Catholics believe that Mary is “the Mother of God,” a co-mediator with Jesus, herself sinless and virgin born. They even believe that she ascended to heaven. What do the Scriptures say?
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: God sent His son into the world, that through Him we might be saved. Jesus has been given the highest name in the universe because He humbled himself to come in form of servant, died a criminal’s death, and has been highly exalted. May all the honor and glory go to Him and praise be to the Father!
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is no question that there are many issues that divide Catholic and Protestant, and that we deeply differ on the position of Mary. Let us then exalt and preach Jesus: crucified, risen, exalted, and coming again!
Special Offer, This Week Only!
Vol. 1 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus
PLUS Holy Desperation[CD] for ONLY $20!
INCLUDES FREE SHIPPING!
Callto take advantage of this offer, or ORDER ONLINE!
Other Resources:
How to be Led by the Spirit [mp3 CD]: Clear and practical teaching on how you can learn to recognize and respond to the Spirit’s leading. Includes two special messages entitled “The Purpose of the Gifts of the Spirit” and “Fanning into Flame the Gift of God.”
It’s Time to Rock the Boat [MP3 series]: Our compromised message has produced a compromised generation of believers, and only a return to the New Testament gospel, preached in the power of the Spirit, can turn the tide. This course will open your eyes and set your hearts ablaze for Jesus!
Foundations of Prayer [mp3 series]: Essential listening for all those who desire to make prayer a priority in their lives. These messages will challenge and motivate you.
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation.”
There is nothing in any writing before the middle of the second century that would show that the very early church believed that they were eating real flesh and drinking real blood. It is a memorial of His death. We declare His death by partaking of wine and unleavened bread that quite remains bread and wine. This is what Luke and Paul obviously say. The constant Catholic interpretation started in the middle of the 2nd century and not at the beginning. It is doctrines men and doctrines of demons. Here is what some early leaders thought:
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”- Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)
They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (Tertullian-On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
It seems to me that we ought to walk Charitably in all things and not try to make something “essential” for another, especially if whatever that is, would not find consensus in the whole Body of Christ, lest we be found to be troublesome, rather than peacemakers, whether that thing be about Mary, or something else.
Me thinks that Ray is making it essential that no one is allowed to make anything essential.
I believe we should seek to build God’s kingdom rather than our own, especially when it comes to it being at the expense of someone else, which seems to me to always be the case, when we do not walk charitably.
I believe Mary is the mother of him who is everything that God is.
When something we hear is a bit fuzzy, foggy, or unclear, and it’s pertaining to the things of God, matters of scripture, or things of the Spirit, is it because something of a religious spirit has crept in, got mixed in, or otherwise
corrupted that which is of God?
I think that is many times what happens.
I think it’s good of we would ask ourselves if something would pass the test of consensus in the whole Body of Christ, when every member is fully restored and walking as a new creation in Jesus Christ.
If not, there may be something about that, which should be refined, or maybe the whole thing should be rejected.
The SELF-EVIDENT (OBVIOUS) MEANING OF JOHN 6:63
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. [New KJV]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh (the context makes this clear), but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level.
“The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is NEVER used that way in the Bible. This line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
Bo,
ORIGIEN WROTE (244AD):
“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
CASE CLOSED
ORIGEN attests to belief in the Real Presence. A real Catholic believer.
CLEMENT of Alexandria
“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
“Scholars have found it no easy task to sum up the chief points of Clement’s teaching,… he lacks technical precision and makes no pretense to orderly exposition.”
Bo it is easy, therefore, to misjudge Clement of Alexandria. He can be ambiguous and so it all the more shame that your website (onefold.worldpress) stoops to such poor scholarhips in an attempt to legitimize early-church apostolic faith gatherings and our communal bread and wine as symbolic.
I know it gives you comfort Bo but one ambiguous early Churchman will not do the trick. This is called cherry-picking is it not?
“Clement’s rule of faith was sound. He admitted the authority of the Church’s tradition. He would be, first of all, a Christian, accepting “the ecclesiastical rule”, but he would also strive to remain a philosopher, and bring his reason to bear in matters of religion.”
“Clement explains that the Lord feeds Christians with His own flesh and blood even as a mother feeds her infant child from her own body: ‘The young brood which the Lord Himself brought forth with throes of the flesh, which the Lord Himself swaddled with precious blood. O holy birth, O holy swaddling clothes, the Word is all to the babe, father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye My flesh,” He says, “and drink ye My blood.” This suitable food the Lord supplies to us, and offers flesh and pours out blood; and the little children lack nothing that their growth needs.’
[Clement of Alexandria, Paed I:vi:42,43]” (vol 1, pg 37-38)
Sources:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm%5D
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num29.htm%5D
Correction to my previous posting (third paragraph)
Bo it is easy, therefore, to misjudge Clement of Alexandria. He can be ambiguous and so it is all the more shameful that your website (onefold.worldpress) stoops to such poor scholarships in an attempt to de-legitimize apostolic early-church faith gatherings and depict our communal bread and wine as symbolic.
As I read through the comments here, I come to the realization that to agree on the fundamentals is simply not enough.
If in fact the Catholic Church is the true Body of Christ, and I affirm that it is, I have an obligation to call everyone to Catholic unity. I am sorry if I conveyed any other point of view for fear of offending my brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions. It is a matter of salvation to accept all that God has revealed through his one and only Church. I do not want to stand before Christ and say that I did not preach this because I wanted to be ecumenical and politically correct.
