Was The Papacy Established By Christ?

triablogue ^ | June 23, 2006 | Jason Engwer

[terycarl]

If you've abandoned Christ's church" Christ's Church was a synagogue and He went there regularly on Sabbath Luke 4:16

Of course Jesus was a Jew, up to the point where He established the Catholic church....remember, upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH....

[ADSUM]

Your comment: “Who are we to argue with God? Would you feel more comfortable in a nice stained glass Church with graven images filled with people? The Apostles did not have such luxuries.”

Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Some Christians claim, “The Bible is all I need,” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18) but would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect us (John 15:26). He gave the sacraments to heal, feed, and strengthen us. The seven sacraments —baptism, the Eucharist, penance (also called reconciliation or confession), confirmation, holy orders, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick—are not just symbols. They are signs that actually convey God’s grace and love.

From Catholic answers.

[ravenwolf]

Actually Peter had been a part of the problem of being a Judaizer and had to be confronted by Paul for causing division in the church (read Gal 2:11)

---

Yes, that is one question I have to ask my self about Paul.

Jesus said if a brother sins against you or in some versions it just says sins, that you are to go to him alone and tell him about it just between you and him, but in fact Paul told the whole world.

Well one thing I know is Rome is “babylon “ now>>>>>>

I believe it is the mother Church which are the Catholic Church and her daughters the Protestants.

Honestly I wish I did not believe some of the things I do and not really educated enough on it to know if I understand it correctly or not.

But on the other hand we might be better off ( at least speaking for myself if we knew nothing but the gospel of Jesus.

[MHGinTN]

Um, Jesus establish His Church. That doesn’t say Catholic Church. Would you lay the Inquisition and all the other abominations under catholic rule at Jesus’s feet? Do you get saved over and over, or have you mastered the yoyo and only get resaved occasionally?

[MHGinTN]

“This means” bwahahaha, you said ‘This means’. Did your Priest tell you that or did you have a little Holy Spirit leadership to get there?

[MHGinTN]

I shall call you brother or sister hereafter in my prayers when you come up! So well said ...

[terycarl]

YOUR priests are insisting you believe you are drinking the literal blood of Christ at the Eucharist/Remembrance. YOUR religion,

Yeah, that old line "take and drink of this, this is a cup of my blood which will be shed for the forgiveness of sin"...He was probably just kidding..........

[BipolarBob]

In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16).

That is NOT what those verses say.

The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

No, not while the Apostles and eyewitnesses were alive, I suppose not. But they died off. Their witness is what we have left. The Word of God is our compass to keep us straying because denominations will try to lead us astray. We test all things by His Word. It is sacred.

[terycarl]

the word ‘apostasia’ found in 2Thess2:3 was translated as THE (definite article in Greek) Departure for the first several Bibles. But when the Catholic Bible, the Rheims Bible was issued the word was changed to mean ‘a’ 9indefinite article) revolt.

How do you know???

[BipolarBob]

Of course Jesus was a Jew, up to the point where He established the Catholic church.

He did not establish the Catholic Church. Mankind did that. The believers were justified by faith in the Blood of Jesus as a sacrifice for their sins. It is that simple. It is that hard. It is more than a denomination, it is a way of life. They called it The Way.

[ravenwolf]

Where do you get the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, Mary of Catholicism, NT pastors distinctively named priests, consuming human flesh to obtain spiritual life, praying to created beings in Heaven, etc. out of Paul’s writings?

---

There are also a few other things.

What I should have said is that I can see some of the teachings of Paul in the Catholic Church which protestants are against and which I also do not believe in.

Mathew 23
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

1 Corinthians 4
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

It looks to me like Paul is warning them that he is their father in the Gospel and to be followers of him, not of Christ but of him.

The Catholic Church go by those two very things.

[Springfield Reformer]

the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy

Not only absent from Scripture, but from history as well, especially if one looks at primary sources. See for example Peter Lampe's landmark work, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries:"

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-extended-review-of-peter-lampes-from.html

The interesting thing is that during the first two centuries, Christianity in Rome was largely held by the "riff raff,"  the social outcasts, who were largely imports from other lands, many slaves captured and brought in to supply Rome with an inexpensive and disposable workforce.  It was exactly as Paul said, not many wise, not many noble.

And for those first two centuries, while Christianity remained largely a curious cult not popular with the upper class, the assemblies remained diverse, without any discernible central leadership, and little impacted by the pagan influences surrounding them.  The later-developed lists purporting to show a continuity of popes during that early period have proved to be impossible to support from primary sources.  

