Man Needs To Know God Created All Things

The greatness and power of God is pictured in a few bold strokes in the opening chapter of the Bible. The Genesis account of creation portrays God and identifies man. It sets the stage for all that follows. It is important for man to know about creation because it tells him who he is and vividly represents the might and divinity of the Creator.

Jehovah, Jesus and the Spirit, acting in the unison of their God nature, brought the present order of things into existence. There is only one true and living God who is three beings, or persons. The perfect unity between the three persons of God make a single entity. The plural nature of God is asserted in the opening chapter of the Bible. "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26). God...us...our...the plural pronouns used in connection with the word God show the one is three and the three are one. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not.

An illustration of the three-in-one understanding of deity may be seen in space. Space is limitless, having no bounds. Space has three measurements. Look at a cube. It has three dimensions-depth and height (same dimension measured from opposite ends), width and length (same dimension measured from opposite sides) and breadth and thickness (same dimension measured from opposite borders). Height, length, thickness each is separate and identifiable and are the dimensions of space. Space is one--the three are one and the one is three.

In much the same way, there are three distinguishable beings in one God. Each possess the God nature and besides this one God with three beings there is none other. God alone is God. The same information is given concerning man. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion..." (Gen. 1:26).

Notice "man" is singular, but God gave "them" dominion. The word man is used in the sense of mankind. Only those who possess human nature are man. They are one in their manhood, but separate in their being. They are many but the many are one. They alone are man and beside them none other possesses human nature. The brute beast is not man. Cows, dogs, horses do not possess human nature. Only man is man.

There are only three beings who possess the God nature. Each of the three has all the attributes of divinity. Each of the three is all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present, infinite in love, holiness and justice. The agreement between the three persons in the one God is absolute. They are perfectly united in thought, word, desire, and purpose. Though separate they are welded together into a consummate unit. They are one as the disciples of Jesus are to be one (John 17:21). The disciples of the Master, in their human weakness, may fail in their oneness, but God is faithful to his essential unity even if man is faithless in his.

The opening chapter of the book of Genesis does not give details about the essence of God, but it does give the outline. It makes us aware that God is plural and, therefore, from the first, affirms the eternal nature of the being who would one day restrict his God nature and also take the form of a servant, and be "made in all things like unto his brethren."

The Genesis account of creation is the only accurate report of the First Cause. Men, in their limited knowledge, may concoct all kinds of theories about the origin of things, but all such speculation is vain. Human conjecture is often a house of sand. We are now being told by some advocates of evolutionism that the whole universe came into existence in the expanding fireball of a big bang, doubling in size every tenth of a quadrillionth of a quintillionth of a second. That gets pretty close to the majestic statement of Moses, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Gen. 1:3).

God spoke the universe into existence. The expression "And God said" is repeated 10 times in the account of creation. He commanded and it was done. Not in eons, but in hours. Not in a long, indefinite period of time, but in days. Everything from light to man was created by the irresistible power of an Almighty God in 144 hours.

In 615 words God, through Moses, told all we know of how everything in the universe came into existence. The Bible story of creation is a masterful and fascinating description of how material things came into existence. No one has been able to improve on it. It is an introduction of the history of the dealings of God with man, and forms the ruling theme of inspired scripture. It shows us the Supreme Being in unquestioned majesty. The God of the spirits of all flesh - the moral governor of earth and sky and sea. The Genesis account shows us man as subservient to God. Man is in the image and likeness of God, but he is not God. He has limitations. He is finite and mortal. He is created -- not eternal. His spirit never dies, but man had a beginning. Man is dependent.

The Genesis account of creation should help us to understand that the throne of God is the center of everything. Our limited and distorted human vision is clouded and we do not see things as they are. We are tempted to suppose that the planet earth is the focal point of eternity. We are duped into supposing that authority and nobility are in the visible world around us.

God's throne is the center of the universe. The first book in the Bible explains the separateness and majesty of God. The last book in the Bible confirms this exalted truth. The apostle John on Patmos was given a vision of the cosmos. He saw God's eternal throne as the midpoint. It is a place of power, beauty and transcendent wisdom. Arched over the throne of God is an emerald rainbow. He who sits on the throne is "like a jasper stone and a sardius to look upon" (Rev. 4:3).

Daniel described the dwelling place of God. "I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire" (Dan. 7:9). "And out of the throne proceed lightnings and voices and thunders. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God; and before the throne, as it were a sea of glass like a crystal; and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, four living creatures full of eyes before and behind" (Rev. 4:5-6). Surrounding the throne of God are four living creatures and twenty-four thrones occupied by elders, having crowns of gold upon their heads. Beyond the living creatures and the elders' thrones are countless angels. "The number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Rev. 5:11). Beyond the angel host--out on the periphery of the universe--are the kingdoms of men. The human drama is played out on the fringe of God's ageless kingdom. The center of everything is God. The account of creation helps us to know, to the limit of our ability to understand, the preeminence of God. His supremacy is undeniable. Almighty God made the worlds.

Jesus was the reason for making of all things. In Jesus we have the forgiveness of our sins "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fullness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens" (Col. 1:15-20). God made everything good. Six times in the Genesis account of creation God looked at what he made and pronounced it good (Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Then, to top it off, "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). It was all good--not only good but very good! God made nothing that was bad, or evil.

Bad things came when man rebelled against God. God made man good and gave to him the power of choice. Man decided to do something God had forbidden. Man was told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil--the tree that stood in the midst of Eden. Man did what God told him not to do. Man can reject the rule of God in his life. If man fails to do what God has commanded, or does what God forbids, he is distanced from God. In his separation from his maker, man is miserable and lost. His rebellion brings upon him sorrow and suffering. The blessing God intended for man is ruined because of man's disobedience. The Bible account of creation tells us that sin brings death (Gen. 3:3). The New Testament reiterates it..."the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). Every ounce of woe and every gram of heartache visited on the human race is the result of man's stubborn rebellion to God. The polio virus and cancer virus did not exist in the beginning but are the results of mutation. The world as we see it today is not the world as God made it, but is the world as man has spoiled it. When man rejects God and refuses to follow his word, he brings about profound alterations. Having caused the change, man must live in consequence of it. We must suffer from the transgressions of all who have gone before us, and all who come after us will have to endure the results of our folly. "For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:20-23).

God deniers try to discredit believers by asking, If God is good where does evil come from? The answer is, all evil comes from man's rejection of God's will and way. Evil is the fault of the creature--not the Creator. It is the bitter fruit of disobedience. This is fundamental and basic. The essential goodness of God is underscored in his promise that the seed of woman would bruise the head of Satan (Gen. 3:15). In mysterious grandeur God speaks of the time when a savior would appear to give man the opportunity of victory over the devil.

On the first day of creation God called for light and light had no choice but to appear. Philosophers and scientists can neither make nor explain light. Light is distinct from the sun and moon (Gen. 1:3,16). Where and what is it? Do you know its dwelling place (Job 38:19). Job could not explain by what way the light is parted, nor can we (Job 38:24).

A light was first in God's creation and symbolizes divine wisdom. Jehovah is "the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning" (James 1:17). Of Jesus it is said, "In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). Of heaven it is written, "And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine upon it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamp thereof is the Lamb" (Rev. 21:23).

Those who proclaim and practice the teaching of Jesus are the light of the world (Matt. 5:14). The saints of earth are to "become blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye are seen as lights in the world" (Phil. 2:15). The lessons of creation are many and magnificent, but there is no truth more profound than who and where God is, and who and where we are. The grand lesson of creation is God's compelling power and our appalling weakness.

It was all done with a view to the Messiah of Jehovah. Creation was a prelude to the grace of Christ and his adoration. We cannot escape the conclusion that the overture of creation is the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star, the sun of righteousness with healing in his wings. The blinding blaze of creation sets the stage for the deep shadows of Calvary. The world's redeemer dying on a cross in the darkness is anticipated in the expectation of creation. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). "God the mighty maker died for man the creature's sin. Just as creation anticipates the cross so does the cross anticipate the second coming. One foresees the other. Creation will reach its climax one day when Jesus comes again. The last chapter of earth will be written in blood and fire and fear and brightness and joy and victory.

The word of God is powerful. From of old there was "an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God" (2 Peter 3:5). By the means of that forceful word "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (2 Peter 3:6). The heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to youward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But, according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter 3:7-13).

The God who made the world by his authoritative word will destroy it some day by that same decisive word. See the greatness, separateness, majesty, mercy, love and grace of God unfolded in creation and in judgment. This brings us full circle to stand in awe of the matchless word of God. "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not when they refused him that warned them on earth, much more shall not we escape who turn away from him that warneth from heaven" (Heb. 12:25).

Even now he is warning from heaven. Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away from them. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard" (Heb. 2:1-3). Harden not your heart!

Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth."

"In conversing with me about "religion" you have to stay on what we have established as our common ground"

I will do so. I was wondering, however, why you take away Apostolic Tradition and part of the Scripture, books that were considered inspired by God for nearly 2000 years. The usefulness of Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) does not make Holy Tradition useless any more than the use of one eye, of one leg, of one arm makes the other useless. The Church has always received both with due honor, and they DO NOT CONTRADICT!

Apostolic Tradition is the Word of the living God, witnessed not on paper but on the heart. Christian doctrine is not called Eugraphium (good writings) but Evangelium (good tidings). To sever the Apostolic Tradition from Scripture is to damage the Word of God, to ignore parts of it, specifically goes against Scripture itself (2 Thess 2:15, etc.) I would like to know your warrant for using a truncated version of God's Word, especially when we are counseled to adhere to both written and unwritten traditions.

That is the problem that I have with Scripture alone. It is against the Scriptures themselves. But we can come back to that later, if you want.

But with that said, I will try to keep my conversations to within the Scriptures themselves - specifically, your version of Scriptures. (just the 66 books, not the full version of the Bible).

"By the way, the key words in that sentence are believe and obey. Most don't (Matthew 7:13-14). If everyone did we would be united. Obedience."

Do you realize the irony of that statement? You do not obey yourself, as you ignore unwritten traditions! If people did not leave God's Church established by Christ when consigning the keys (authority) to Peter, we would be united to a large degree. We would be fulfilling Jesus' desire that all be one through the word of the Apostles (John 17:20-21). We certainly are not now. On essentials, there should be unity. That is the greatest and most important features of the Church, that it be one (holy, catholic, apostolic the others). Protestants are Catholic to the degree that we share the one faith, one baptism, and one loaf, all given to us by the Apostles.

Where shall we begin? I would like to give an analogy of the relationship between Christ and us (His Church), which can also be found in Ephesians. We are, in a sense, in a marriage with Christ, correct? We say we love Him. We know He loves us. Let's explore a little this love we say that we have for Him. How much does a typical Protestant love Jesus? (Please bear with me, this is not directed at you personally, but Protestants in general)

First, we tell our husband that we absolutely refuse to share ourselves totally and completely in the most holy manner that married couples share of each other. We tell our husbands that we will never consummate the marriage! Did you know that the total giving of husband to wife and wife to husband in the act of marital love is a sign, a symbol, that points to the Eucharist? Jesus Christ gives of Himself totally and completely to us, the Bride, in an unselfish manner, and we are called to do the same. Our love in marriage is a sign pointing to what Christ spirtually and really does with us during the Eucharist. Protestants tell Christ, effectively, that they refuse this total union of Love.

We tell our husband in effect, "Sleep on the couch during this marriage! I don't want to share in this most intimate and personal way with you!"

