly..."Peter is the 1st Pope!" probably being the most hilariously comical.
Actually, the early Christians mentioned that the first Roman Bishop--Linus-- was ordained by Peter and Paul.
 

Living4Him

New Member
the ridiculous and comical idea that Catholicism goes back to the 1st century, with...incredibly..."Peter is the 1st Pope!" probably being the most hilariously comical.
No, it's not a ridiculous claim. Like I have stated every Catholic Bishop can trace their ordination back to one of the Apostles.

Here are the list of Popes (265)in all. Imagine that, 32 Popes before Constantine even produced the Edict of Milan.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus I (366-83)
St. Siricius (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (399-401)
St. Innocent I (401-17)
St. Zosimus (417-18)
St. Boniface I (418-22)
St. Celestine I (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (461-68)
St. Simplicius (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (492-96)
Anastasius II (496-98)
St. Symmachus (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (514-23)
St. John I (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
Boniface II (530-32)
John II (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (536-37)
Vigilius (537-55)
Pelagius I (556-61)
John III (561-74)
Benedict I (575-79)
Pelagius II (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
Donus (676-78)
St. Agatho (678-81)
St. Leo II (682-83)
St. Benedict II (684-85)
John V (685-86)
Conon (686-87)
St. Sergius I (687-701)
John VI (701-05)
John VII (705-07)
Sisinnius (708)
Constantine (708-15)
St. Gregory II (715-31)
St. Gregory III (731-41)
St. Zachary (741-52)
Stephen II (752) -- Omitted from many lists (including the Vatican's) because he died before being consecrated.
Stephen III (752-57)
St. Paul I (757-67)
Stephen IV (767-72)
Adrian I (772-95)
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
Benedict IV (900-03)
Leo V (903)
Sergius III (904-11)
Anastasius III (911-13)
Lando (913-14)
John X (914-28)
Leo VI (928)
Stephen VIII (929-31)
John XI (931-35)
Leo VII (936-39)
Stephen IX (939-42)
Marinus II (942-46)
Agapetus II (946-55)
John XII (955-63)
Leo VIII (963-64)
Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45)
Sylvester III (1045) -- Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61)
Alexander II (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (1118-19)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30)
Innocent II (1130-43)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81)
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89)
Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (1404-06)
Gregory XII (1406-15)
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Living4Him:
Now what do these verses (if anything,) have to do with having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
[qb]
They don't.
Good, so you now can admit that they had nothing to do with the original question that I asked you, but were simply a diversionary tactic.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, my Lord and My Savior.

I don't believe that you are in a position to sit in judgement as to what my personal relationship with Jesus is.
First, this is a debate forum. Second, Jesus said to judge righteous judgement. Third, you said previously that you had always a personal relationship with Christ. You had always loved Christ. That is why I posted those verses on sin.
Sin separates us from God. Only God can forgive your sin. That is why Christ made an atonement for your sin (not the priest). Therefore he is the one that can forgive your sin (not the priest). It was Christ that paid the sole penalty for your sin, not anyone else. He took the entire penalty on himself. Thus any work or merit that we have to offer is of no consequence. There is nothing that we can do to merit the salvation that Christ offers us, for he paid the penalty of all of our sins. This is why good works and baptism can't buy your way into heaven. They can't pay the price of salvation. Only the blood of Christ can. He suffered to pay the price that we could never pay--the price of the penalty of our sins, which is eternal death.
It is impossible to be a Christian all of your life. Many have religion, but not a relationship. A relationship comes through being born again. But according to Catholic teaching, being born again is to be baptized, which has nothing to do with being born again. Jesus said:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
--Thus it is important to be be born again.

But for a quick explanation let's go straight to John 1:
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
--When Jesus came, he came to the Jewish nation first. They rejected him as their Messiah and crucified him instead. "They received him not."