We who have been baptized in the Trinitarian formula do have a common baptism. This true regeneration can, potentially, avail for all of us. But the ark of salvation is the Catholic Church. I wish to make this perfectly clear.
The Ark of Salvation is the Lord Jesus Christ. When we enter Jesus Christ, God shuts the door (tucks us in so to speak). No Church is the Ark, the Church enters the Ark.
Amen Nicholas. Well said.
Benjamin,
Not sure if you are getting at once saved always saved (hypergrace) but I think that has been spoken of clearly by many others, especially Dr. Brown.
No, not speaking of once saved always saved. I am speaking of what the Ark is, Jesus Christ.
I was referencing Genesis 7:16 when I said God closes the door.
Genesis 7:16
16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.
I was commenting on Nicholas’ last sentence “But the ark of salvation is the Catholic Church.”
Benjamin,
I guess I took the closing of the door and being tucked in after accepting Jesus as the final necessary action.
Mea Culpa.
Those who are members of the Body of Christ in the Catholic church are together only a part of the Body of Christ, hence it’s improper to say that the Catholic church is the Body of Christ.
If one believes it to be the true Body of Christ, then I suppose one is saying that only Catholic believers in Jesus are true, and the rest are false Christians.
Nicholas, Do you believe there are other members of the Body of Christ, that are not Catholics, or are not attending Catholic meetings, and yet can be considered to be true Christians as much as you consider your Catholic brothers and sisters to be true?
Should we think that John the Baptist’s disciples were not as true as the Lord Jesus’ followers?
I think it would do us some good to look at those two groups of believers as the first two Christian denominations.
Q. What do you think the Lord’s view of John’s disciples was?
Ray,
Every baptized person is a Christian. That is to say, an adopted son or daughter of God. Baptism gives the individual an indelible mark. It is not merely symbolic. Moreover, we Catholics affirm that every Christian is in some imperfect sense a member of the Catholic Church by virtue of his baptism. John’s baptism did not avail for regeneration, so his followers became Christians, properly speaking, when they were baptized by the Apostles in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In order to be saved, John’s followers had to be baptized with the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Ray,
Those who followed John had to follow Christ when Christ came. John decreased as Christ increased. So, there were not two denominations. John prepared the way for men and women to follow Christ. If anyone followed John and then did not follow Christ, such a person would not have had any inheritance with Christ. Moreover, as I said in my preceding post, all those baptized by John had to be baptized in the Holy Spirit by the Apostles with the baptism of Christ, for which John’s baptism was merely a preparation.
Nicholas, you wrote:
“If in fact the Catholic Church is the true Body of Christ, and I affirm that it is, I have an obligation to call everyone to Catholic unity.”…
…”It is a matter of salvation to accept all that God has revealed through his one and only Church.”
And also: “But the ark of salvation is the Catholic Church. I wish to make this perfectly clear.”
I believe the matters concerning salvation have all been outlined in the New Testament books and that it is necessary to believe and accept only what was handed down to us through the teachings of the Lord and of the Apostles and those we learn from the Bible. “All who confess with their mouth and believe in their heart that Jesus is Lord, will be saved.” It’s true there is only One Church, as there is only One Body of Messiah, and all who abide in the Lord are part of the true Church. It’s not the Church that does the revealing, it’s the Spirit of Christ and of the Holy Spirit that reveal the truth to each member.
I would have to say, also, that the Ark of Salvation is Messiah, Jesus, and not the Church, be it Catholic or otherwise. The people that make up the Church are, after all, the ones being saved, not the ones doing the saving.
One thing I do want to say is that I really do wish that the Protestants would come together and work out those important articles of faith and settle their differences by way of theological truths so that we’re not seeing what we are these days, where churches are splitting in two over secular matters as well as doctrinal errors. Why not have a council that presides over the various denominations and when error creeps in, it can be quickly dealt with according to the model as outlined in Scripture? I realize it’s a complicated idea and it would take some time to fully explain what I had in mind, so, I’ll save that for another time, but, the Apostles used that model from the start by way of the Council in Jerusalem.
Hi Sheila,
The Church is the ark of salvation because one must be a member of the Church (a member of the Body of Messiah) in order to be saved: salvation is within the fold of the Church. I think we would agree on this point. We differ on as to what constitutes “the Church.” I believe that the Catholic Church is an institution and that Christ himself founded it. It is hierarchal, and it has an established leadership which descends from the Apostolic college. In a broader sense, when one is a Christian, one is a member of the body of Christ, and he or she is counted as among those who will be saved. Yes, Christ himself is the ark, but since the Church is the Lord’s body, the Church is the ark by extension. Just as the nation of Israel communicated the truth of God to the Jews, gave them the Scriptures, gave them guidance, etc, the Church gives the people of God the same path to righteousness, and within the refuge of the Body, we find a guard against error and a harbor in the wasteland of sin, and we find what we need to be saved.
Nicholas,
Well said. Are you post on Catholic Answers and if so what is your handle?
R
Hi rockypath1,
No, I’m afraid I don’t post there. I tried using their forums once but the format didn’t suit me.
Nicholas,
I rarely post on CA myself. Mostly I am on YouTube sites but even that I am trying to back away from. A certain insanity exists their with an often a very manic type of anti-Catholic posters proliferating. Still something needs to be said so that false witness and lies are held up in the light of real history, real doctrine and real reality ;O . Well, you probably know what is going on there. Check out some of John MacArthur sites or even some of the ever replicating Sister Charlotte sites. All it takes is a google email and you can have whatever user name (nickname) you want. I had to google on actually how to make a nickname. They don’t make anything obvious.