Second, we tell our husbands that we want nothing to do with our husband's mother! Despite the fact that Jesus even had the ability to choose His mother, to give her gifts that no man could ever bestow on his own mother, despite the Bible itself tells us "all generations will call me (Mary) blessed" (Luke 1:48), despite her telling us to "do whatever He tells you" (John 2:5) - not what she tells us, what He tells us.

We say to our husband "we don't want nothing to do with your mother".

Third, Jesus has made a "business arrangement". Your husband is a shepherd, given particular sheep to care for by His Father. He has left someone to take care of his "sheep", to feed them (John 21:16-17). This man, your husband has specifically prayed for to keep Peter from Satan, your husband's "business archrival", to bolster the rest of the "employees'" faith, to strengthen them (Luke 22:32). In His absence, He give Peter the authority to "run the business" by giving the keys of the "shop", with the power to make any business decision necessary while your husband is away (Mat 16:16-20). Your husband has built up a "business" arrangement to keep His pride and joy, His Church, running for ALL time (Mat 16:18, Mat 28:20) and you refuse to have anything to do with it? Although this very Church, this organization, has "fed you" with the Scriptures, with Baptism, with the Apostles' teachings that proclaim the Good News, you distance yourself from it? Your husband's stewards you ignore or have disdain for?

You tell your husband "give me food (Scriptures), but I don't want to have anything to do with your company or business. Just feed me and keep them away"

I realize this is an analogy, but it is what Protestants do in their relationship with Christ. They ignore Jesus' plea to come to Him in the Eucharist, His total giving of Himself. They ignore Jesus' mother Mary, despite the fact that the "woman" who Jesus refers to is the same "woman" of Rev 12:17, "who the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold testimony of Jesus", the woman who "all generations will call blessed". And finally, they ignore the visible Church on earth, His instrument of salvation on the earth.

If we are to be saved, we are to be baptized (John 3:5), we are to receive Christ's Body (John 6:54) and we are to have belief in Jesus and obey His commandments (John 3:18-21, many others). How can one Baptize himself? How can one receive Christ's Body without the Church? How can one receive faith in Jesus without the Gospel being proclaimed? As you can see, without the Church, we are trying to win our way into heaven a different way than how Christ envisions. If I recall a recent clipping that you posted a few weeks ago, the title was something to the effect of "Can man worship God how he desires", or something to that effect. I take it, your answer was NO to that question. That we are to worship God how He envisions and commands. Are you?

"Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matthew 7:21). Are you obeying the Will of the Father?

I am not saying that one has to be a Roman Catholic to be saved. However, if one is in search of worshipping God in Spirit and in Truth, one can only do it by the way Jesus, God Himself, established it. By the above analogy, I ask you to consider the degree of your love for the groom, Jesus Christ. I will not question your love of Christ. Only you can. I will not judge you or condemn you. I am just giving you something to think about.

Your comments are much appreciated, and I will answer as best as I can within the confines of Scripture only (despite what I say above)

Brother in Christ

Okay, it is clear you are really wanting to go there, so let's go there...

How about apostolic succession...

Catholic arguments used in support of apostolic succession.

1. Indefectibility of the Church

a) It is argued from Matthew 16:18 that apostolic succession is necessary that the church might stand against the forces of Hell. They reason that for the Church to prevail until the end of time, the power of Peter and other apostles to teach, sanctify, and rule must also continue to the end. The mission of Peter and his successors is thus "to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it" (CCC 552).
b) However, Matthew 16:18 teaches nothing about apostolic succession. Jesus promised to build his church and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. This refers to his resurrection (cf. Acts 2:30-31, He was not abandoned to Hades).

2. The Great Commission

a) Roman Catholics argue from Matthew 28:20 that in order for Jesus to be with the apostles to the end of the age, they had to have successors (CCC 860).
b) There is nothing in this passage even to suggest what Catholic doctrine assumes; Jesus promised nothing regarding bishops or succession. Jesus was promising to be with his disciples always in their work of "making disciples" (Matt. 28:19).

3. Entrust to faithful men

a)      2 Timothy 2:2 is used to argue that Timothy was to pass on the apostolic powers to others, as he had supposedly received them from Paul by the laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). As such Timothy would be ordaining bishops, who would do the same for others.
b)      "...by the imposition of hands they [apostles] passed on to their auxiliaries the gift of the Spirit, which is transmitted down to our day through episcopal consecration (CCC 861-862).
c)      These passages talk about Timothy receiving a "spiritual gift" (1 Tim. 4:14 ; 2 Tim. 1:6) but they say nothing at all about Paul transmitting his powers on to Timothy or anyone else. Timothy was simply encouraged not to neglect his gift. 2 Tim. 2:2 was instruction for Timothy to pass on to others by teaching, the things which Paul had taught him. There is nothing in any of these passages about bishops or apostolic succession.

4. Timothy and Titus

a) Catholics claim that Paul ordained Timothy as bishop of Ephesus and Titus as Bishop of Crete (cf. CCC 1590). They observe that Timothy and Titus received the mandate from Paul to exercise the ministry of teaching (1 Tim. 4:6, 11-16; et al.); of governing the churches (1 Tim. 5; Titus 1:5; et al.); of appointing elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1) (see New Catholic Encyclopedia, "Apostolic Succession").
b) However, the NT never identifies Timothy or Titus as bishops. They were fellow workers with Paul (1 Cor. 16:10, 16; 2 Cor. 8:23). Each of them was instructed by Paul to appoint elders; to that end the qualifications of such men are given in both epistles (1 Tim. 3:1f; Titus 1:5f).

Arguments against apostolic succession.

1. The NT never teaches that the apostles ruled the universal church. Christ is the head of the church (Col. 1:18).

2. The work of sanctification is never spoken of as a work of the apostles. It is a work of God, not men (Eph. 5:26; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:13).

3. The teaching of the apostles helped form the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Since that foundation has been laid, the unique teaching office of the apostles is no longer needed.

4. The Catholic Church does not appeal to Acts 1:15-26, the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the Twelve, to substantiate its claims to apostolic succession. They do not believe that the bishops are new apostles, but that they are their successors. The passage does prove, however, that for one to succeed an apostle, he must be a witness of Christ's resurrection. This in itself would eliminate the possibility of apostolic succession beyond the first century.

My Resources:

http://www.lessonsonline.info/CatholicismNotes.htm

________________________________________

How about interpretation...

Can only the pope and the leadership of the Catholic church properly interpret God's Word? Let's go to the Bible and see how God feels about this teaching. When Paul and Silas preached in Berea, the people:

Acts 17:11 "... received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."

In other words, they interpreted the Scriptures for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 12:24-25 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?

Why did Jesus chastise the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures if it was impossible for them to interpret them?

And why did Peter, Catholicism's first "pope," declare the following?

2 Peter 1:20 "knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,"

Why does Paul instruct us to study the Bible if we can't interpret it?

2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Jesus admonished the Jews to:

John 5:39 "Search the scriptures..."

Why would he do that, if He knew they couldn't interpret them? The Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit, not a group of men, will interpret Scripture for God's children and will help them to understand all things:

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
John 16:13 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..."

The Apostle Paul recognized that the Holy Spirit was the One who taught him:

1 Corinthians 2:13 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
1 Corinthians 2:12 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God."

Why are Christians commanded to memorize the Scriptures if they can't understand them?

Psalms 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."
Proverbs 7:2-3 "Keep my commandments, and live... write them upon the table of thine heart."

The following verses of Scripture should alarm anyone who believes they need a church to interpret the Bible for them:

1 John 2:26-27 "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

Could God's position be any plainer?

Why is the Catholic church so determined to interpret the Scriptures for you? Is it because they want to control you and keep you in bondage to Catholicism?

Are they afraid that if you read the Scriptures for yourself, you might discover that Catholic doctrines are contrary to God's Word?

Do you really believe that all non-Catholics are groping around in spiritual blindness, needing the Catholic church to interpret the Bible for them?

You must settle these things in your own mind, but your most important decision is: Who will interpret Scripture for you... the Holy Spirit of God or the Roman Catholic church?

Your answer to that question will determine who you will obey and eventually where you will spend eternity:

Psalms 119:97-99 "O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. 98 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation."

________________________________________

Lastly,

Jo Kus, I would presume you are a conservative since you are here at Free Republic. Being a conservative, I'm sure you would shutter at the thought of the government (liberals) controlling your life in any form. Of course, we do need laws in order to prevent chaos. But, how do you feel when the government (liberals) try to tell you you're not capable of taking care of yourself - the government needs to do that for you. The government (liberals) tell you you're not intelligent enough to handle your own money, your own guns, etc. How do you feel about the government getting bigger and gaining too much control? (I'm sure you're getting this picture). So, how do you live your spiritual life with the idea that you are not capable of understanding God? You are letting others confuse you with this idea that you need them and that you don't have the intelligence needed to understand God's Word.

Catholicism opposes private interpretation, yet the belief that the church is infallible requires personal judgment. A person cannot understand the Bible on their own, but that person must come to completely trust the church on his or her own. If we are not intelligent enough to interpret scripture, why are we intelligent enough to pick the right church?

John 20:30-31 "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."

The writer here speaks of the things that were written and how that believing in the things written, one may have life in His name. Not in the things which where not written. The other things noted here were signs - miracles to confirm His authority.

In Christ,

Lea

Romans 10:1-4 "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God."

Well, that's a lot to address. It is a bit of a change from Tradition to Apostolic Succession, but let's do it, then I'll try to get to how we can interpret the Bible.

You say "...Matthew 16:18 teaches nothing about apostolic succession. Jesus promised to build his church and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. This refers to his resurrection (cf. Acts 2:30-31, He was not abandoned to Hades)."

This passage teaches the Jesus intends on supporting His Church, the community of faith, throughout all time. His giving the keys to Peter is not meant to be to him alone, but is to be passed along to the next generation. Why would God only protect the first generation of Christians from the gates of Hell?

"That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT" How do you get Christ's resurrection out of that? The "it" is refering to the church, not to Himself. To say that He is suddenly talking about Himself in the middle of a sentence is to twist the language and pronoun agreement.

You say "...There is nothing in this passage even to suggest what Catholic doctrine assumes; Jesus promised nothing regarding bishops or succession. Jesus was promising to be with his disciples always in their work of "making disciples" (Matt. 28:19)."

You have certainly heard of the parable of the mustard seed? "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." (Mat 13:31-32) This is a parable that describes the Church. Christ plants the seed, but the plant develops into a tree - it is the same essence and creation, but has a different physical appearance, with bishops, etc.

To say that Jesus had not authorized bishops and other such heirarchy is to call Scripture a book of lies. In it, even in the Acts of the Apostles, that there is a natural development of leadership. Jesus Himself says ...

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me (Luke 10:16)

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18)

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not (Mat 23:2-3)

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (Mat 23:13) These two verses from Mat 23 shows that Jesus approves of religious leadership - He is against the current hypocrisy, however, of the Pharisees who have "...omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" (Mat 23:23)

There is no doubt that Jesus formed an inner group of men whom He intended to carry on His teachings. To these men, He gave the meanings of the parables. He instructed them to "do this in memory of me". He told them in Mt. 28 to teach all that I have taught you and baptize.

I presume that you believe that Peter was not given a ministry of literal shepherd when Jesus said "...unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." (John 21:17)? What was Peter's commission?

And let's see what the first Christians did...