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
--But those that did receive him became the children of God, even those that believed on his name.
--By receiving Christ as Savior, by believing on Him, one becomes born again. This is how one is born again and develops a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

John 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--Here John makes it more clear.
Born not of blood. It is not passed down by blood. That is you are not born into a Christian family. You cannot be a Christian just because your family is a Christian family. It doesn't work that way. You can't "inherit" Christianity.

"Nor of the will of the flesh" Putting the fleshly things behind and trying to be a good person is not being born again. That is reformation, not regeneration.

"Not of the will of man." You just can't make up your mind and declare yourself a Christian someday. It is not a simple confession, by your will. Even the devils believe and tremble.

But it is being "born of God. You must be born of God. You must trust Christ as Savior. Ask Him to come into your heart, and by the power of his Holy Spirit dwell within you. This is an act of faith and faith alone.
"As many as received him..even to those that believed on his name" (acted in faith).
There must be a point in time in your life where you have done that: admit to Christ that you are a sinner in need of a Savior; that your sin has condemned you to a Christless eternity; that only the atoning sacrifice of Christ can save (not the priest, not the mass, etc.) but Christ alone. And then believe on him alone for the remission of sins.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Has there been a specific time and place that you remember where you have done that?
DHK
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Living4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />the ridiculous and comical idea that Catholicism goes back to the 1st century, with...incredibly..."Peter is the 1st Pope!" probably being the most hilariously comical.
No, it's not a ridiculous claim. Like I have stated every Catholic Bishop can trace their ordination back to one of the Apostles.

Here are the list of Popes (265)in all. Imagine that, 32 Popes before Constantine even produced the Edict of Milan.
</font>[/QUOTE]Too bad they all aren't Roman Catholic.
 

Living4Him

New Member
But it is being "born of God. You must be born of God. You must trust Christ as Savior. Ask Him to come into your heart, and by the power of his Holy Spirit dwell within you. This is an act of faith and faith alone.
Yes, I did that when I was 5.


But before then, I wanted to marry Jesus.

I was raised IFB. My mother told me that I would sleep with my little NT Bible from the time I was about 1 yr. old, I didn't want to sleep with a doll or a toy animal.

By the time I was 2 yrs old, I would walk around the house preaching Hell fire & brimstone and telling everybody that they needed to repent and get right with Jesus.

So yes, I have loved Jesus all my life. I didn't say the sinners prayer or make a public profession of faith until I was 5. Momma told me until then I only had a head knowledge of Jesus and not a heart knowledge because I haven't asked Him to forgive me of my sins.
 

Living4Him

New Member
why good works and baptism can't buy your way into heaven. They can't pay the price of salvation.
Of course they can't. And the Catholic Church doesn't teach that anyone can buy their way into Heaven.

First off, we are saved solely on the basis of God's Grace and Mercy.

Second, we have to cooperate with the Grace that God has given us. We do that by placing our faith and trust in Jesus.

Baptism is regenerative because of Jesus' redemptive sacrifice on the Cross.

And after all these, we are required to love and serve God (which does require doing His Will and living the Christian life as laid out by Jesus)with all of our heart, soul, and mind.
 

D28guy

New Member
DoubtingThomas,

"The first recorded mention of the "catholic" church was by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch at the very beginning of the 2nd century. (His usage indicating that the term was already in use.)"
The word "catholic" just means universal. I am not speaking of the term used literally, but the religious organisation now called The Catholic Church and based in Rome.

Both christian and secular historians credit Constantines sweeping changes as being the beginning of The Catholic Church.

"Ignatius was a follower of he Apostle John."
Then he was lost. He should have been a follower of Jesus Christ like we who are christians. ;)

Mike
 

D28guy

New Member
Doubting Thomas,

"Actually, the early Christians mentioned that the first Roman Bishop--Linus-- was ordained by Peter and Paul."
1st, I couldnt care less about that. I'm talking about the 1st Pope.

Secondly, its a source a vigorous debate as to whether Peter even so much as set foot in Rome at any time in His life, let alone being some kind of leader.

He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form. He was even upbraided to his face by Paul due to his hypocricy. And there doesnt seem to be any sure evidence of Peter having any primacy at all among the 1st century christian community.

