Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship ^ | August 30, 2005 | Why No One Should Be A Catholic

[Iscool]

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

It's just as likely then that the Aramic speaking Jesus would have called his cousin an uncle, since the cousin was directly in the uncle's family...Unless of course, one wanted to convince people that Jesus had no brothers...Then you can call cousins, brothers...

[Iscool]

Christ had no brother or sister. Even Luther, Zwingli and Calvin adhered to the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

The bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters...Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and you, are mistaken...

[MarkBsnr]

Like I said, the scriptures show the Church of God to be the New Testament Church. This is the same church the Apostles began at Pentecost....observing all the Feast days and Sabbaths of Leviticus 23. Your organization, and it's Protestant daughters are in fact the con artists, and have been deceiving mankind for 1700 years with your mythology, phoniness and false traditions. There is very little resemblance between your outfit and the New Testament Church of the Apostles. I know it, you know it and the scriptures prove it.

Really? Did not your church come out of the Stone Campbell Restoration movement which spawned such churches as the Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses? And further, did not your church comprise the liberal wing which split away from the Churches of Christ?

I find it interesting that 2000 years after the New Testament events happened and 1700 years after the Bible was constructed that various groups are coming along and going to show us all what it really means. I suppose that it might be a worthwhile exercise, however, since there are nearly 30,000 different Protestant denominations and non denominational groups, what makes 30,001 right as opposed to all the others?

[DarkSavant]

Jesus would not start a Church and then allow the gates of hell to conquer it by adopting pagan religious practices. No, Jesus would keep his Church pure and free from all evil and sin.

Were his apostles free of evil and sin?

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I have to get new bifocals. I see better close up without my glasses right now, which is a sure sign my prescription needs to be readjusted. Haven't gone shooting in awhile; not sure how this will affect things. But since I only shoot shotguns and flintlock rifles, I don't have anything scopy, just sights.

[Iscool]

God Bless you...I'll pray for your family...

[Ping-Pong]

You're correct in that I don't speak Greek and that Christ is speaking to Peter. He is telling Peter that "and upon this rock I will build My church". Again, by church, I do not mean Catholic, or Protestant.

There are many references to the Rock throughout the Bible and they are not references to Peter but to Christ. Perhaps the one that most fits this subject is:

1 Corinthians 10:4 - And did all drink the same
spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ.

That Rock is Christ, our salvation. Do you not think He should be the foundation of that church?

[Mad Dawg]

Are you admitting that the article which YOU posted is full of lies?

Why when something in the article that YOU posted is challenged don't you address the challenge but introduce some other topic like easter eggs? Is it a fruit of the Spirit to pass on lies and to avoid taking responsibility for doing so?

Or do you agree with the writer of the article that Catholics think you can buy your way (or somebody else's way) out of Hell? If so, can you provide evidence for this assertion?

I'll tell you what it looks like from here. It looks like you make one offensive charge after another. Even charges which might have some merit are phrased so tendentiously that in their entirety they are wrong. When challenged on one charge, instead of backing it up, you make another one.

Jesus had not allowed the gates of hell to conquer the Church. You assume your conclusion and you confuse assault with victory. The Church has in many places and in many hearts conquered various solar and fertility festivals. The dark, inchoate, sleep-disturbing hopes of the pagans are transformed and fulfilled in The Church

For example, look at what John of Damascus wrote:

Come, ye faithful, raise the strain of triumphant gladness;
God hath brought forth Israel into joy from sadness;
Loosed from Pharaoh’s bitter yoke Jacob’s sons and daughters,
Led them with unmoistened foot through the Red Sea waters.

’Tis the spring of souls today; Christ has burst His prison,
And from three days’ sleep in death as a sun hath risen;
All the winter of our sins, long and dark, is flying
From His light, to Whom we give laud and praise undying.

Now the queen of seasons, bright with the day of splendor,
With the royal feast of feasts, comes its joy to render;
Comes to glad Jerusalem, who with true affection
Welcomes in unwearied strains Jesus’ resurrection.

Neither might the gates of death, nor the tomb’s dark portal,
Nor the watchers, nor the seal hold Thee as a mortal;
But today amidst the twelve Thou didst stand, bestowing
That Thy peace which evermore passeth human knowing.

“Alleluia!” now we cry to our King immortal,
Who, triumphant, burst the bars of the tomb’s dark portal;
“Alleluia!” with the Son, God the Father praising,
“Alleluia!” yet again to the Spirit raising.

The hope of a mere natural Spring, lovely as it is, is bogus EXCEPT that it teaches us to long for more. And if that longing brings us to Christ, then the longing itsef was a blessing to us -- the desolate valley turns out to have been full of springs all along.

We know that the Sun which increases in strength (in only our half of the world) starting in late December gives out no real hope, and that 6 months later it will begin to dwindle yet again. But the Son of God goes from strength to strength. His light is not "comprehensible" in any sense of the word, and it illuminates us who find our Light in Him.

And the birth of the Son is a cosmically historic event -- the D-day in God's war against Satan. It is worth celebrating. Why not near the solstice?