"They devoted themselves to the teaching of the APOSTLES and to the communal life, and to the breaking of the bread, and to prayers " (Acts 2:42). Apostles give spiritual food to the Church

"None of the others dared to join them, but the people esteemed them" (Acts 5:13). Apostles are not to be "joined", they are chosen by God

"Then, completing their (Paul and Barnabas) fasting and prayer, they (Apostles and elders) laid hands on them and sent them off (Acts 13:3) Apostle = one who is sent

"It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God. They (Paul and Barnabas) appointed presbyters for them in each church...commending them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith (Acts 14:23) Apostles appointing priests to minister to individual churches.

"It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and US not to place on you any further burden beyond these necessities" (Acts 15:28) The Apostles make decisions guided by GOD!
"They (Paul and Timothy) handed on to the people FOR OBSERVANCE the DECISIONS REACHED BY THE APOSTLES...in Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4) Church bound to obey their leaders

"Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has APPOINTED YOU OVERSEERS (Bishops!), in which you TEND THE CHURCH OF GOD. (Acts 20:28) Bishops appointed to watch over the Church. This is in today's reading, as a matter of fact...

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:27-28) The OFFICE of Apostles has been established by God. A permanent office.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph 4:11-13) Office of Apostles, called Bishops, given UNTIL WE ALL COME IN THE UNITY OF THE FAITH. An ongoing ministry.

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col 1:25) Paul is passing on the ministry given to him. God continues to feed the Church through the next generation of disciples.

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" (Titus 1:5) seems clear that Titus was to continue ordaining priests

"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2) Timothy is entrusted to teach others. Certainly, he is given a spiritual gift, one of teacher, as I have shown above. Why the dichotomy? To teach is a spiritual gift, as Paul says to the Corinthians above.

I think there is plenty of evidence (I have more, but this is enough) to show that the Apostles intended to continue the proclamation of Christ risen to the next generation. They did so using an institution similar to their model, the Jewish synagogue, which Christ approved of and expected in the above teachings. Knowing that Christ was God, it appears that He has approved of this development. If He promised the Holy Spirit to be with them for all time, you are saying that the Holy Spirit failed the Apostles WITHIN THE FIRST GENERATION! The Scriptures are inspired Word of God. We have it right there, that God meant for the Church to continue to lead, preach, and sanctify the followers of Christ, through the power and authority given them by Christ.

You say "...However, the NT never identifies Timothy or Titus as bishops"

Overseers = bishops.

____

"The NT never teaches that the apostles ruled the universal church" See above. Especially Acts 15. Especially when they send out others to preach. Especially when they ordain new men to lead their own flocks. Peter, as leader, has been instructed by Christ to "feed my sheep". And what about the power to "bind and loosen"?

"The work of sanctification is never spoken of as a work of the apostles" I disagree. How are we made holy? By God. How does that occur? By baptism. Who administers baptism? The Church. And what about sins?

"Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." (James 5:13-15)

"...he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:22-23)

The Church has been given the power, by God, to forgive sins. That is a process of making one holy, isn't it?

And finally, the Eucharist. But we won't open another thread on that just yet.

"Since that foundation has been laid, the unique teaching office of the apostles is no longer needed."

Then why the need to appoint new bishops and priests? Because the old generation will die off. If the Church is to last for all time (as OT prophesies and Jesus assure us - that the Kingdom will last forever), there MUST be some succession of teachers to proclaim the faith. How is that faith to be passed on to the next generation? Remember, the people of the time don't own Bibles or read for the most part, so that cannot be an option. Proof of its continued need is that there are 20,000 some denominations of Protestants. There are far too many verses to quote from that warn the disciples, whether at Timothy's Church, Titus, the Church Jude writes to, Corinthians, the Galatians, and so forth. Even in the book of Revelation, Jesus warns about false teachers. IF there is no OFFICE of APOSTLES (Bishops), who is going to differentiate between true and false teachings??? Jesus commands the leaders of the Church to beware of these teachers. WHY would people listen to bishop "A", rather than false prophet "A"? Because the bishop has been given authority - by God through His Church - to teach correct interpretations of Scripture, to properly pass down the teachings of Christ. The Protestant Reformation is proof positive on the clarity of the Bible by itself.

______
Regarding private reading, etc.

"Can only the pope and the leadership of the Catholic church properly interpret God's Word?"

Of course not. The Catholic Church, if you read its history, is actually very flexible in what it allows to be taught. Compare the Eastern and Western Churches views on the Holy Spirit, for example. There is a broad range of acceptable teaching on the matter. It is ONLY when a teaching moves beyond what has been given when the Church begins to narrow the definition of what we believe. Common sense dictates that SOMEONE places a limit on the range of what we can say is true. Not everything is true. Protestants say the Eucharist is a symbol. ONLY. The Church says no. Without this, we would (do) have divisions within the Church. You do know who is the prince of divisions, right?

It is incorrect to assume because we have authority on such matters, that we are not free to think or read Scripture. One can hold to the 6 day creation literally or not, for example. It is not important to our faith. This is the flexibility that Fundamentalists do not have. When science speaks, we look at Scripture to determine what the message that God is giving us. Sometimes He uses parables to express a greater truth. We realize this. Authority steps in only when someone steps outside the realm of the Apostolic Tradition - the proper interpretation of faith and morals. The Church encourages us to read Scripture "ignorance of the Gospels is ignorance of Christ" says St. Jerome. I read them everyday. However, I consider God's revelation more important than my own interpretation, so when I read the Bible, I look at it within the "traditions passed down". Otherwise, would I believe that the Holy Spirit is a person or a force? Would I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man? Would I believe that the Eucharist was His actual presence? And so forth. On such essential points, we must have unity. On non-essential points, we have freedom of expression.

"Catholicism opposes private interpretation, yet the belief that the church is infallible requires personal judgment. A person cannot understand the Bible on their own, but that person must come to completely trust the church on his or her own"

We base this on faith that Jesus truly is with His Church, and that the Holy Spirit continues to guide it to truth. No one, even the Pope, is infallible without the Holy Spirit's special protection. Even the Pope's infallibility is very limited. But it is all based on the Spirit, not the Pope. He is visible, the Spirit is not. The Spirit speaks through him.

"The government (liberals) tell you you're not intelligent enough to handle your own money, your own guns, etc. How do you feel about the government getting bigger and gaining too much control?"

You are correct. I am a non-conformist, and don't like people telling me what to do. However, I have looked at history, the Scriptures, the Church, and have come to the conclusion that it REALLY IS the Church established by Christ, and that if Christ is God (which I believe), then I am to humbly submit my pride and my opinions in such matters. As I said when we first started, religion begins when we realize that we are not in control of our destiny, no matter what we do. And so, we turn to God. Where is He? What does He tell us to do? I find the answers (as do you) through the Catholic Church (although you only use the book it printed, the Scriptures)

My time is getting short, so I'll have to close now. I hope I was able to answer your questions regarding Apostolic Succession and private reading of the Bible.

Brother in Christ

P.S. I hope this wasn't too long! Perhaps we should shorten these posts?!

Sorry for the delay in responding. We have a busy family here - I also home school.

Yes - shorter is better and perhaps one issue at a time too.

You say "...Matthew 16:18 teaches nothing about apostolic succession. Jesus promised to build his church and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. This refers to his resurrection (cf. Acts 2:30-31, He was not abandoned to Hades)."

This passage teaches the Jesus intends on supporting His Church, the community of faith, throughout all time. Jesus built His church, not Peter. His giving the keys to Peter is not meant to be to him alone, You are correct - the keys are given to all who believe and obey His words. but is to be passed along to the next generation. Why would God only protect the first generation of Christians from the gates of Hell? Anyone who believes and obeys God is eternally protected - this is not referring to only the apostles - anyone who believes and obeys...anyone!

"That thou art Peter (rock), and upon this rock (huge rock, corner stone, foundation, referring to the expression Peter made - "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.") upon this I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against IT" How do you get Christ's resurrection out of that? The resurrection was Jesus' final power over satin - death could not hold Him. Today, we overpower satin when we confess, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", we smash the gates of Hades and satin by confessing our allegiance to Jesus Christ.

You have certainly heard of the parable of the mustard seed? "Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." (Mat 13:31-32) This is a parable that describes the Church. Christ plants the seed, but the plant develops into a tree - it is the same essence and creation, but has a different physical appearance, with bishops, etc. Yes - I know the parable. Christ is the seed - buried in the ground - raised from the dead never to die again.

He established the church and gave Himself for it - He gave the task or charge of spreading the gospel to the apostles so more churches could be established over the whole world (as they new it then) - once established, they encouraged and strengthened each one by writing them letters of edification. Once they were established, faith in Jesus and strict obedience to Him was required in order to receive a robe of white at judgment.

Simple - what does God need with a pope and the foolish things the Catholic church binds on poor souls who are seeking God only to find a kneeler instead, and an idol of men, women, and figures of some Jesus-like figure nailed to a cross. Does the catholic church really think we need something to look at or worship like a statue? Christians wear His name in our hearts - not in objects made of wood or metal to wear around our necks.

To say that Jesus had not authorized bishops and other such heirarchy is to call Scripture a book of lies. In it, even in the Acts of the Apostles, that there is a natural development of leadership. Jesus Himself says ...See above...

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me (Luke 10:16) Same for me...he that hears me teach the truth, hears the truth about Jesus - He is truth. When they reject what I tell them about Jesus, they reject Jesus, and God.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mat 18:18) Same for me...Whatever I bind or loose...

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not (Mat 23:2-3) They knew the law but did not apply it to themselves - they sought their own righteousness.

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: by not showing them what they needed to know about the coming Messiah. for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. (Mat 23:13) These two verses from Mat 23 shows that Jesus approves of religious leadership - He is against the current hypocrisy, however, of the Pharisees who have "...omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" (Mat 23:23) Matthew 23:1-12   Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. 4 "And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 "But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 "And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi. 8 "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 "And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 "And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 "But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 "And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

I presume that you believe that Peter was not given a ministry of literal shepherd when Jesus said "...unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." (John 21:17)? What was Peter's commission? The same as it was for the other apostles - to teach the world about Jesus!

And let's see what the first Christians did...

"They devoted themselves to the teaching of the APOSTLES which was about Jesus and to the communal life, and to the breaking of the bread, and to prayers " (Acts 2:42). Apostles give spiritual food to the Church One might note here that most of those that heard Peter's sermon were from out of town so to speak - not from around there. Speaking many other languages - most who had spent the last 50 days in the city of Jesuslaem - after hearing the word - it changed there lives - they had only the homes of local Christians to depend upon at that time - the group was so big they could often only meet together at the porch of Solomon.

"None of the others dared to join them, but the people esteemed them" (Acts 5:13). Apostles are not to be "joined", they are chosen by God The "them" in this passage is referring to the group of believers (Christians).

"Then, completing their (Paul and Barnabas) fasting and prayer, they (Apostles and elders) laid hands on them and sent them off (Acts 13:3) Apostle = one who is sent   This was not to set them apart as apostles. Saul was chosen by Christ himself, and there is no evidence that any of the apostles were ordained by the imposition of hands. Barnabas did not meet the unique requirement of being an eye witness of Jesus from the beginning and of His teachings and His resurrection. Nor is it meant that this was an ordination to the ministry, to the one of preaching the gospel, for both had been engaged in this before. Saul received his commission directly from the Savior, and began at once to preach, Acts 9:20; Galatians 1:11-17. Barnabas had preached at Antioch, and was evidently recognized as a preacher by the apostles, Acts 9:27; 11:22-23. The simple act of laying hands on any person was practiced not only in ordination, but in conferring a favor, and in setting apart for any purpose. Leviticus 3:2,8,13; 4:4,29; 16:21; Numbers 8:12; Mark 5:23; 16:18; Matthew 21:46. It means in this case that they appointed them to a particular field of labor, and by laying hands on them they implored the blessing of God to attend them.