Thanks, rockypath1, I’ll look into those.
I know, Youtube is chock full of anti-Catholic propaganda. On the internet there is no shortage of bloggers and uploaders of the ilk of Jack T. Chick. Have you ever been to jesus-is-savior.com? Their treatment of “Roman Catholicism” is positively ghoulish.
Nicholas,
When I see a bible-only Christian of goodwill towards the Catholic Church I am taken aback with shock. So broad and deep is the hate for the early Church – at least on the Youtube level. But deeper and broader I think.
And lets be clear. This is a hatred of the early Church (on a spiritual level) and is a grave phenomenon across those assemblies who are driven to it. I have a sense that this phenomenon is broad and deep. It is marked by fake history, bullying, poor scholarship, mud-slinging and false witness (unto persecution). The instability apparent in the witness of those partaking in this phenomenon is often reflected in the universal stupidity of the information, or the lack of integrity (of the information) and its mischievous intent. From Maria Monk to Sister Charlotte frauds (no historical sources) to the oft repeated lies of noted fraudster Alberto Rivera and his purveyor Jack Chick and on and on to the more simple and the more extreme forms – it is an endless spectrum of confused biblical exegesis and bizarre ideas on pagan worship or child sacrifices in church basement or even Catholic-satan worship. Even Larraine Boettner created an egregious anti-Catholic history book which worked its way through the foundations of American fundamentalism until what we have today is a movement based on false premises, malicious ideas, very poor scholarship and grotesque assumptions. And THIS is Christianity?
How could the real fruit of Christianity be so embracing of what is largely false witness?
I know its not understood by them as such but goodwill and charity and grace should be the guard against taking it in and spreading it around. Fomenting and fermenting illwill instead of truth and wholesome debate and thoughtful and moderate scholarly work.
And yet, though the rank and file of the fundamentalist/evangelical world is not overtly persecutional in its efforts, it seems to be largely supportive of those who are.
And so, in this context we might ask how this unstable section of the “Christian faith” developed:
Is there a doctrinal statement or a creed in the first thousand years of Christendom that believes like the 21st century North American Evangelicals do?
I do not believe there is because bluntly evangelical protestantism is a recently invented form of religion.
It is clear from first and second century Christians that the earliest Christians believed like the Catholics do.
Infant baptism.
Baptismal regeneration.
Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Laying of hands (for authority) from the apostles to the bishops and elders (priests (from presbuteroi (greek for elders)).
Authority of the Bishops.
Confession.
The early Church believed like the Catholics, not the Protestants.
And that is why we must proclaim that the early Church is the Catholic Church.
I want to embrace my protestant brothers but they must accept my extended hand and stop attacking the early Church beliefs.
It only comes across as trying to destroy the early Church foundations in order create a latter-day foundation for principals that cannot be supported.
I think these radicalized and unstable elements of fundamentalist “Christianity might be shocked to realize they have more in common with Islamic jihadist than they realize. And this – on a spiritual level – infects their rational thought processes and therefore their actions, leading to persecution of those who do not believe as they believe.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I went to that demoniac website you just gave [http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/] and saw some all too familiar anti-Catholic hallmarks – one of them being the sister charlotte probable-fraud. A likely copycat of the original Maria Monk fraud. I used to post extensively against them, having done the research refuting it. How do you refute something that has no sources or credentials. So it is largely a futile effort as there are all too many bible-only protestants who too easily drink it in. I just reposted a basic defense on several of those Sister Charlotte clone-sites.
The persecution by bible-only protestants is scary. It has been said that the Church must go through its own passion before the end comes. It is sad to see a purported Christian group joining with atheists, abortionist, pornographers, liberal and Satanists against the Catholic Church. This IS very revealing though.
I think revisiting those Sister Charlotte sites has brought up a lot of frustration and the sense of futility in the face of this tide of evil.
On better days I accept that it is all in God’s hands and that in the end we all must remain at peace so that His grace can work efficaciously in us all.
In short, unless we can remain peaceful it is better to not come against this tide – this dark phenomenon.
This ‘thread’ now long way to go to catch KEEPING TORAH ‘thread’. Shows ‘new birth’, this ‘initial life’ here, involves ANY who make conscious, sincere decision to follow LAW, but at expense of ‘salvation’ for TODAY (which “NOW saves us”, Peter, NOT washing away of filth of the flesh !)
SALVATION ‘today’ requires coming to F-ther and no Priest, not HIS Son now in heaven at HIS right hand, not reaching out to sent HOLY SPIRIT by F-ther ‘either’. IT ONLY CAN COME thru now ONLY maintaining EXCELLENT conscience WITH G-d, OUR F-ther WITHOUT attempting Trinity Doctrine use (as if MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whom one maintains excellent conscience with OF THE ‘THREE’in ONE).