According to Lampe, the early congregations were diverse and decentralized, with no single "Bishop of Rome."  What did happen is that toward the end of the Second Century, power began to concentrate in those individuals in Rome who gathered the ecumenical funding for charitable projects outside of Rome, and it is from these late roots that a more traceable papacy would ultimately emerge.  Their claim to the "Throne of Peter" was retroactive, but not based on demonstrable history.

Then, when the tide finally began to turn at the beginning of the Third Century, Christianity, again according to primary sources dug up by Lampe and others, began to be more accepted in the upper classes of Rome, where full-on cultural Romans set themselves to reconcile this curious new cult with the pagan religious atmosphere that dominated Rome at the time.  It is easy to see how the Christian stories could supply them with a rich supply of material that to them seemed an honest correspondence with the pagan deities, practices, and ecclesiastical structures in which they had been immersed for centuries.  They were going to "adopt" Christianity and dress it up in Roman attire, because that was what they knew.  In hindsight, it would be a hard error to avoid, as we all have a tendency to see divine truth through our own culturally tainted lenses.

But no, there is no verifiable history of the papacy for the first two centuries.

Peace,

SR

[terycarl]

I believe you were the one that said there were 30.000 protestant denominations ... just showing how desperate Rome is that they have to make up junk like that

Actually, Rome and the Catholic church set the standard...they don't have to, nor do they, make up anything....all the various misinterpretations of the Bible which the Catholic church compiled have been done by the thousands of protestant denominations.

[MHGinTN]

Your shallow understanding is caused by your lack of study in the Messiah. The Passover meal was where Jesus broke the bread (and no bones of Him were broken on the cross) and passed the cup of wine then said He would not drink it again until He comes into His Kingdom. If you have read this far, then you are in good shape, because I'm gonna recommend a book for your spiritual enjoyment. No really, it is a most enjoyable read, about the Feats of Israel and how they speak of Jesus and how they give prophecy of Him. The book is 'Unlocking The Secrets of The Feasts' by Michael Norten. The book is written/directed by Judaism scholars who are Christians. If you love Jesus Christ the book will regale your soul. You will read astonishingly beautiful prefigurings of Jesus. Here's a short paraphrase of just one morsel.

The Shepards who came to Bethlehem when Jesus was in the manger, after an Angel told them to seek him there, were actually more than common shepards. They were in a tower which gave them an excellent view of the baby lambs being born, so they could fetch the ones without spot or blemish, wrap a few strips of cloth around them so they were preserved for the sacrifice of Passover and Atonement. When the Angel told them they would find the child lying in a manger wrapped in swaddling cloth, the shepards knew this was a special child because they would place the special wrapped lambs 'up' in a manger to prevent them becoming blemished!

[MHGinTN]

And one more thing, a repetition of things posted to you before: Jesus would not have given His blood to His disciples to drink, even before His Sacrifice and because it would be an abomination before God to break a command given TO ALL THEIR GENERATIONS to not drink the blood. For the Life is in the Blood and it is That Perfect life in Jesus’s blood which was specifically destined to spread on the Mercy Seat to cover the laws, the law of sin and death so you can have the Holy Spirit of God in you now. His Precious blood is not for your stomach, it is for your soul and spirit. That’s why He told them to do that ritual in REMEMBRANCE of what He was about to do for them and all who come to Christ Jesus.

[MHGinTN]

I have seen one of the earlier Bibles than the Reims Bible.

[BipolarBob]

Yeah, that old line "take and drink of this, this is a cup of my blood which will be shed for the forgiveness of sin"...He was probably just kidding..........

He wasn't kidding but He was speaking metaphorically. The wine and bread represented His blood and body. They were to drink and eat this together for it was ushering in a new covenant with His sacrifice on the cross. When He warned the Disciples about the "leaven of the Pharisees", He wasn't speaking of gluten but of their teachings. Really, you should read the Bible more then you would know this already.

[advertising guy]

bttt

[MHGinTN]

“the “leaven of the Pharisees” Great point!!! He was using metaphor then and in the Upper Room. They would have caught the metaphor immediately in the Upper Room because not too many days before He had taken the time to explain the metaphor of the Pharisee’s leaven, and these Jewish men knew that for all their generations they were to never drink the blood.

[mrobisr]

Satanism has survived also, but what does that mean exactly? Well it means nothing at all and by Scripture your religion will survive, but unfortunately as and example of what NOT to be.