Jesus' Apostles = eye witnesses of Jesus from the beginning and of His teachings and His resurrection.

"It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God. They (Paul and Barnabas) appointed presbyters for them in each church...commending them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith (Acts 14:23) Apostles appointing priests to minister to individual churches. This language is strange to me because we believe we are all priests. We are a chosen, a royal priesthood. 1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood , a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

"It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and US not to place on you any further burden beyond these necessities" (Acts 15:28) The Apostles make decisions guided by GOD! Most all other translations render the word "decision" as "seemed good to"

"They (Paul and Timothy) handed on to the people FOR OBSERVANCE the DECISIONS REACHED BY THE APOSTLES...in Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4) Church bound to obey their leaders The apostles, elders and the whole church where in on the decision and letter writing here. Acts 15:22-23 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.

23 They wrote this, letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

"Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has APPOINTED YOU OVERSEERS (Bishops!), in which you TEND THE CHURCH OF GOD. (Acts 20:28) Bishops appointed to watch over the Church. This is in today's reading, as a matter of fact... Bishops are the same as elders...each local congregation seeks to appoint them. Not all congregations have elders, but seek to produce qualified men that do seek the position. Jesus said in Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

Philippians 1:1-11 Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, 4 always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, 5 in view of your participation in the gospel from the first day until now. 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all, because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me. 8 For God is my witness, how I long for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; 11 having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

Who was the letter written to? Saints (Christians), elders and deacons. What did Paul and Timothy have to say? vs. 9-10 that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent Not just the elders, but all the saints. Everyone has a part in discernment and in approving things that are excellent!

Consider Titus. He was left by Paul in Crete to appoint elders in every city...he was to appoint qualified men. He was not an elder, yet he appointed them.

Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:27-28) The OFFICE of Apostles has been established by God. A permanent office. Which ended when the last of Jesus' hand picked apostles died. As we have already determined...

Jesus' Apostles = eye witnesses of Jesus from the beginning and of His teachings and His resurrection.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph 4:11-13) Office of Apostles, called Bishops, given UNTIL WE ALL COME IN THE UNITY OF THE FAITH. An ongoing ministry. God gave some these positions for "...the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Until each of them passes into judgment where perfection is obtained - we know no man can be perfect except Jesus.

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col 1:25) Paul is passing on the ministry given to him. God continues to feed the Church through the next generation of disciples. Not apostles. Any Christian is a disciple.

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee" (Titus 1:5) seems clear that Titus was to continue ordaining priests Subject not in question - see above notes.

"And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2) Timothy is entrusted to teach others. Certainly, he is given a spiritual gift, one of teacher, as I have shown above. Why the dichotomy? To teach is a spiritual gift, as Paul says to the Corinthians above. I teach. Am I an apostle? No! I am a faithful follower of Jesus, obedient to His word.

I think there is plenty of evidence (I have more, but this is enough) to show that the Apostles intended to continue the proclamation of Christ risen to the next generation. They did so using an institution similar to their model, the Jewish synagogue, which Christ approved of and expected in the above teachings. Knowing that Christ was God, it appears that He has approved of this development. If He promised the Holy Spirit to be with them for all time, you are saying that the Holy Spirit failed the Apostles WITHIN THE FIRST GENERATION! The Purpose of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit onto the apostles was to give them powers to confirm they were sent by Jesus. Confirming the Word to would be believers. After the church was established throughout the known world, there was no further need for special powers from the Holy Spirit. What powers do you see today that are the same as was established in writing via the Bible?

You say "...However, the NT never identifies Timothy or Titus as bishops"

Overseers = bishops. Where?

____

"The NT never teaches that the apostles ruled the universal church" See above. Especially Acts 15. Especially when they send out others to preach. Especially when they ordain new men to lead their own flocks. Peter, as leader, ("leader" is a name only Catholics give Peter - God does not give Peter this name) has been instructed by Christ to "feed my sheep". And what about the power to "bind and loosen"? Christian men can bind or loose the same way the apostles could.

"The work of sanctification is never spoken of as a work of the apostles" I disagree. How are we made holy? By God. How does that occur? By baptism. Who administers baptism? The Church. And what about sins? Hebrews 10:9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

As far as baptism goes, any Christian man can baptize as long as he does so in the name of Jesus Christ.

"...he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:22-23) Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He doesn't give special authority to any one particular apostle (i.e. Peter). If Peter had been appointed to any special authority, the Savior probably would have mentioned it here.

This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing the church. This authority given them was fool proof that they were inspired. It is certain God alone can forgive sins; and it would not only be blasphemous, but grossly absurd, to say that any creature could remit the guilt of a transgression which had been committed against the Creator. The apostles received from the Lord the doctrine of reconciliation, and the doctrine of condemnation. They who believed on the Son of God, in consequence of their preaching, had their sins remitted; and they who would not believe were declared to lie under condemnation.

The Church has been given the power, by God, to forgive sins. That is a process of making one holy, isn't it? See earlier clarifications to this.

"Since that foundation has been laid, the unique teaching office of the apostles is no longer needed."

Then why the need to appoint new bishops and priests? Ok - one more time - remember, only the Catholic church believes it can teach, preach, forgive sin, sanctify, etc... Because the old generation will die off. If the Church is to last for all time (as OT prophesies and Jesus assure us - that the Kingdom will last forever), there MUST be some succession of teachers to proclaim the faith. Yes - my husband is a teacher, I am a teacher, one must only be faithful to be able to teach. Of course there will be some debate about what the word "faithful" means. To God, it means believing Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and being obedient to His will. How is that faith to be passed on to the next generation? Remember, the people of the time don't own Bibles or read for the most part, so that cannot be an option. 1 John 1:3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.

Proof of its continued need is that there are 20,000 some denominations of Protestants. You and I agree on this mater. However, most of these 20,000 believe that all one has to do is believe. I believe all must search the scriptures daily and find the truth (Psalms 119:148, Isaiah 34:16, Lk 24:44, John 7:52, Acts 17:11, Col. 3:16, 2Tim 3:15-17), believe it, obey it, live it, and if you fall away from God you will be lost unless you repent and turn back to God again. There are far too many verses to quote from that warn the disciples, whether at Timothy's Church, Titus, the Church Jude writes to, Corinthians, the Galatians, and so forth. Even in the book of Revelation, Jesus warns about false teachers. IF there is no OFFICE of APOSTLES (Bishops), who is going to differentiate between true and false teachings??? Anyone they taught...what is so hard about that???

2 Timothy 2:1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.

This is how we do it. One only has to be faithful, able to teach others. Nothing complicated about that.

Jesus commands the leaders of the Church to beware of these teachers. Everyone is to beware of false teachers. WHY would people listen to bishop "A", rather than false prophet "A"? Because the bishop has been given authority WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! - by God through His Church - to teach correct interpretations of Scripture, to properly pass down the teachings of Christ. The Protestant Reformation is proof positive on the clarity of the Bible by itself. Correct - That is why there was a "restoration movement" after the "reformation movement". While I believe the "restoration movement" ultimately created some skewed off-shoots of the new testament church too, it did find large numbers of Christians that were seeking the truth of God's word instead of what the Catholic and Protestant restoration movements were dishing out. They sought and taught belief and obedience to God's word, the Bible. Strict and conservative. No creeds of man (denominations such as the Catholic church, etc.). No binding of vain repetitions, or rosary beads, or confessional booths, or worshiping of idols of so-called Saints or of Jesus' mother Mary - there is NO BIBLICAL AUTHORITY TO HOLD UP AND WORSHIP OR PRAY TO SAINTS OR MARY. None of this nonsense - just preaching Jesus (Acts 8:35 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.)

Today, I bought for 25 cents, a 1927 publication of the Catholic's Pocket Manual - this book contains pre-written prayers. How heart-felt is this? God doesn't want us to say a prayer written by another - especially, over and over and over - vainly. Would you like to receive a letter from your spouse and the words written were what your spouse was told to write? Wouldn't seem very sincere would it?

______
Regarding private reading, etc.

"Can only the pope and the leadership of the Catholic church properly interpret God's Word?"

Of course not. The Catholic Church, if you read its history, is actually very flexible in what it allows (we can only teach what Jesus instructed us to teach - not what organizations want to teach (or bind) to be taught. Compare the Eastern and Western Churches views on the Holy Spirit, for example. There is a broad range of acceptable teaching on the matter. It is ONLY when a teaching moves beyond what has been given when the Church begins to narrow the definition of what we believe. Common sense (Good to hear you use these words) dictates that SOMEONE places a limit on the range of what we can say is true. Not everything is true. Protestants say the Eucharist is a symbol. ONLY. Later...The Church says no. Without this, we would (do) have divisions within the Church. You do know who is the prince of divisions, right?

It is incorrect to assume because we have authority on such matters, that we are not free to think or read Scripture. One can hold to the 6 day creation literally or not, for example. HOW CAN I BELIEVE ANYHTING GOD TELLS ME IF I HAVE TO LIMIT HIS POWER TO CREATE!!! It is not important to our faith. COMPLETELY WRONG!!! This is the flexibility that Fundamentalists do not have. When science speaks, we look at Scripture to determine what the message that God is giving us. Sometimes He uses parables to express a greater truth. We realize this. Authority steps in only when someone steps outside the realm of the Apostolic Tradition - the proper interpretation of faith and morals. The Church encourages us to read Scripture the catholic church??? "ignorance of the Gospels is ignorance of Christ" says St. Jerome. You are quoting a man not the bible. I read them everyday. However, I consider God's revelation more important than my own interpretation, so when I read the Bible, I look at it within the "traditions passed down". Otherwise, would I believe that the Holy Spirit is a person or a force? John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. Sounds like a person to me. Would I believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man? Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,

Would I believe that the Eucharist was His actual presence? Jesus said to the apostles, take and eat, this is my body ...and so on. He also said He was a vine. Was he an actual vine? Of course not - these (bread and fruit of the vine) where clearly symbols for us to remember His death by. And so forth. On such essential points, we must have unity. On non-essential points, we have freedom of expression. You sure do open up a very large can of worms with that statement...I disagree completely.

"Catholicism opposes private interpretation, yet the belief that the church is infallible requires personal judgment. A person cannot understand the Bible on their own, but that person must come to completely trust the church on his or her own"

We base this on faith that Jesus truly is with His Church, and that the Holy Spirit continues to guide it to truth. The spirit guides faithful Christians - the church is made up of faithful Christians. No one, even the Pope, is infallible without the Holy Spirit's special protection. Even the Pope's infallibility is very limited. But it is all based on the Spirit, not the Pope. He is visible, the Spirit is not. The Spirit speaks through him. This rhetoric is purely man made - not from God's Word. This is how the Catholic church tricks its followers into worshiping the pope and saints and Mary and whatever else it wants to bind on poor souls.

"The government (liberals) tell you you're not intelligent enough to handle your own money, your own guns, etc. How do you feel about the government getting bigger and gaining too much control?"