THE F-THER, with Jesus at HIS right hand below HIS seat of ALL power (as Emperor, HIS Son HIS chosen Lord, to VOICE only F-ther’s decisions of ‘thumbs up’, ‘thumbs down’ for all ETERNITY). Work of the HOLY SPIRIT here “of PROMISE” must not continue being grieved by joining into NICOLATIANISM, with ‘angels of light’, sent from heaven, sent by the F-therl TO TRY all, here, especially, ‘TWICE BORN’ on this Earth in false claims of being TRUTH seekers. THE LIE, II Thes. 2, that BELIEVED by TRUTH SEEKING claimants, who truly believe HOLY SPIRIT resides within them (when fact, they have not searched Scriptures to extent to expose ‘angel, angels of LIGHT’ sent, attempting THE LIE on outer ’emotions’ of fallen human FLESH (outer brain, right side outer brain) unto taking place of REAL Holy Spirit on down into the mother ‘Eve’s given ALL ‘natural living soul BODY, hidden within, our outer TENT of all from Adam’s ‘Eve’. SOLA SCRIPTURA requires to look beyond translations attempts, “Reformers” ATTEMPTING (from ‘within’ the NICOLAITAN system of REFORM), when in fact NO SYSTEM ‘attempting conquering of ‘laity’ AWAY from REAL sent REAL HOLY SPIRIT sent by F-ther, AS AUTHOR of both COVENANTS, all 66 Books, THE ONLY WAY to begin exposing ‘angels’ sent ‘from heaven’ WHO DO NOT HAVE LADDER for to come and go FROM HERE, BACK into HEAVEN from which they were sent HERE (in their punishments) FOR HAVING ‘LEFT’ in HEAVEN, their first Estate, yet retain their ANNOINTINGS, to be used HERE for promised buildup of this world’s HARLOT Church world wide, unto these entire heavens SUDDENLY on real FIRE. Outer brain (right side, EMOTIONS) since Adam’s FALL, remains entrance point OF ‘TWICE BORN’, NOW being ‘tried’ as to TRUTH SEEKING, down here in this ‘initial life’ UNTO a sure resurrection ORDER ‘proper’, as only assigned by F-ther IN HEAVEN, unto a NEXT LIFE promised, STILL in very same likeness of very same sinful flesh of BOTH first, & LAST Adam, IN THOSE VERY SAME PARTAKING OF VERY SAME LIKENESS DAYS TEMPORAL IN FLESH, IN VERY SAME LIKENESS OF VERY SAME SINFUL FLESH OF FALL of first Adam, ‘Eve’, true ‘mother’ of ALL natural living soul BODIES, INCLUDING the inward SEED ‘mother’ of OUR LORD’s birth of HIS in same likeness as we IN sinful flesh FROM fallen FIRST ADAM, ‘Eve’, of ‘their’ fall from true Grace given them, including ‘the mother’ (of all natural living soul BODIES, both the ONCE BORN and TWICE BORN in this tiny FOOTSTOOL (Earth realm of initial only introduction to eternal existence somewhere in this ever expanding, never ending, MATERIAL, for population entire Universe).
THIS IS TRUE ‘UNIVERSALISM’ that in order to be saved, ONE MUST MAINTAIN excellent conscience with F-ther on the throne SEATING, of ALL power, letting HIM only introduce us to HIS ‘real Son’, and thru SCRIPTURES introduction to the REAL HOLY SPIRIT of Promise, BOTH can only be introduced by F-ther G-d, NO priest, NOT even HIS ‘high PRIEST’ SON at HIS right hand, nor HIS sent HOLY SPIRIT, FOR F-THER’S SEATING MUST BE OBJECT of our faith, NOT IN LOSS OF ANY FIRST FAITH, FIRST LOVE, FOR SALVATION only found NOW in maintaining excellent conscience WITH HIM, ON THE SEAT OF “ALL” POWER.
Remembering as the famous continued passing on to await NEXT life from here still in same likeness of sinful flesh of both Adams, the LATE W.C. Fields, raised ‘catholic’, in last days of his ‘cancer’, discovered by his son reading his ‘Bible’, WHEN ASKED just what now are you doing ‘Pop’ ? (answering his son, just looking for ‘loopholes’ son, still looking for ‘loopholes’
Mary, the ‘mother of Jesus’ CALLED down here in this dust “JESUS” (“Savior”) up there “Emmanuel” (which means G-d HIS F-THER be joined with us THRU HIM throughout eternity). THIS EARTH OF HIS BIRTH BY MARY is not forever (nor will this dust experience any eternity with G-d our F-THER in HEAVEN).
b.j.stone’s syntax reminds me of the incoherent ramblings on the bottle of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap.
rockypath1,
The long and the short of it is this: At a certain point, all we can do is kick the dust off of our feet. We have a mission to bring our brothers and sisters in baptism to the fullness of the Gospel, but we have to leave the rest to the grace of God. We also have an obligation to preach to our own families and ensure that they do not forsake the faith. This is also very important. The truth is as plain as daylight, and it is readily accessible. Anyone who does not see the unanimous testimony of the Church Fathers plainly declaring a primitive belief in the Real Presence is simply in denial, or they see it and they are liars. That educated people like Dr. James White can actually claim otherwise–really, it just boggles the mind.