And if he were in such great primacy, why would God thunder forth for the church his great new testament/new covenant doctrinal writings through the Apostle Paul, rather then Peter???

Peter wrote:

1 Peter
2 Peter

While Paul wrote:

The "Mountain Peak" epistles of...

Romans
1st Corinthians
2nd Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Phillipians
Collosians
1st Timothy
2nd Timothy
1st Thessolonians
2nd Thessolonians, etc.

Peter...the 1st Pope.

(eyes rolling)

Mike
 

D28guy

New Member
Living4Him,

"Of course they can't. And the Catholic Church doesn't teach that anyone can buy their way into Heaven."
You need to study that little period known as the "Dark Ages"

Your study will lead you to little problems called "Inquisitions".

Which will bring you to these little problems known as "indulgences".

Mike
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Originally posted by DHK:
There is nothing directed to the Apostles here.
[qb]
Context, DHK--He's the directly addressing the apostles, the foundation of the Church, since that is to whom
He's talking.
(DOH!! DOH!!...now I'm really wishing there was a Homer Simpson emoticon.)
For someone who has been stating things from a Catholic point of view thus far, it seems odd to me that you suddenly would change in mid-stream and become a hyper-dispensationalist. At least this is what it appears to be. For if these verses are simply addressed to the Apostles and don't have application to us, then what do you do just a couple of verses later, when Jesus says:

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
--Or is this spoken only to the Apostles and has no application to us either. It is in the same context as verses 16-19, as well. I know that the Lord is among us when we as believers gather together. I am sorry if you don't believe that, because it applies only to the Apostles.

On another note: "the Apostles, the foundation of the Church," you say. Please define "church". We know it doesn't refer to the pagan, idolatrous, murderous, Bible-burning Roman Catholic Church, so what church does it refer to? Care to elaborate. Can you give a reason for your answer.
Don't read anything more into the Scripture than that which is written.
I'm not reading anything "more" into Scripture, since the fact that He's talking to the Apostles is right there.
And thus of everything Christ says, none of it applies to you, correct? Hyper-dispensationalism.

Christ was also directly addressing either one of the apostles or some of them when he said:
"Get thee behind me Satan."
You're right...He was.
The point being made is that many portions of Scripture (such as the portion in Mat.18) are applicable to all of us. But there are a few portions of Scripture that are specifically directed to certain individuals (such as the above verse) which was directed to Peter and no one else. In Mat.18 Jesus gives general principles as he teaches about the local church. But when he gives this statement directly to Peter, it can't be meant for anyone else but him. Context is everything.

The Bible does not contradict itself. We have already established in Mark 2, that only God can forgive sins. Jesus Christ is God, therefore he can forgive sins.
And yet this same Jesus Christ empowered the apostles to do the same. We have established this in John 20. If Christ had not so empowered the apostles, then I'd agree with you. But since it says that very thing right there in the text, I'm going to have to pass on agreeing with you. Sorry.
Jesus did no such thing. I am sorry if you do not understand the Bible, but nowhere in the Bible did Jesus ever empower anyone to forgive sins. You have yet to demonstrate that to me. The Bible makes it very plain that only God can forgive sins. If you have a problem with that truth I suggest you take it up with God.

The bible does not contradict itself. Do you contradict the Bible. Having said that, what does the Scripture mean? Not so self-explanatory anymore is it?
Nope, despite your leaps of illogic, it's still self-explanatory. The apostles are able to declare sins forgiven or retained by the power of God given to them by Christ Who is God. Seems like God can grant that power to whomever He desires. If He wants to forgive sins through the agency of men whom He has chosen, I have no problem with that. Afterall, He is God, and who are we to argue with God???
You have painted the typical god of the Catholic religion. He is a god that you can put in one pocket while you carry your sin around in your other pocket. Any time you need god you just pull him out of your pocket. Then put him back away when you want to continue in your sin. Very convenient. Thus you can be a Catholic and anything else under the sun.