You are correct. I am a non-conformist, and don't like people telling me what to do. However, I have looked at history, the Scriptures, the Church, and have come to the conclusion (is this common sense?) that it REALLY IS the Church established by Christ, and that if Christ is God (which I believe), then I am to humbly submit my pride and my opinions in such matters. As I said when we first started, religion begins when we realize that we are not in control of our destiny, no matter what we do. And so, we turn to God. Where is He? What does He tell us to do? I find the answers (as do you) through the Catholic Church Not on your life... (although you only use the book it printed, the Scriptures) Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered and said, "We must obey God rather than men. 30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."

Let's review...

1. We must obey God

2. Jesus, whom God lifted up ...grants repentance and forgiveness of sin - not apostles

3. Apostles were witness of Jesus

4. Holy Spirit given to those who OBEY Him

WOW! All this from just one simple verse. Seams easy to me.

Let's be honest. The person that can most easily fool me is myself. This applies to ALL humans! We are wounded by the Fall. Paul speaks of the war within us in Romans. We cannot trust ourselves infallibly to make such judgments of faith. Pray and look to the scripture for the answer! And when people claim that the Spirit speaks to them, are we to gullibly believe in every case? Often times, such claims completely contradict another claimant who makes such statements. We must all realize that when we "hear" such things within us, they CAN be from God, they CAN be from the devil, and they CAN be from us. I agree. How are we to make the decision? Pray and look to the scripture! Make sure ALL things are in line with God's Word! It is too easy to be fooled by ourselves.

Here is a story that you might like.

A Catholic and a Protestant rob a bank together. They separate to improve their chances to escape. Years later, they meet. The Catholic is in rags, not looking like he was very well off, while the Protestant was dressed impeccably and had a Corvette, etc. The Protestant asked "what happened to your money"?. The Catholic said "I felt guilty, so I went to confession and God told me I had to give the money back". The Protestant said "I, too, felt guilty. But I didn't hear God tell me to give the money back!"

I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant. I am simply a Christian and a true Christian would not seek to rob a bank in the first place!

A true Christian would be trying to teach the Catholic and the Protestant that their desire to rob the bank was not in line with God's Word. Not to "listen to the voices" that is leading them to the path that is wide.

The moral of the story is that we can convince ourselves of anything to advance our agenda and desires. My agenda is whatever God wants me to do. Have faith in Jesus and obey. This I do every day.

I have a topic: What is the plan of salvation? What must I do to be saved?

What do you, as a "non-denominational" Christian, do to be saved?

Well - the whole point to having the Word of God, reading it, and understanding it is to discover what it is God would have us to do to be reunited to him (having been separated from him from the beginning by sin). We learn that man once walked with God when there was no sin. Shortly after that sin came into the world and caused man to transgress against God, separating God and man.

Gods plan from the beginning was to provide a way to reconcile man back to Him. This plan would require a perfect sacrifice. One that would be made once and for all mankind. It would require His son, God himself to become flesh and live a sinless life on earth - as a man, yet without sin - fulfilling all prophecy. He would live, be put to death, be resurrected and take his place on the throne of David as King for all eternity. This plan we call the "Good News" - the "Gospel".

Jesus' blood sacrifice was required in order to make full atonement for the sin of mankind. Once this was complete, he set into motion what would be required of man in order to obtain this atonement. That requirement was the Physical Life of each that desired to be reconciled to God. Man had to give up himself and give himself to God.

Mark 8:34-38 "And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it. 36 For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? 37 For what should a man give in exchange for his life? 38 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels

When one studies, he will find scripture like the following:

Romans 10:13-17 "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher ? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

From this one passage (and there are many others) we learn that:

One must believe (faith) in Him (Jesus)
In order to believe (have faith) in Him, one must have heard about Him and the gospel (Good News)
One would hear the Gospel by way of the words of a preacher
One must obey what he has heard

So from this scripture we know that one must:

Hear

Believe (faith)

Repentant: From passages such as Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30 we learn that repentance is required as a part of Gods plan of salvation.

Confession: Next we can read and understand scriptures such as Matt 10:32-33, Acts 8:36-37 and others that require us to confess the name of Jesus. By this, we know confession is also a requirement as part of Gods plan of salvation.

Baptism: In addition to the above, we can read and understand that after one hears the gospel, believes or has faith in the Good News, repents of his sin, and confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, he must be baptized. We read about baptism in many places. Consider the following scriptures:

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

Acts 22:16 " And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

1 Peter 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

After all these things we also read scriptures like:

Rev 2:10 "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life."

In this scripture alone we know that we must remain faithful until death in order to receive the crown of life.

Consider the following examples of conversation written down in the New Testament for us to read:

On the day of Pentecost - Acts 2:36-41

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

City of Samaria - Acts 8:4-12

4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word. 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8 And there was great joy in that city. 9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Ethiopian eunuch - Acts 8:26-39

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Many other examples of people being saved or converted like Saul (Paul), Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, the Corinthians noted in Acts 18:8 and others all give us insight into what acts of obedience where required of each. While some do not necessarily list all the acts noted above in my thoughts, we know they are essential to salvation. Therefore we consider them all of equal importance when teaching what one must do to be saved.

That is it in a nutshell. We must hear, have faith in the Gospel, repent, confess Jesus, be baptized, and remain faithful until death (which is described in detail throughout the epistles of the New Testament) to receive the promised crown of life.

What is it you believe you must do to be saved?

Lea

First, you talk about a perfect sacrifice as being required. The Blood of Jesus was required, etc. I disagree that ANYTHING of the sort was REQUIRED!

Hebrews 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity (necessary or required) be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you." 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

23 Therefore it was necessary (required) that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

I know what you are saying and I agree to some extent. I know God has the power to do anything. God had a plan from the beginning and Jesus fulfilled that plan. Luke 22:22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!"

He made a promise and God must keep His promise - He cannot lie. God is just. He will judge the world, both the obedient and disobedient. Romans 3 tells us about God being just. He will judge righteously - He must in order to be a just God. Romans 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?

First, you are taking away God's Freedom to act. God certainly could have forgiven Adam and Eve without such an extravagent act. However, that is THE POINT! God is a God of Love. His Love "required" that He show His extravagent Love for us by becoming man and dying. I agree. Christ's death is THE supreme act of Love. I agree. This Love demands a response, correct? But I disagree about any "requirement". This takes away God's Love and makes His action into a legal element - as if God was bargaining with the devil to win us back. Some people talk that way, but it is a misconception - the devil is a creation and God owes satan nothing. Isn't that the picture we see in every case when scripture speaks of judgment day and God being the righteous judge? It is a legal realm. Revelation is filled with scenes of righteous judging by God (Christ). I want God to judge. He is the only righteous judge.

"So from this scripture we know that one must: Hear, Believe (faith),Repentant, Confession, Baptism"

Agree. And how does this come to us? In many ways: reading, studying, listening, discussing as we are now. Can we baptize ourselves? No. Can we hear the Word of God without a Church that proclaims it? Absolutely! Gods word preaches to me every day. I alone decide to heed Its message or reject it. And Confession implies we actually state our sins to someone. We repent of our public sins to the Christians that make up our local church. If I sin against an individual, I would go to him and repent of that sin and ask for his forgiveness of my transgression against him, then pray to God asking for His forgiveness. Again, we need an exteranl organization to provide the means of salvation to us. Why? Our church is not an organization. It is a group of Christians that meet at a given place to worship as a group apart from our everyday responsibility to worship God. Jesus said wherever two or more are together in His name, He would be there - (not a quote). We do not need an external organization to do these things. The Christians are the church. Not the building or the organization (business).

"In this scripture alone we know that we must remain faithful until death in order to receive the crown of life."

Again, I agree. We must perservere to the end. "Once-saved, always-saved" goes entirely against Scriptures. I fully agree. I do not believe in the "once-saved, always-saved" theory.

"What is it you believe you must do to be saved?" I think you forgot "obey". No! On the contrary, I believe I made several points concerning the fact that we have to remain faithfull until death - that many of the epistles provide many verses regarding the need to obey Jesus' words. If I left that out it was by mistake.

Part of that Word is found in John 6:54 "those who eat my flesh and drink my blood (symbols or emblems) have eternal life and I will raise them on the last day." Jesus says in Luke's Gospel that we are to "do this (eat His Body) in memory of me". For Christians, then, obedience to God would also include this, correct? Jesus established His supper as it is recorded (written down) in the gospels. I believe the bible teaches us to have communion every first day of the week by taking bread and breaking and eating it and in the same way taking the fruit of the vine and drinking it. But, you and I will not agree that Jesus meant this to be changed to His physical body and blood.

First of all, what purpose would that have served? Nothing. This was a memorial as you stated above (in memory of me).

Secondly, Jesus says in Matthew 26:29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." He did not say he would eat his own flesh and drink his own blood. He did call it the fruit of the vine. He often called himself a vine - he did not mean a literal vine - he was not a real vine, but a spiritual vine. He has the water of life - if you drink it you will have eternal life. Not really water but the gospel - His words.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

How does one come to the conclusion by the examples we read in the bible that the emblems Jesus told us to use to remember Him were to be changed into physical human parts? This seems strangely grotesque.

Please summarize what one must do to be saved in the Catholic church. I believe I missed it somewhere.

Lea

"God had a plan from the beginning and Jesus fulfilled that plan. He made a promise and God must keep His promise - He cannot lie. God is just..."

Agree. God chose a particular way of freeing us from sin. But He CHOSE that path, it wasn't required. Once He set out on that path, then the rest we agree on.

"Isn't that the picture we see in every case when scripture speaks of judgment day and God being the righteous judge? It is a legal realm."

Scripture sometimes speaks this way. However, how do we balance God's justice and God's mercy? It is one of those questions like "can God make a rock too big that He can't pick up?". In this case, "Can God be too just so as to not be merciful", or "can God be too merciful so as to not be just?". Only God knows the point of departure. We presume He is both perfectly. So the Scripture does talk about Justice, but God is a God of Love, says 1 John. 1 Cor 13 tells us what this means. We place our hopes in God's Love and Mercy, not within the legal realm.

I said "...Can we hear the Word of God without a Church that proclaims it?"

You said "...Absolutely! Gods word preaches to me every day. I alone decide to heed Its message or reject it."

I think you are taking for granted WHERE you got the Bible, first of all. Second, Scripture itself says that faith comes from hearing (the Word). I will say that even Protestants hear the Word preached through another person. This is where the Spirit works most powerfully. Not to deny that reading Scriptures is harmful or lacking of the Spirit. I, also, read Scriptures and am often moved by it. But it was intended to be proclaimed in the community of faith. (Church)

"It is a group of Christians that meet at a given place to worship as a group apart from our everyday responsibility to worship God. Jesus said wherever two or more are together in His name, He would be there - (not a quote). We do not need an external organization to do these things. The Christians are the church. Not the building or the organization (business)"

I agree, the Church is not the building, it is the people. However, where in the Bible does it say that the community of the faithful are to break away from their bishops or preachers? Where does it say that we are to decide for ourselves what Scripture means? Where does the Scripture tell us that we are to refuse authority? Have you read Numbers 16? What does God think about those in opposition to Moses, for the same reason that you give? How about such verses as Rom 13:2 or Heb 13:7 that tells Christians not to resist those in authority over us?

Isn't the Word of God telling us to obey those in authority, since God Himself has put that person in authority over us?

"we have to remain faithfull until death"

OK. It was probably my fault, although I did mention you said we had to perservere. I think I was looking at your bold type list.