You seem to give to the demons whose altars are overthrown power greater than that of the Holy Spirit. You present the mere timing of a feast as not just a threat but a conquering of the Gospel of Christ.

Jesus has overcome the world and taken even captivity captive. What once were perverted by demons, the gift of the waxing of the sun, the aching beauty of Spring, the sword which touches the trees with fire in the autumn, these now glorify God: His hidden entry into His creation, His triumph over death, and the coming conflict when Michael and the angels will fight with us to accomplish Christ's victory against Satan.

Where I see in the tree that never turns brown a reminder of the Hope that triumphs over death, you see that as Satan conquering. Where I see in daffodils, rabbits, and eggs, Christ bursting out of His tomb and bestowing abundant life, you see the victory of Satan. Where I see the final victory of God in the turning and fall of leaves you see a defeat. And yet you say I do not trust God or His Christ!

I think God is strong and mighty to save. Nature and the seasons sing His praise and make His glory known to those to whom He gives His Spirit. I am not afraid of a tree. He has overcome the world.

[Tax-chick]

Just shut your eyes and pull the trigger!

[Mad Dawg]

YEah, and the whole thing where you make a 'T' with your hands and say, "Excuse me, Mister Bad Guy, sir, just give me a minute here, okay?" I just don't see that working out.

[Tax-chick]

My husband can see, so in a pinch, I'll duck and he'll shoot!

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

It's a new debating technique, keep flinging up garbage hoping that eventually something sticks. Not the best argument, but it is one that is used far too often. Especially by the author of the article.

[Iscool]

The grammar doesn't line up for Christ to be speaking about himself - he's speaking to Peter.Just the opposite...Jesus was speaking directly to Peter...Probably face to face...

If Jesus would have made Peter the head of the church, Jesus would have said, "Upon YOU Peter, I will build my church...Didn't happen...

[Scotswife]

"I'll bet that was her first and last request."

Really? You can't possibly know that, and since she WAS the mother and the Queen - I'm willing to "bet" there were many other requests.

[Mad Dawg]

The grammar doesn't line up for Christ to be speaking about himself - he's speaking to Peter .Just the opposite...Jesus was speaking directly to Peter..

Okay, Christ is "speaking to Peter" is just the opposite of Christ "speaking directly to Peter". Who can argue with that?

Um, I mean ???

[Iscool]

Thanks for your comments...Appreciated...

[Iscool]

This is one of the really interesting disagreements. I think we'd refer to the parable of the wheat and the tares.

I'm not so sure...The tares may join your church or my church, But your church nor my church is the church of Jesus...You can't join His church if you're not saved...

[Ping-Pong]

Again, I thank you for your response. Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative here. I greatly admire the post I have read from you both but cannot agree with some of the concepts of Catholocism. Many of the reasons have already been stated on this and other threads.

Salvation, I know Peter was a great man, perhaps the bravest of the disciples. I think the only reson he denied Christ those 3 times was as a lesson to us. God used him to show that it will be difficult at times to make the stand He will require of us. I agree that Christ is saying in Matt.16:18 that Peter should establish Christianity, but it should be founded on Christ.

The keys of the kingdom of heaven are, as you said, the Keys of David.

Is.22:22.And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Rev.3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadlephia write; 'These things saith He That is Holy, He That is True, He That openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth;

So the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" Christ gave to Peter, the Keys of David, is wisdom, truth, understanding and he was to teach that truth to others. I agree that he was the "head" disciple but all disciples were to accomplish this task.

"John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my
lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means
all people, even the apostles"

I see something different in this verse. Jesus uses the words Lambs and Sheep. Lambs, baby Christians, must be fed milk - the Word that first brings them to Christ and salvation. Sheep, mature Christians, must be fed with meat or the deeper truths that will carry them through to the end.

Peter was a great man and Christ wanted him to establish a following of believers but I still believe the foundation of that belief is Christ, not Peter and the church is founded on the Rock, Christ.

[Frank Sheed]

[Diego1618]

I think it is a different "Mary" and I think you have John the apostle mixed up with John the Baptist -- who was the cousin of Jesus.

Well....you can think about it all day long, but you cannot change the words in scripture. "Salome" was the mother of Zebedee's children [Matthew 27:56]. We know this by the process of elimination. [Mark 15:40] identifies her by name. [John 19:25] identifies her as the sister of Our Lord's mother. [Matthew 4:21] identifies Zebedee as the father of John and James.

You had better read those scriptures again before saying "This is a different Mary". That's just silly in the light of plain scripture.

When you eliminate Mary the Mother of Jesus, Mary Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene from the crucifixion scene....you are left with "Salome". She is the aunt of Our Lord and the mother of James and John.

John the Baptist was indeed a distant relative...not a first cousin. His mother and Mary were relatives...not first cousins. Mary was of the House of Judah and Elizabeth was of the House of Levi [Luke 1:5]. They were relatives....but distant...perhaps 2nd or 3rd cousins...so John The Baptist would have been further yet from Our Lord.

On the other hand I have given you Biblical proof that Salome was the aunt of Our Lord....and her children, James and John, were first cousins of Our Lord.