See, look at your logic.
God can do whatever he wants (including allowing you and others to sin, and empowering the Apostles and priests to forgive sin)
Thus God empowered the Apostles to forgive sin, becausse God can do whatever he wants.
And because God (who can do whatever he wants) empowered the apostles to forgive sins, he also made that power transferable, so that the priests of today have the power to forgive sins.
This is very convenient for Catholics who commit murder and adultery, and theft, etc. All they have to do now is commit the most heinous of sins and confess their sins to the priest and their all ready to enter heaven again. That is why all the members of the Mafia were good Catholics isn't it. The Catholic Church did give them a decent burial didn't they? Yes, your god (not the God of the Bible) can do whatever he wants.
I am not begging the question. You are avoiding Scripture.
Looks like you're the one avoiding Scriptures you don't like. How very Protestant of you!
Ask me of any Scripture you wish, and I will answer it for you.
Christ never empowered the disciples to forgive sins. You just don't know what the verse means.
This is pretty comical! Do you actually have a straight face when you type this stuff? I mean it's almost hilarious how you can read a verse which plainly says "x" and turn around and write "this verse is not saying "x"! PLEASE stop it, man, you're killing me!
I will say it again for you: He never empowered the Apostles to forgive sin. Only God forgives sin. If you have a problem with that take it up with God. It was Christ that said it. Do you call him a liar?
Because you can't understand what other Scriptures says is not my problem. If you have specific questions ask them. But don't make statements you can't back up.

You had better (using SS) find out what the verse means.
DHK
Already have. And looking at the context and the plain meaning, Christ gives His authority to His apostles to carry on His work which includes the forgiveness of sins. No "magisterium" had to tell me that. :cool:
No, you haven't explained anything. Just quoting a verse without giving any explanation as to why you think it means what the Magesterium has indoctrinated you to believe is not good enough. Sorry, you will have to do better than that. It looks like you will have to resort to SS on this one.
DHK
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by D28guy:
[The word "catholic" just means universal. I am not speaking of the term used literally, but the religious organisation now called The Catholic Church and based in Rome.
Technically, "catholic" means "of the whole", not necessarily "universal".

Both christian and secular historians credit Constantines sweeping changes as being the beginning of The Catholic Church.
Then you're pretty selective with the historians you cite. Many historians--Christian and otherwise--recognize that the "catholic" church goes all the way back to the apostles.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Ignatius was a follower of he Apostle John."
Then he was lost. He should have been a follower of Jesus Christ like we who are christians.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now you're just being ridiculous. Paul told Christians to imitate him as he imitated Christ. That's the sense in which I meant Ignatius was a "follower" of John. Then, I wouldn't expect one who basically subscribes to "lone ranger christianity" to understand that concept.

Sadly (but not stunned),
DT
 

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Originally posted by D28guy:
[QB] Doubting Thomas,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Actually, the early Christians mentioned that the first Roman Bishop--Linus-- was ordained by Peter and Paul."
1st, I couldnt care less about that. I'm talking about the 1st Pope.</font>[/QUOTE]"Pope"..."bishop"....whatever you give the name to the chief overseer of the Church at Rome, early christians documented that the office was traced back to Peter and Paul.

Secondly, its a source a vigorous debate as to whether Peter even so much as set foot in Rome at any time in His life, let alone being some kind of leader.
It's only a "vigorous debate" for historical revisionists. The overwhelming testimony from history was the Peter did spend time in Rome on more than one occasion and was martyred there.

He certainly had no type of "infallibilty" going on in his life in any way shape or form.
No argument from me. (Although I would argue that his two epistles at least are infallible)

He was even upbraided to his face by Paul due to his hypocricy.
Again, no argument from me. (You must keep confusing me for a Roman Catholic)

And there doesnt seem to be any sure evidence of Peter having any primacy at all among the 1st century christian community.
Infallibility or supremacy over the apostles, "no". Primacy among the apostles, "yes".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top