"But, you and I will not agree that Jesus meant this to be changed to His physical body and blood"

Ah, but now we see the necessity of an authority to determine what is the TRUTH, correct? We are two Christians, honest and sincerely desiring to worship God as He wants. And we come across this verse. We can't decide which is right. This verse, however, is NOT a minor point. It says that eternal life is involved. Don't you think it is important that we determine what the Scriptures mean? Who has the authority to determine the meaning? Only through Apostolic Tradition can we know for sure - the interpretation of this verse has been handed down orally, and written by many of the Church Fathers (outside the Bible, of course). THIS, my sister, is one of the greatest benefits of being Catholic. I can rely on a divinely-guarded institution that gives me the freedom to KNOW what John 6 means.

"He did not say he would eat his own flesh and drink his own blood."

And He didn't. "he took the cup, and after giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying 'drink from it, all of you..." (Mat26:27). If you look carefully at this and the other Gospels of the Institution of the Lord's Supper, you will find that Jesus Himself DOES NOT DRINK OR EAT of the changed bread/wine.

Also, you are forgeting about the use of the word "until". It doesn't mean that He did something and was going to do it again later. Until doesn't imply that He ever ate the eucharistic food. For example, does "Christ must reign UNTIL God has put all enemies under His feet" mean that AFTER God has put all enemies under, Christ will cease to rule? NO. Christ will rule forever! Or "then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him...and he knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son" does not mean that Joseph had marital relations with Mary after Jesus was born.

"How does one come to the conclusion by the examples we read in the bible that the emblems Jesus told us to use to remember Him were to be changed into physical human parts? This seems strangely grotesque."

"When many of His disciples heard it, they said, 'this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (john 6:60)

"And because of this, many of His disciples turned back and no longer went about with Him" (john 6:66)

I find it an incredible twisting of Scripture to think that the disciples who left misunderstood Jesus! They were THERE! Jesus did not say "wait, come back, I meant as a symbol". Jesus had no problem explaining things to His disciples when they misunderstood, such as:

"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. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:1-5)

"This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd". (John 10: 6-16)

"Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, [It is] because we have taken no bread. [Which] when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it] not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matthew 16:5-12)

Jesus had no problem explaining His teachings. Yet, after repeating it SIX times, Truly, truly, etc., Jesus was only speaking symbolically? Hardly. To speak symbolically of eating flesh meant to "persecute or assualt someone".

"When the wicked, [even] mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell." (Ps 27:2)

For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up [like] the lifting up of smoke. Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: (Is 9:18-20)

"And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire." (Rev 17:16)

So what you claim Jesus is saying, then, is "Unless you persecute me and assualt me, you shall not have life eternal"? There is NO WAY that Jesus meant John 6 to mean anything other than the literal sense. It is the Spirit that gives life. A mind dominated by the flesh insists upon understanding before it will believe. Only through the Spirit and the Father can we receive the enlightenment necessary to believe Christ and obey His Word, no matter how it sounds to our ears.

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

"the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life." (john 6:63).

Only through the Spirit can we believe Christ will turn bread into His Body and wine into His Blood.

"Please summarize what one must do to be saved in the Catholic church."

You pretty much did it. However, I think that Christ would expect obedience to His Body, the Church. If we are to be saved, we must obey Him. Disobeying His Body with full knowledge of what the Truth is can bring us eternal damnation. Jesus left a Church to preach and teach, to sanctify, to rule. I will not judge what God determines to be your level of compliance with His Word. However, I think that refusing to take part in Communion with Him through His gift of His Body is dangerous.

Regards

Agree. God chose a particular way of freeing us from sin. But He CHOSE that path, it wasn't required. He had the plan from the beginning and once it was set into motion, it was required to be completed.

"Isn't that the picture we see in every case when scripture speaks of judgment day and God being the righteous judge? It is a legal realm."

Scripture sometimes speaks this way. However, how do we balance God's justice and God's mercy? It is one of those questions like "can God make a rock too big that He can't pick up?". In this case, "Can God be too just so as to not be merciful", or "can God be too merciful so as to not be just?". NO - God is both just and justifier. His plan was that all would come to repentance. However, for those that would not, comes condemnation. Only God knows the point of departure. We presume He is both perfectly. So the Scripture does talk about Justice, but God is a God of Love, says 1 John. 1 Cor 13 tells us what this means. We place our hopes in God's Love and Mercy, not within the legal realm. I place my hopes in His Word. His Word is truth. Justice.

Isaiah 61:2 And the day of vengeance of our God; To comfort all who mourn,

Psalms 58:10 The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

Romans 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

2 Thessalonians 1:6 For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

This language expressly refutes your proposed questions above. My God is Just and I trust Him to keep His promise to avenge those who afflict. His love is big enough to save those who afflict and repent as is commanded - which brings us back to obedience - it is required!

I said "...Can we hear the Word of God without a Church that proclaims it?"

You said "...Absolutely! Gods word preaches to me every day. I alone decide to heed Its message or reject it."

I think you are taking for granted WHERE you got the Bible, Nope! Second, Scripture itself says that faith comes from hearing (the Word). I will say that even Protestants hear the Word preached through another person. This is where the Spirit works most powerfully. Not to deny that reading Scriptures is harmful or lacking of the Spirit. I, also, read Scriptures and am often moved by it. But it was intended to be proclaimed in the community of faith. (Church) Proclaimed - Yes! Only from the church - ??? Who makes up the church? Christians! I am a Christian - I read, and teach, and study, and proclaim. I do this during each moment of every day of my life. All Christians are required to be able to teach, both by word of mouth (reading), and by the life they live - for Jesus. There is something wrong with having to go to the church building to be preached to, to learn about the Gospel. The teaching and preaching going on in the NT is from almost everywhere. People were reading, studying, listening, learning everywhere the Gospel was found. Only those who would not listen or hear with their ears did not understand the gospel.

Acts 28:25-27 And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, 26 saying,

'Go to this people and say,
"You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive;
27 For the heart of this people has become dull,
And with their ears they scarcely hear,
And they have closed their eyes;
Lest they should see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,

"It is a group of Christians that meet at a given place to worship as a group apart from our everyday responsibility to worship God. Jesus said wherever two or more are together in His name, He would be there - (not a quote). We do not need an external organization to do these things. The Christians are the church. Not the building or the organization (business)"

I agree, the Church is not the building, it is the people. However, where in the Bible does it say that the community of the faithful are to break away from their bishops or preachers? It does not and I am not - why do you believe I am saying that? There is no breaking away. Our appointed elders give us guidance when needed. They do as the NT requires them to do and to be able to do. Where does it say that we are to decide for ourselves what Scripture means? Where does the Scripture tell us that we are to refuse authority? Have you read Numbers 16? What does God think about those in opposition to Moses, for the same reason that you give? How about such verses as Rom 13:2 or Heb 13:7 that tells Christians not to resist those in authority over us? Who said we are resisting our elders? Only you say that we are. When questions come up concerning scripture or a difference of opinion (rarely), we consult our elders for guidance. We are not rejecting authority, but seeking their knowledge of the truth from their many years of faithful service and exhibition of obedience to the word.

Isn't the Word of God telling us to obey those in authority, since God Himself has put that person in authority over us? Titus was given the tasks both to set in order things left undone in the first churches, and to appoint elders from qualified men from within the local congregation. If they were to be appointed by God in the way you suggest, why would there be a need to give the rather detailed list of qualifications to Titus in order to find faithful men?

Titus 1:5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer (Elder) must be above reproach as God's steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

"But, you and I will not agree that Jesus meant this to be changed to His physical body and blood"

Ah, but now we see the necessity of an authority to determine what is the TRUTH, correct? Why? We are two Christians, honest and sincerely desiring to worship God as He wants. And we come across this verse. We can't decide which is right. This verse, however, is NOT a minor point. It says that eternal life is involved. It says that one has only to eat, not that it has to change into flesh and blood. Don't you think it is important that we determine what the Scriptures mean? Only that we partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine each first day of the week. Who has the authority to determine the meaning? Only through Apostolic Tradition can we know for sure - the interpretation of this verse has been handed down orally, and written by many of the Church Fathers (outside the Bible, of course). THIS, my sister, is one of the greatest benefits of being Catholic. I can rely on a divinely-guarded institution that gives me the freedom to KNOW what John 6 means. Given the dark track record that anyone can read about with the history of the Cathoilic church, I will continue to follow the written word and leave the traditions of men (those after the original apostles) alone. This is no benefit at all. No thanks!

"How does one come to the conclusion by the examples we read in the bible that the emblems Jesus told us to use to remember Him were to be changed into physical human parts? This seems strangely grotesque."

"When many of His disciples heard it, they said, 'this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (john 6:60) Nothing in this context suggests this is a reference to the Lord's supper. The text was comparing the manna which their fathers ate from heaven and Jesus that came down from heaven. We must accept Jesus to gain eternal life.

Consider these two verses:

John 6:52 "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"

John 3:4-9 "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Sound similar? Symbols, symbols, symbols! God is spirit, and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth.

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth : for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit : and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

We will continue to disagree on this issue. The same verses I us to contend for the faith, you use to twist it because that is what the "uninspired fallible men" of the Catholic church have decided you need to be bound by.

"However, I think that refusing to take part in Communion with Him through His gift of His Body is dangerous."

I take the Lords Supper every week, on the first day of the week - just as the apostles did.

I am unable to reply very quickly - I am doing good to post the daily devotionals. Thanks for your patience.

Lea

I said “…I think you are taking for granted WHERE you got the Bible”

You responded “…Nope!

Really? Where then? How did God deliver the Scriptures to us? Deny it all you like, but the Catholic Church’s authority allows us to KNOW what IS Scripture. Otherwise, why are the Gnostic Gospels of Thomas not considered Scripture by us? They are by others who believe the Da Vinci Code. What is your justification for believing one, but not the other, as Scripture?

You said “…Proclaimed - Yes! Only from the church - ??? Who makes up the church? Christians! I am a Christian - I read, and teach, and study, and proclaim. I do this during each moment of every day of my life. All Christians are required to be able to teach, both by word of mouth (reading), and by the life they live - for Jesus.

I am not saying that we cannot preach the Gospel as individuals! Vatican 2 specifically says we are REQUIRED to preach the Gospel through our actions and words. For your information, the Catholic Church DOES NOT consider itself to be the entire identity of Christ’s Church on earth. Surprised? Pius XII condemned the proposition by Father Fenney that only those who were officially enrolled in a Catholic Church would be saved! Perhaps you were not aware of this Catholic teaching? If you want, I'll discuss this more later, but this post is getting too long, so I deleted that.

But does this mean that we should not work and pray for the conversion of those who are not on the parish register? Of course not. It is the will of God that they should enter FULLY into the Church, for there, they find more abundant, secure means of salvation, and “God desires all men to be saved, and to COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH” (I Tim 2:4). We are discussing the Eucharist and such so that we can come to the knowledge of the truth. Once we find out what the truth is, we are to follow it, correct?

You said “…The teaching and preaching going on in the NT is from almost everywhere. People were reading, studying, listening, learning everywhere the Gospel was found. Only those who would not listen or hear with their ears did not understand the gospel.”

The Bible doesn’t say much about people reading or studying the NT Scriptures as you imply. It was proclaimed, heard, preached. By the Church. Must I quote from Paul the many times he must tell the Galatians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, Colossians, etc., to beware of false teachers? How do we know who are false teachers? “If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (Gal 1:9). When someone preaches a different Gospel then taught by the Apostles.