None of us, including Dr. White, HERE ‘need not teach his neighbor’ (for they ‘all know me, from the least to the greatest’ down here)? HAVING had HOLY SPIRIT write on our hearts? What otherwise we do have, which are attempts, yet greatly appreciated today, of efforts in ‘translation’ after ‘translation’, from ‘copies’ as found, but still ‘copies’ somewhat distanced from even the parchments of our NEW TESTAMENT COPIES, NOT EVEN PAUL CARRIED WITH HIM THOSE ‘originals’, EXCEPT OF THE ONE AT THE TIME HE WAS WRITING A SECOND TIME TO TIMOTHY, but he did have SENT for his ‘BOUND BOOKS’ OF OLD TESTAMENT which he had studied at ‘school of Gamaliel’, most likely kept for his own personal use. Let’s get over today’s Nicolaitan Church false claims of ever having established the proper order of either New or Old Testament, final decisions by G-d thru THEM ? over what was INSPIRED BY HOLY SPIRIT ? what was not ? BRAINWASHING of the ‘laity’ away from the REAL HOLY SPIRIT of Promise USING (nicolaitanism) continuances in their APPROVED ‘translations’, mainly ‘Latin’ AT FIRST TO HIDE to laity ANY of Scriptures, used also now along with ‘copies’ to English, by attempted modern REFORMERS, in their attempts attempting ‘reform’ STILL (from within) what is so ‘rotten’, that whether from within, OR if time left on this earth for NEW exposings of THE PROMISED WOLRD WIDE ‘HARLOTY’ CHURCH BUILDUP, if any ‘reform’ could be accomplished ‘from without’, of now also the mostly “reformed” NICOLAITAN CHURCH OF HARLOTRY” still relied upon ?
Nicholas,
Been away for a week or so. I can’t even read BJ’s stuff unless he keeps to some very clear points. Its amazing though that fundamentalists who deny early Church teachings and authority will pin so very, very much on an such obscure bible passages as that of the Nicolaitans, as if they even know what it might mean, and totally reject or obfuscate all the major passages on sacraments (John 6) and Petrine authority (Matthew 16:16-19).
I find this intellectual instability an indictment of the faculties inherent (and inherited) in bible-only fundamentalist assemblies. The founders were proud and disobedient. Their conclusions were abrupt and without mature context. The result is severe laxity (and integrity) resulting in too many self-authorized Jack Chick knock-offs with too many rank and filers supporting them. This all indicates a general malaise and a general lack of credibility. Dr. White is of a horse of different stripe, at least in terms of magnitude. Sadly Dr. Brown (a man of goodwill) is more of a puzzlement in his blindness to the early Church teachings on the sacraments and conciliar authority, demonstrated in part by the first council – the Council of Jerusalem (Acts).
And then there are all the epistle passages where we see the laying on of hands for authority. I just don’t see how these are glossed over so easily.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
The Nicolaitian church reference by BJ are as absurd a claim as those who claim the Berean passages as some kind of support for their foundations being early Church. Obscure and eisegetical.
Jimmy Akin on the Nicolaitans.
http://jimmyakin.com/2012/10/revelation-solving-the-mystery-of-the-nicolaitans.html
Even Wikipedia shows how complex the meaning of the nicolaitan passage is and how confusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism
Rockypath 1,
Why don’t you cool it with your insults, stereotypes and general talking down to us. You have been refuted many times and now you just come back every so often to pretend otherwise and add more nose in the air comments.
Original Greek, no ‘capitol N’, making all these posted references, comments, as totally ‘moot’. Simply, clearly, put, a harlot “church”, apostate, made up of those ‘desiring to conquer’ over their continuing laity & other’s laity’, as an organizational ‘earthy’ as in 1st Adam ‘like’ descendants substitute for HOLY Spirit, OF WHOM they were not anymore, nor ever familiar with, even some having also ‘grieved’ HIM to which HE no longer ‘knocked’ on their ‘hearts door’, as still potential ‘overcomers’ in this initial only life, “by which this” very ‘grieving OF HIM’ they had lost that ONLY “way” for to continue also now being ‘sealed’ by HIM (STAMPED, by HIM as genuine seekers of THE REAL in truth, rather, now prefer listening to ‘angel, angels of light’, ANOTHER jesus of their own choice only, entirely, now as with totally different GOOD NEWS (gospel) which true search of complete Torah EASILY disproves !
As any ‘born again’ person, welcome both of most popular (least to numbers hits, so far) about the TORAH, about ‘Mary’, also true follower of TORAH (TEACHINGS) who needed ‘ponder’ herself, MUCH ! She had not, what later ‘writers’ of COMPLETED Torah, especially until ‘Apostle John’ took her in, she seeing from Ephesus why this younger of Apostles (foundational) was when first given over to famous isle of Patmos, for same ‘testimony’ of Yeshua, because of ‘word of G-d’, attacks from Rome, not only as to his being charged to direct conversion of a ‘single Priest’ of Dianna Temple, years before the ‘riot’ later of Paul as given us in Acts, but especially as older brother, James, considered most likely replacement for another, new MESSIAH, potential cause MORE trouble for Rome, and Emperor Caligula, both from DIRECT line of David, by Salome AND full sister ‘mother’ Mary
Bo,
Saying that I have been refuted many times is not exactly talking up to me and it is not even close to the truth – right? So maybe we are two of a kind. Probably both of us should not be so arrogant. I acknowledge my tone as such.
But, in truth I recall it was you that got my hackles up with your insinuations right off the mark with Catholic apostasy and eventually degrading into the typical whore of Babylon accusations. Hopefully you did not degrade into pedophile priest accusations which is what so many anti-Catholics so. (I will have to review the comments.)
This guy BJ talks trash with his points on Nicolaitan Church of Harlotry, if I understand him correctly, and you call me out for talking down and sticking my nose in the. But you think it okay for him to speak of harlotry when it comes to my Catholic faith. How so? Why the double standard?
But as I said above. Neither you or myself has anything to be proud of in our demeanour. Yours is easily mocked as well for its arrogance. The only difference is I am not sure you looking at your own statements and your own behavior. I for one struggle with my sometimes callous postings and admire such as Nicholas here who is so much less incendiary.
Like it or not Bo we are brothers in arrogance. May God forgive our pride and lack of charity and goodwill.
