Posted on 04/05/2019 8:52:38 AM PDT by aimhigh
Children of LGBT parents can now be blessed or baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, church officials declared in a new policy on Thursday, dramatically reversing a 2015 decision that excluded those children from the rituals until they were 18. The church will also update its handbook for leaders, removing the label of “apostasy” for same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
That means “stone.” You’ll see that in a post as you read through.
Jesus is the “Rock,” and you’ll see that, too.
1. You did interpret Scripture.
2. You did claim that Peter became the first Catholic "pope" - which is simply a made up office.
Here is your post #12... I underlined your two interpretation of this passage.
"Jesus himself founded Catholicism in Matthew 16:18 when he said to Peter: Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. *And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.* I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.""Peter later then became the first Catholic Pope. All other factions of Christianity were founded by normal men, but not Jesus. That is scripture.
1. You claimed, "Jesus himself founded Catholicism in Matthew 16:18". The passage says absolutely nothing about the Catholic Church. Nor does it use the word, "church. Christ says "gathing."
It is your interpretation that this founded the Catholic Church. The passage does not say so, consequently, you imposed that on the passage. This is an interpretation of what is said by Christ.
2. You claimed, "All other factions of Christianity were founded by normal men, but not Jesus."
God has no grandchildren. Only Children. All Christ's children are His Body, His gathering, His Bride. Their lineage is Christ->Believer. It has always been so. It will always be so.
God has always saved to Himself those who have not bowed their knee to Balaam. They have always been related directly to Him by faith.
Every gathering that is comprised of believers in Christ is His and does not come from men, but from God Himself.
Even as we interact here, Christ is appearing to muslims throughout the middle east in dreams. These believers are gathering together to worship and fellowship. He is the source.
Best.
God knows everything, but He does not make everyone do what they do. For instance, He Wills we all follow Him. He doesn’t get that now, does He?
Jesus knew how the extent he could trust Judas and that Judas would give him up, so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
“Children of” it says.
“One would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing supernatural attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them.”
That really sums it up well.
Your problem is that of extrapolating the initial street-level leader among brethren into Peter being the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops.
Again, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
The NT nowhere manifestly shows mention or intimation of preparation to choose a successor for Peter by electing a elder as a apostolic successor, much less conveying total supreme papal authority. Unlike king David and the promise of his son Solomon to reign over Israel and his institution as king, (1 Chronicles 29) and the record of his son Rehoboam reigning in his stead (2 Chronicles 9:31) and so forth, the Bible not only does not record Peter’s death but it also does not foretell of a successor or speak of preparations for one. Nor does it mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1,2) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous (see #8) being ordained to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 20:28)
and the continuity of the Church was well recorded throughout the early history.
Actually even Catholic researchers, among others, provide testimony against Peter being as a RC pope in the the continuity of the Church recorded throughout the early history.
In any any case, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. In which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest .
The schisms and the heresies came later.
Actually, Catholicism is in essence a schism, in slow motion, from the NT church of Scripture.
Later, you have the dogmatical disputes raised during the Council of Chalcedon held in 451, which led to the Chalcedonian Schism and thus to the formation of the Non-Chalcedonian body of churches known as Oriental Orthodoxy. And later you have the East–West Schism of 1054, which was a mutual formal excommunication by both Roman Catholicism and and the Eastern Orthodox, and was a result of a succession of ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West, especially the Western demand for submission to its pope. Substantial disagreements btwn the two continue to this day.
And today, because of the magisterium which RCS set forth as the solution to division, you have the various formal and informal divisions in Catholicism.
A one poster wryly stated, The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Meanwhile "Bible Christians" testify to being the most unified major group in core conservative beliefs . To even suggest we should leave our conservative fellowships and become brethren with even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, is simply untenable on moral grounds alone.
Our Lord quite clearly told those who believed in him and "ate his flesh and drank his blood" would have eternal life.
Which again is begging the question, assuming the very thing that needs to be established as if it were, and which is not what the NT church manifestly believed and what Scripture teaches.
Moreover, if you really take John 6:53 as literal and an imperative as much as other "verily, verily" statements, then to be consistent, you must hold that this means that no one who denies the "Real (but metaphysical) Presence" has spiritual life in them, and cannot see eternal life with God.
Which marks you are being part of the traditionalist one true sect which rejects parts fo V2 teaching, which purports to interpret traditional RC teaching.
If you aren't anticipating life forever with Our Lord, you are sad souls indeed.
Indeed, and which means not reducing Scripture into a abused servant that is compelled to support Catholic teaching that is not taught in Scripture, such as prayer to created beings in Heaven.
A rock Not The Rock who is Christ Jesus
You mean by attempting to spread the faith of the RCC, you are interested in "proving" you're right and everyone else is wrong who disagrees. I think we have it.
Ummm. I don’t think so. Faith in Christ saves the soul. Not the ritual of baptism. Just my understanding.
Agreed. It’s idol worshiping.
Actually,
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26)
What I said in 109 also applies to you, and thus see 106
You must understand by now that when Catholics read into Scripture what they can only wish it manifestly meant, then that is "just reading Scripture;" however, when you show by the Scriptures how the NT church manifestly understood it, then that is merely your interpretation.
You are all in!
I have repeatedly you don’t respond with anything other than it is because I said so
“You must understand by now that when Catholics read into Scripture what they can only wish it manifestly meant, then that is “just reading Scripture;” however, when you show by the Scriptures how the NT church manifestly understood it, then that is merely your interpretation.”
Allow me to agree and give the New Living Translation of Daniel1212...
When Catholics find in Scripture what they were told it says, they go Rome-blind to the truth of what it actually says; But, when you show the truth in Scripture, then that is merely your interpretation.
And so it goes. :-)
“The Bible didn’t exist until many years after Christ, so what is your point ? that there can be no direct lineage between the two?”
You are new!
2/3 of Scripture w existed before the birth of Christ. Let that sink in.
All Scripture was inspired and read in churches during the lives of the Apostles.
In short, your statement is false bro.
“It is a historical fact that Peter is considered the first pope of the Catholic Church.”
To Catholics yes. And??
“It is a fact that in scripture Jesus himself tells peter that he is the rock on which he will build his church.”
He never said it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.