Quite frankly, your Gospel, although similar in many regards, IS a different Gospel. We disagree on sacraments, church authority, bishops, priests, and other issues. Now, which is the false Gospel? I will show you that your gospel is misguided on several issues.

I said “…I agree, the Church is not the building, it is the people. However, where in the Bible does it say that the community of the faithful are to break away from their bishops or preachers?”

You said “… It does not and I am not - why do you believe I am saying that? There is no breaking away.

Oh, there IS a breaking away. What Christian Church existed before 1054? ONLY ONE. In Western Europe, the same Catholic Church continued to exist by itself. What happened in 1518 and onwards? Thousands of “breaking aways”, “revolts against the Body”. Man-made traditions entering into the Church. One example is Sola Scriptura. A man-made tradition if there ever was one. Jesus did not establish 20,000 churches with different core beliefs, did He? He established ONE community. It was one community for a millennium. What happened during the Protestant Reformation? Members of Christ’s Body broke off into their own little denominations. This continues today.

You said “…Our appointed elders give us guidance when needed. They do as the NT requires them to do and to be able to do.”

What does the NT say about such matters? What does Paul say about those teaching false Gospels? And John? And Peter? It is apparent that only those who were ordained by the Apostles and their successors were to be OFFICIAL teachers of the Gospel. It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach the same Gospel when people decide for themselves their own interpretations of what the Gospel is.

You said "...When questions come up concerning scripture or a difference of opinion (rarely), we consult our elders for guidance.

Are your elders infallible? Who has handed on the Gospel to them? Trace your elders back. How far do they go? Do they eventually end up at a man who didn’t like the teachings of church “X”, so went on to form church “Y”, which later split into church “Z” and “T”?

You said “…Titus was given the tasks both to set in order things left undone in the first churches, and to appoint elders from qualified men from within the local congregation. If they were to be appointed by God in the way you suggest, why would there be a need to give the rather detailed list of qualifications to Titus in order to find faithful men?

And who is appointing the men? Titus, a man who has already been appointed by the Church, not some guy off the street who heard the Gospel and thought that they could do a better job than the Church. What does APOSTLE mean? One who is SENT! Sent do not mean you choose on your own initiative and teach what you feel like. Sent means hands were laid upon someone and the Holy Spirit was given in a special way to guard their teachings. "I left you in Crete, that YOU might set in order what remains, and APPOINT elders in every city AS I DIRECTED YOU." (Titus 1:5-9).

I said “…Ah, but now we see the necessity of an authority to determine what is the TRUTH, correct?

You replied succinctly “…Why?

Your kidding, right? The fact that we are having this conversation about the Eucharist and Church authority points to the need for ONE authority. You have pointed to the fact that God is a God to be worshipped in Spirit and Truth. How many truths are there? Either Christ is present in the Eucharist OR He is not! It can’t be both! So who is going to decide? I find it incredible that the United States could envision the necessity of having the Supreme Court to determine such questions regarding the Constitution, but, according to you, God forgot or decided we should argue incessantly over doctrine, not knowing which was right! Would God allow His Church for 2000 years to take Him literally and worship a piece of bread which wasn’t His actual Body? When we face the Lord in heaven, He will have some explaining to do because He led us astray…

You said, regarding the Last Supper “…It says that one has only to eat”

Eat what??? You suddenly seem to not know what Scripture says, though you quote me amply elsewhere. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY. (Mat 26:26)

You said that the Eucharist was “…Only that we partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine each first day of the week.”

In the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ’s Body and Blood are actually present, but not with their normal physical characteristics (thankfully). Jesus’ Body is hidden under the appearance of bread. Jesus calls we are to partake of the bread and fruit of the vine, because that is their APPEARANCE! Scripture often calls things by their appearance:

Angels who appear as men are called MEN “And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground (Gen 18:2); "And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD”.(Gen 18:22) "The Holy Spirit is described as “tongues of fire” descending on the Apostles (Acts 2:3)

Scripture also calls things by their former names. For example, Aaron’s rod was turned into a serpent, yet, is called a rod still. "For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods." (Ex 7:12) And after Jesus cured the man born blind, he is still called “the blind man” (John 9:17).

Were the angels really men? Was the serpent a rod still? What about the man born blind? Was he still blind after Jesus cured him? The same with the fruit of the vine and the bread. It is CALLED that, but it certainly is NOT ordinary bread or wine after the consecration. The Eucharist is called bread and wine because it retains its APPEARANCE and because it was bread and wine before the consecration.

You said “…Given the dark track record that anyone can read about with the history of the Cathoilic church, I will continue to follow the written word and leave the traditions of men (those after the original apostles) alone. This is no benefit at all. No thanks!

For every “dark” mark on the Catholic Church, I can bring up dozens of good things that the Church has done. Since when did Jesus say that His Church would be perfect on earth? Why do you discount the parables of the fish and the net, or the wheat and the weeds? Jesus told us that only at the final judgment would the true Church be separated from the chaff. And don’t forget your “traditions of men”, such as Bible Alone. You have not proved anywhere that the Bible is the sole guide of faith…

You said “…Nothing in this context suggests this is a reference to the Lord's supper. The text was comparing the manna which their fathers ate from heaven and Jesus that came down from heaven. We must accept Jesus to gain eternal life.

What other times did Jesus say we are to eat His flesh? John 6. When does He give it to us? The Last Supper. What more must I say? It is obvious enough.

You said “…Consider these two verses: …Sound similar? Symbols, symbols, symbols! God is spirit, and must be worshiped in spirit and in truth.

Yikes! Your two verses are totally twisted by your reading into them a meaning that is not there! In John 6, it is obvious that Jesus is not talking symbolically. I already gave you the definition of the symbol “eat my flesh” means. Why are you ignoring this? If it was a symbol, tell me, then, why did they walk away? They KNEW what Jesus meant!!! Did Nicodemus walk away? No! Jesus explained that Nicodemus didn’t have to be literally born again from his mother. What about John 6? Did Jesus say, “no, I meant when you eat my flesh, you are to believe in Me, not literally eat me!”. Your interpretation of John 6 is wrong. YOU are twisting what is there.

You said “…The same verses I us to contend for the faith, you use to twist it because that is what the "uninspired fallible men" of the Catholic church have decided you need to be bound by.

I hope that is not the direction you are going to take in this conversation. What makes you so certain that your “uninspired fallible men” are correct in their own interpretations? What does 2 Peter say about private interpretations? “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20). And “As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction”. (2 Peter 3:16)

Sounds pretty arrogant that you KNOW that you are right and I am WRONG! Even though I have given ample evidence that Jesus COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY meant that His Flesh was to taken symbolically. I already told you that “eating someone’s flesh” means to do them harm. It is a ridiculous assertion.

You said "...I take the Lords Supper every week, on the first day of the week - just as the apostles did.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree. You aren’t taking the Lord’s Supper as the Apostles did! How can you take the Lord’s Supper if you don’t even believe what the Lord had in mind for it? Without even discussing ministerial priests, you are not discerning the Body: A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For ANYONE who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY, eats and drinks JUDGMENT on himself (1 Cor 11:28-29). We are condemned for not recognizing the Body of the Lord. How can we be held accountable for not discerning the body of the Lord in the Eucharist IF it is ONLY a piece of bread? And since when does a SYMBOL carry with it the death penalty? “…this is why many of you are dying” (1 Cor 11:30).

Not only are you ignoring the evidence from Scripture itself, you are ignoring the testimony of 1500 years of CONTINUOUS witness to the Eucharist as being the Real Presence! Some of these were writing at the SAME time as John was writing his Gospel!! St. Ignatius, a co-worker of John, wrote around 107 AD “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions…they abstain from the Eucharist…because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2)

YOU are going to say that YOU, 2000 years removed, are going to tell us that you know exactly what Jesus meant by reading an interpretation of the conversation of John 6? You know better than the disciples that were THERE?! You know better than the immediate followers of the Apostles? INCREDIBLE!

I hope that you may approach this in a more open-minded fashion, admitting that no one who teaches you claims to be infallible.

You said “…I am unable to reply very quickly - I am doing good to post the daily devotionals. Thanks for your patience.

No problem. It gives me more time to look up Bible verses for you. I haven’t quite memorized the Bible yet!

Brother in Christ

God raised up Pharaoh because he used him to demonstrate His power and that His name would be proclaimed throughout the world - and it was. God chose to use the power the Catholic church had at the time to preserve the written word. I believe. Faith.

I am not saying that we cannot preach the Gospel as individuals! Vatican 2 specifically says we are REQUIRED to preach the Gospel through our actions and words. For your information, the Catholic Church DOES NOT consider itself to be the entire identity of Christ’s Church on earth. Surprised? Pius XII condemned the proposition by Father Fenney that only those who were officially enrolled in a Catholic Church would be saved! Perhaps you were not aware of this Catholic teaching? If you want, I'll discuss this more later, but this post is getting too long, so I deleted that.   I am very aware of what the Catholic church is teaching. I am only trying to bring to light what Gods word says in contrast to that of the Catholic church.

But does this mean that we should not work and pray for the conversion of those who are not on the parish register? Of course not. It is the will of God that they should enter FULLY into the Church, for there, they find more abundant, secure means of salvation, and “God desires all men to be saved, and to COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH” (I Tim 2:4). We are discussing the Eucharist and such so that we can come to the knowledge of the truth. Once we find out what the truth is, we are to follow it, correct? When I take the Lords supper - I remember Him. That's what He wanted me to do. Luke 22:19-20
"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

Quite frankly, your Gospel, although similar in many regards, IS a different Gospel. We disagree on sacraments only a Catholic word and tradition, church authority JESUS HAS ALL AUTHORITY, bishops faithful men appointed to serve as elders, priests Christians are priests, and other issues. Now, which is the false Gospel? I will show you that your gospel is misguided on several issues. You can only show me what the Catholic church has told you.

Oh, there IS a breaking away. What Christian Church existed before 1054? ONLY ONE. In Western Europe, the same Catholic Church continued to exist by itself. What happened in 1518 and onwards? Thousands of “breaking aways”, “revolts against the Body”. Man-made traditions entering into the Church. One example is Sola Scriptura. A man-made tradition if there ever was one. Jesus did not establish 20,000 churches with different core beliefs, did He? He established ONE community. It was one community for a millennium. What happened during the Protestant Reformation? Members of Christ’s Body broke off into their own little denominations. This continues today. Yes I believe that to be true. Matthew 7:13 "for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

According this these passages, at least one of the "20,000" (many) claiming to prophesy, or casting out devils is the Catholic church.

You said “…Our appointed elders give us guidance when needed. They do as the NT requires them to do and to be able to do.”

What does the NT say about such matters? What does Paul say about those teaching false Gospels? And John? And Peter? They say the same thing I am saying - guide the flock. It is apparent that only those who were ordained by the Apostles and their successors were to be OFFICIAL teachers of the Gospel. It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach the same Gospel when people decide for themselves their own interpretations of what the Gospel is. Again, one of the widely known requirements of Jesus' Apostles was that they were EYE WITNESSES of His life, His resurrection, and His ascension. No one today or after the original 12 apostles died would qualify.

You said "...When questions come up concerning scripture or a difference of opinion (rarely), we consult our elders for guidance.