At least you do not have the excuse of the false witness, bullying, slander, false history, lies and yes hatred that Catholics are met with at every corner of the protestant (brothers in Christ?) universe – particularly the bible-only universe.
By and large the Catholic world was willing to accept protestants of all stripes as separated brethren but in the face of the “persecution” from a broad spectrum of your assemblies it was time to mount a defense.
And now, after many years of not speaking up, or not being educated on the bible, church history and the reformation we are defending ourselves and it seems your assemblies are taken aback. Especially when it comes to pointing to the egregious contradictions in your histories and the accepted exegeses.
And this (warlike) arrogance of mine is somewhat a result of defending my faith across the YouTube universe. So just take a look at what your assemblies post en masse Bo. Link to one and see what shows up on the right hand column and then click on one of those and see where that leads and on and on and on. There is virtually no end to what your brethren will say about the Catholic Church – 99% of it is shear filth.
I do recognize in you as a kindred spirit in arrogance Bo.
Shalom brother.
PS. When I go to the sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) I almost always confess that I was arrogant and uncharitable to my protestant brothers and sisters on internet venue. It is one of the main reasons I have attempted to quit posting and debating forever. I mean, I actually get the connection between humility and holiness (sanctification). So I am not so easily excused maybe. Unfortunately I am tied to my desk everyday for my work out of my home office and this actually allows me some human and intellectual connection and even sometimes (who knows) a faith connection with a brother or a sister in Christ and with God. Not that lack of charity is of God though. I guess the pitched battle is not unattractive sometimes. Mea Culpa.
So I am not above begging the pardon of those who I treat with less than charity and goodwill. Maybe someday you will feel similarly.
Rockypath 1,
It is one thing to be abrasive in the fray of battling and bantering. It is another thing to stereotype and be condescending. The Catholic church has much to be ashamed of in regards to pedophilia and covetousness of other types. The false worship of the supposed virgin queen of heaven and yes nicolaitanism and changing YHWH’s times and laws is obviously corrupt. The inquisition and indulgences are not exactly marks of honor. I have no bad will toward Catholic people. I stand solidly against the Catholic system that is apostasy and Babylonian paganism.
But for the record, I think that protestantism is corrupted to the point of no return also and continues to partake of the sins of her harlot mother. I reject being lumped into their false beliefs.
Mary is not a virgin anymore. She is not the mother of God. She was a chosen vessel and very blessed. She does not appear to anyone. Demons appear to people claiming to be her. I gave a detailed critique of your champion Roy Schoeman’s supposed encounters with her. It is nothing more than necromancy and deception.
Your version of the early church is not early enough. Your view of partaking of the flesh and blood of Messiah is cannibalism and magic and not at all what the words of scripture intend.
You really need to step back and reevaluate and repent from much false doctrine and superstition. As sincere as you are and as convinced as you are, it doesn’t make what you believe right. The scripture and history prove you wrong.
Arrogant or not, that is where I stand.
Mary gave birth to far greater than simply flesh, blood, bones, G-d. She gave birth to a “fully” EMPTIED SON of G-d. Kenosis (Phil. 2) ‘let this mind be also in you’, as is in Christ Jesus, WHO when being in very ‘form’ of G-d, within G-d’s very ‘bosom’ of F-ther G-d in HEAVEN, considering time past, was not at all robbing G-d, our F-ther by seeing HIS Son, as HIS equal, but voluntarily placed Himself in power of the Person of Holy Spirit from F-ther (as SOURCE of both Son and Holy Spirit, F-ther’s mid-wife) for to come to full ‘birth’ FROM F-THER’S BOSOM into a life of His own, EVEN UNTO DEATH OF HIS OWN CROSS, from birth from blessed Mother overshadowed by very same ‘G-d of F-ther as Holy F-ther’s midwife, who pondered many things in her heart, seeing that her ‘first born’, also as her own ‘Savior’, sent by G-d as HIS uniquely born Son to this so very tiny FOOSTOOL ‘of HIS’ (“for G-d ‘IN THIS MANNER’ loved this world of human beings of HIS creation, that HE gave HIS ONE and ONLY uniquely begotten Son, that HIS creation, Mary of Joseph her f-ther, and of Joseph her mother’s father, also as a ‘whosover’, believed upon HIS F-ther who sent HIM from heaven into this earth by her virgin womb, receiving ‘eternal life’ from HIS F-ther in HEAVEN and she ‘named’ Him ‘Jesus’ (Savior) that this World ‘thru’ Him, might also experience HIS F-ther in HEAVEN’s ‘gift of our salvation’, be being ‘saved’ (from it, ALL it’s Princes, who were ALL drawn unto HIM when HE was lifted up NOT by angels, but by Princes of this World, from this Earth first time on a publically cruel Roman cross, however ‘last time’ by angels of HIS ‘parousia’, back to Heaven from which HE came into the ‘blessed’ Virgin Mary’s womb (while yet still in her lowly estate on this tiny sphere earth ‘copy’, only of heavenly ‘patterns’ above).
Bo
Stereotype and condescending? Given the egregious anti-Catholic nature of the bible-only assemblies across You-tube and other venues with respect to false witness and calumny (using carefully reconstructed fake histories and a malicious intent, not to mention horrific biblical eisegesis) do you expect me/us to say nothing? Or to say please? This is a phenomenon that is widespread and deep within protestant fundamentalist/evangelicalism.
The time is NOW to hold the bible-only assemblies accountable for the filth that is a hallmark of their anti-Catholic public discourse that they are partaking in. And for too long with impunity. It is a jihadi mentality of fanaticism rooted in the 16th century movement. Look to the internet universe for why I say this.
Much of the false history and hatred rises up in order to shore up the foundations that are at odds with the early Church teachings. This is NOT stereotyping. This is just reporting a very nasty and widespread phenomenon of those assemblies.
Hardly anyone (the rarest person of goodwill) from those assemblies speaks against the fake history and foul pseudo-scholarship that is used as bludgeon against the Catholic faith. (Ralph Woodrow speaks up though.)
I have seen a speaking-out against the wretched behaviour of one fundamentalist camp against another but this pales in comparison to what is put out there by your brethren against the Catholic faith in the most public of all venues.
And where is your voice decrying it Bo?
Your voice actually joins in. I can hear it Bo. You are also culpable in supporting fake history and bad (fake) scholarship. While Dr. Brown is a rare man of integrity, I have seen little of his qualities in the fundamentalist protestant public square which has more to do with unsound doctrine and rancour.
You are not getting off that easy Bo. You are part of the problem, not the solution. You run with all the same fundamentalist protestant confusion and slurs and use their shoddy websites for support and then wonder why you are laughed at when you claim you are not a protestant.
The hallmark of false witness and calumny is your inheritance too Bo.
Your type of anti-Catholicism may not be so horrific as those who inform us of child sacrifice in the Catholic Church basements or the popes invoking satan at Easter mass or the proliferating Sister Charlotte fake-nun sites but they are every bit as indifferent to the truth.
The problem is that the rank and file member of your bible-only assemblies, while not creating the foul anti-Catholic sites, all too often will drop by and give a thumbs up to them. I rarely see a protestant speaking out against it, though I have seen it and for this I am grateful.
So who is it that is making mischief?
The one who is defending his house against attacks most foul?
Or the ones who makes a point of creating false stories and history meant to bring the house down?
So please get off your high anti-Catholic horse with your Nicolaitian aspersions, especially when no scholar even knows for sure what that even means.
And have a closer look at what the Inquisitions were all about. You really know nothing about them either, of this I am sure. As the garbled history of them was a propaganda tool put out there after the counter-reformation.
Pedophile Priest. The bible-only hypocrites love this one but fail to look at the sewer in their more dilapidated house, which is much worse.
http://www.stopbaptistpredators.org/scandals/trinity
or
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/the-protestant-clergy-sex_b_740853.html?
or
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/the_other_shoe_child_molesting_by_non-catholic_cle.php
Here is the bottom line Bo, if you and your bible-only assembly brethren (whom you are aligned with) had refrained from a broad-based jihad against the early Church faith I would not be here now confronting you and them with their mischief.
Mischief? Nay, persecution.
I would rather embrace you and any non-Catholic Christian of goodwill but the anti-Catholic jihadists amongst you seem to be holding sway.
Why will you not acknowledge the anti-Catholic persecution. Even if you do not support us doctrinally or historically, why do YOU not speak out against the astounding persecution welling-up from within the bible assemblies?
Why?
You will not see Catholic putting up glitzy corrupt anti-bible-Protestant videos on YouTube universe.
I wonder why Catholics refrain from false witness and pseudo-scholarship in general?
I wonder why you do not find Jack Chicks of Larraine Boettners in the Catholic world?
May God have God have mercy on all those who join in this persecution and bring them to goodwill and light.
Treads ‘title’ is Mary…? Perhaps after 340 hits,
a better ‘title’ now extended (is Mary a daughter of Adam’s Eve in same manner as we all from Adam ?
Catholicism insists are wrongfully accused of ANY extreme violations of completed 66 Books, TORAH)
Rockypath 1,
You wrote:
“I would rather embrace you and any non-Catholic Christian of goodwill but the anti-Catholic jihadists amongst you seem to be holding sway.”
The above is not an example of a Catholic of good will. Calling people jihadists is inflammatory and the pot calling the kettle black. And I agree with you…”May God have…mercy on all those who join in this persecution and bring them to goodwill and light.” (But of course, I think that it is you that are “persecuting” protestants and stereotyping them…if what you call persecution can indeed be called that.)
Free speech is not persecution. Persecution is when a group in power (let’s say the Catholic Church of the 12th through the 14 centuries) uses it’s power to silence, hunt down, imprison, torture, and kill those that attempt to live harmless lives according to conscience (let’s say the Abilgenses, Waldenses and the Jews), because they have differing views and lifestyles from the powers that be. So far, you are not in power and neither am I nor are the protestants that you malign for maligning your church.
If you or I or they would use political power or threat of harm to silence the others, then persecution is in its beginning stages. Right now, you are not quite persecuting protestants that use free speech against the Catholic Church. What would you do if you were in power? Would you become like the real jihadists? Jihadists persecute and the Catholic Church certainly did in the past…and, to be fair, so did state run protestant churches.
I am not sure that your way of attacking protestantism is helping produce non-Catholics of good will. If you would embrace them, if they existed, you would do well to adjust your rhetoric so as to help produce them. Then you might get more hugs in return 🙂
Shalom
Bo
So calling out the jihadist muslims for their persecution is wrong too.
All I want you and your protestant brothers to do is take a stand and speak out against the egregious and obvious calumny that is posted by your brethren. These ones are not hard to pick and differentiate from free speech.
The fact that you personally support fake history is true is borderline persecution too. Just a little goodwill and scholarship would show the reality of this foolishness (bablylonian Catholic roots etc). At the very least it shows your indifference to scholarship and integrity.