Are your elders infallible? No man is. Who has handed on the Gospel to them? The Bible - Gods word. It is the only pure infallible Truth we can trust. Anything else is written by uninspired fallible men. Trace your elders back. How far do they go? Irrelevant. Do they eventually end up at a man who didn’t like the teachings of church “X”, so went on to form church “Y”, which later split into church “Z” and “T”? NO - because it is not required of them to be traced back. Requirements were to be faithful men and have the values as described in Titus.

You said “…Titus was given the tasks both to set in order things left undone in the first churches, and to appoint elders from qualified men from within the local congregation. If they were to be appointed by God in the way you suggest, why would there be a need to give the rather detailed list of qualifications to Titus in order to find faithful men?

And who is appointing the men? Titus - Was not an apostle - he had not been hand picked by Jesus nor did he witness Jesus' life, death, resurrection, or ascension. He was a man given a task by Paul.   a man who has already been appointed by the Church, not some guy off the street who heard the Gospel and thought that they could do a better job than the Church. The church = faithful Christians that make up each local congregation. What does APOSTLE mean? One who is SENT! Sent do not mean you choose on your own initiative and teach what you feel like. Sent means hands were laid upon someone and the Holy Spirit was given in a special way to guard their teachings. "I left you in Crete, that YOU might set in order what remains, and APPOINT elders in every city AS I DIRECTED YOU." (Titus 1:5-9). A man doing what was asked and able to do.

The fact that we are having this conversation about the Eucharist and Church authority points to the need for ONE authority. It would seem only the Catholic church has this issue, perhaps a few more denominations. You have pointed to the fact that God is a God to be worshipped in Spirit and Truth. How many truths are there? Either Christ is present in the Eucharist OR He is not! Jesus established the Lords supper as THE WAY He wanted us to remember Him. Nothing Else!

You said, regarding the Last Supper “…It says that one has only to eat”

Eat what??? You suddenly seem to not know what Scripture says, though you quote me amply elsewhere. “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY. (Mat 26:26) He was about to give His body and blood on the cross - it was a representation of His body. Same thing with his blood.

You said that the Eucharist was “…Only that we partake of the bread and the fruit of the vine each first day of the week.”

In the sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ’s Body and Blood are actually present, but not with their normal physical characteristics (thankfully). Jesus’ Body is hidden under the appearance of bread. Jesus calls we are to partake of the bread and fruit of the vine, because that is their APPEARANCE! Scripture often calls things by their appearance: and only the Catholic church can see it there, hiding under the bread. Come on, what is this all about? Jesus wanted(wants) His followers to remember him after He was gone. Each time you take this bread and cup, remember me. What is so hard about that? IS this a miracle? Every miracle recorded in the bible was easy to see and was preformed to confirm the words spoken were from God. Why can't we see it? Why is it hidden????

Not only are you ignoring the evidence from Scripture itself your evidence relies on tradition - mine does not you are ignoring the testimony of 1500 years of CONTINUOUS witness to the Eucharist as being the Real Presence! Who in the world has witnessed something they can't see? Some of these were writing at the SAME time as John was writing his Gospel!! St. Ignatius, a co-worker of John, just because he was a so called "co-worker" of John doesn't make Him an authority on scripture. He is still a fallible uninspired man. wrote around 107 AD “Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions…they abstain from the Eucharist…because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2) Not inspired - outside the bible.

YOU are going to say that YOU, 2000 years removed, are going to tell us that you know exactly what Jesus meant by reading an interpretation of the conversation of John 6? You know better than the disciples that were THERE?! You know better than the immediate followers of the Apostles? INCREDIBLE! I know that Jesus established His supper as a memorial - by which to remember Him. Not by any other method or tradition of man or of a church. I know this from the inspired written Word of God - the only pure infallible Truth we can trust.

I hope that you may approach this in a more open-minded fashion, admitting that no one who teaches you claims to be infallible. Only you are saying that - not me. Any man is fallible. All men are fallible. Only the inspired written Word of God is the pure infallible Truth. It alone is my guide. The only Truth upon which I can rely.

I haven’t quite memorized the Bible yet! I'm sure you know there is more involved than memorizing. Understanding what we memorize is another thing.

I am truly sorry. This discussion only seems to go in circles. Your traditions are keeping you from seeing the Truth. When the Bible speaks about "traditions", those traditions are the same teaching that we have written down today as the inspired written Word of God - the only infallible Truth upon which we can rely - the Bible.

I hope you keep studying the word of God and will pray for you to come to the straight and narrow gate, because - few there be that find it. I see no point in continuing this circle.

In Christ,

Lea

I believe mankind is fallible and the only Truth on which we can confidently stand is God's inspired, written Word. Truth is one and can have no contradictions. If two statements are in disagreement, one or both of them must be wrong, but both cannot be right.

You said "...God brought His words to the world using whatever means He felt like using. If it was through the dominate and capable men of that time, then I believe it."

And then "...God chose to use the power the Catholic church had at the time to preserve the written word"

You are entirely missing the point. According to you, the Catholic Church is incorrect in its teachings of the Word. Yet, you take their word, infallibly I might add, that what they protected WAS God's Word. The Church did not define WHAT was the Word of God until the late 300's. HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY GOT IT RIGHT??? Yet, they couldn't figure out the correct teachings that were passed down to them? Why do you trust the Catholic Church, but not the Mormons? They, too, have Scripture. Why not theirs, Lea? Can you answer that?

And what POWER did the Catholic Church have before 300 AD??? They were an outcast society, called atheists. They were persecuted and occasionally killed. What are you talking about, power? Many Gospels were written before 300 AD. You are in denial when you, at the same time, deny the authority given to the Church by God to bind and loose, yet accept their authority on certain subjects of your own personal choosing! When you begin to see this contradictory picture that you have come up with, perhaps then you may begin to understand the need for an authority to determine WHAT is Scripture.

"I am very aware of what the Catholic church is teaching. I am only trying to bring to light what Gods word says in contrast to that of the Catholic church."

I would say you aren't. Nor have you shown me ANYTHING that is against God's Word as portrayed in our Bible. Everything you have brought up so far, is either a misunderstanding or misuse of God's Word by your pre-determined eiegesis.

You said "...When I take the Lords supper - I remember Him."

"And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed [it], and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight." (Luke 24:30-31) During the breaking of the Bread, the Eucharist, I see with the eyes of faith Jesus' presence. I can "remember" Him without the breaking of the bread, your definition. Why did the disciples of Emmaus require the breaking of the bread to remember Jesus. They were "remembering" Him by discussing about Jesus while opening the Scriptures. Doesn't it sound silly, using your definition, that "their hearts were burning within them when He opened the Scriptures to us, but it wasn't until He broke bread with them that they 'remembered' Him"? Sounds pretty anticlimatic. And false.

"JESUS HAS ALL AUTHORITY"

Another false dichotomy. Whoever said that the Church took away authority from Christ. Tell me, Lea, when was the last time Christ talked to you? Have you seen Him? How do you know it was Him? How do you separate "God's Word" from "Lea's word"? The easiest person to fool is yourself. Jesus sent the Apostles to continue His mission. "He who hears you hears Me". etc.

"They say the same thing I am saying - guide the flock."

Who???!!! Not just anyone! "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them (Acts 5:12-13). NO ONE tried to join themselves to the Apostles! EVERYONE recognized their God-given authority. And if we read the Pastorals, you will find a number of verses that show APOSTLES ONLY laying hands and choosing successors, such as Timothy and Titus. They were then subsequently given authority to continue this. People just didn't step up and call themselves "apostles" or "overseers"!

"Again, one of the widely known requirements of Jesus' Apostles was that they were EYE WITNESSES of His life"

That is only in regards to choosing one to replace Judas! Again, read the Pastorals and find Paul COMMANDING Timothy to choose overseers! When Paul lists the requirements for a bishop (overseer), where does it say anything about "witnessing Jesus' resurrection"? That requirement was only given in Acts 1 in choosing Mathias!

You said "...Who has handed on the Gospel to them? The Bible - Gods word. It is the only pure infallible Truth we can trust."

You continue to totally ignore the fact that YOU are calling them infallible without any clue as to WHY they are considered infallible. Because God said so? Did the Bible fall out of the sky? Did an angel deliver it UPS to you? Where did you get it from??? Whose authority do we trust that IT IS THE WORD OF GOD??? Where is it recorded anywhere that God said the Bible is HIS Word???

You said "...NO - because it is not required of them to be traced back. Requirements were to be faithful men and have the values as described in Titus."

The Pastorals will disagree with you. Only men who had hands layed on them by authorized men would be considered apostolic successors, not just anyone.

"He was about to give His body and blood on the cross - it was a representation of His body. Same thing with his blood."

Where does Jesus say "this represents my body? Where? Nowhere. THIS IS MY BODY. IS!!!! What part of "is" don't you understand?

You said "...Every miracle recorded in the bible was easy to see and was preformed to confirm the words spoken were from God. Why can't we see it? Why is it hidden????

About time, a valid question. Why does Jesus talk about faith so much in John 6? Because His Body and Blood to be given to His disciples will require faith. When He plainly says "unless you eat my body, you shall not have eternal life", the disciples had no clue what He was talking about. Yet, He claims it will be a miracle GREATER than the manna from heaven. Another proof that He was not speaking of a symbol! A SYMBOL IS NOT GREATER THAN THE MANNA, TONS OF BREAD FEEDING THOUSANDS OF JEWS FOR 40 YEARS!!! Jesus speaks of the greatest of miracles, and He speaks about faith - that only the Father and the Spirit will draw those whom HE chooses. It is a miracle that requires FAITH. That is why Jesus speaks of faith in conjunction with the Eucharist. That is how our "eyes are opened, in the breaking of the bread"!

"your evidence relies on tradition - mine does not"

Is this what Protestants say when they are stumped? What is ironic is that Protestants rely on traditions of men, not Catholics! For example, Sola Scriptura. WHERE, LEA, IS SOLA SCRIPTURA IN THE BIBLE? Not only is it not there, but it leads people away from God's Word as revealed in Apostolic Tradition! I would say that Sola Scriptura is definitely a man-made tradition. Why do you keep denying this? No answer, huh? Just more accusations without evidence...

You said "...Who in the world has witnessed something they can't see?"

You claim to witness to Christ? When have you seen Him???

You said "...Only you are saying that - not me. Any man is fallible. All men are fallible. Only the inspired written Word of God is the pure infallible Truth. It alone is my guide"

Again, another tradition of man, repeated over and over again. When will Protestants realize their errors? When in Christianity has it been believed that we are to take EVERYTHING from the Bible alone? Where??? When??? Who??? Not until Luther. And Luther lived to regret his teaching "for every head there is another religion". How are you going to get truth, Lea, when everyone decides for herself what is truth? Sounds like you are of the world - our culture says the same thing. My truth is mine and your truth is yours. You are a product of our society, of the world. That is too bad. It is unfortunate that you are closed to hearing the truth of God's fullness. Only the Spirit can break through your walls. I will pray that you will see the necessity of having a Church that has ONLY ONE TRUTH.

Brother in Christ,

Joe

You said "...I believe mankind is fallible and the only Truth on which we can confidently stand is God's inspired, written Word. Truth is one and can have no contradictions. If two statements are in disagreement, one or both of them must be wrong, but both cannot be right"

Yes. your 20 year or so innovative subjective truth or the Objective Truth of the Catholic Church and 2000 years, traced back to God Himself who gives the Church the power to bind and loosen.

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.