Bo,
The fact that Real Presence Eucharist celebration is and was the fact of the early Church and was never disputed until some guy questioned it in about 1000 AD and then moreso in the 1500s says it all.
The apostles taught it and the early Church believed and this edifies and corroborates the Catholic and Orthodox interpretations of John 6.
John 6:66 is a warning to all who do not believe it.
Real Presence Eucharistic communion is irrefutable and the litmus test of what Jesus wanted for us all. Full Stop Bo.
The early Church believed it so and THAT means the apostles taught it to the Body of Christ and it was discerned through the Holy Spirit (from Jesus).
Do you have any understanding of the Holy Spirit and the Body of Christ and the teachings of the apostles? The Body of Christ (early Church) had the guiding power of the Holy Spirit and they ALL believed in the Real Presence.
Shame on you for repeating the lies about cannibalism that were part of the accusations against the early Church. You do not understand the depth of spiritual realities then. These were to hard for Judas too and that is why he also abandoned Jesus as reported at the end of John 6.
This is not rocket science.
And if somehow you think making JOHN 6:63 has Jesus saying it is all metaphor and symbolic with respect to eating his body I would love you to actually explain to me just how this is proved by the words or context.
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” [New KJV]
NO Quicketh lingo please.
Rockypath 1,
Give us all a break. We already had this discussion and from scripture and early church writings, it was shown that “real presence” was not believed nor intended.
It is plain and simple. The Catholic Chruch has incorporated almost vast amounts of pagan ritual and symbols from every false religion. The Babylonian Harlot lives on with many daughters.
Re 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
If only, the catholic and the attempts to reform such, would ‘partake’ of Lord’s actual body blood NOW flowing thru HIS now ETERNAL flesh, feed HIS now ETERNAL bones, ETERNAL BLOOD as BRAND NEW in form never before existed CREATURE MAN (“one NEW MAN”) instead of same OLD looking back to those days of HIS temporal only ‘flesh, blood, bones’ from Mary, from ‘Eve’, and therefore ‘back only to HIS cross’ for a salvation WHICH IS NO LONGER available since HIS departure, PERFECTION ONLY in heaven, unto the PERFECTED NOW ‘ETERNAL’ Lamb of G-d, “BRAND NEW” ! Peter, first deliverer of first Sermon post HIS departure and 10 days later coming of HOLY SPIRIT day of Pentecost a ‘little stone’ and ‘chip off the greater STONE’, made clear the ‘end of his conversation’ NOW we no longer can be saved by washings of sins of the
flesh which includes sacrifice ALSO of Jesus at HIS own cross. THE ONLY SALVATION FOR TODAY, FROM NOW FORWARD, is maintaining EXCELLENT conscience before, with HIS and Mary’s “F-ther” in HEAVEN (NOT WITH EITHER MARY, nor her SON of the F-ther, nor with HOLY SPIRIT Who overshadowed her unto HIS birth down here) FOR ONLY F-THER IN HEAVEN NOW OFFERS STILL our ‘salvation’ as HE always offered from very first man/woman when created TOGETHER, at same time NOT only in the ‘world that THEN was’, but today’s ‘world that NOW is’.
Bo,
We had a discussion where you regurgitated some fundamentalist website answer on JOHN 6:63 that for some reason you think defeated all that Jesus had said on the necessity to literally eat his body and blood.
Please tell me how John 6 is symbolic when the entire early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic. The fact the early Church was Eucharist confirms literal interpretation of John 6 and the Last Supper passages.
This the one point that Jesus meant for you to understand so that the path would be clear.
Here are the passages in short.
Mark 14:22-24, > “THIS IS MY BODY”
Luke 22:19-20, > “THIS IS MY BODY”
Matthew 26:26, “THIS IS MY BODY.”
1 Corinthians 11:24 > “THIS IS MY BODY”
John 6:55 > “FOR MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD AND MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK
John 6:35 > Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood YOU HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU
1Cor 10:16, “The cup of the blessing that we bless, IS IT NOT THE SHARING OF THE BLOOD OF CHRIST? And the bread that we break, IS IT NOT THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY OF THE LORD?”
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
The Institution of the Lord’s Supper.
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.” [New KJV]
1) If the early Church was Real Presence Eucharistic and it was unequivocally so then,
2) It was taught so from the apostles and,
3) the apostles got it from Jesus in John 6. Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, Matthew 26:26
There is not the weight amongst the vague Church father quotations you ever referred to negate widespread fact that the early Church was assuredly Real Presences Eucharist.
The Holy Spirit ensured the truth.
Do you think the widespread belief until the 1500s appeared out of a vacuum? That is bizarre and mocks the good intentions of the Holy Spirit.
PS making quotes from revelation could refer easily to apostate Christianity of another sort and perhaps the variety that takes on a quasi-Judaic form. That’s a better interp then your implication.
Rockypath 1,
You wrote:
“We had a discussion where you regurgitated some fundamentalist website answer on JOHN 6:63 that for some reason you think defeated all that Jesus had said on the necessity to literally eat his body and blood.”
You have a bad memory (or maybe just selective…do you know what the definition of “is” is?) You have no right to criticize anyone that you think has a skewed version of history. I produced post after post of documentation and logic from scripture and early history. Get your facts straight.
So here are my posts on this thread (There was another thread that I posted on to you also):
220-
The new covenant is supposed to put YHWH’s law into our hearts. Our hearts are what the ark symbolizes.
As the story goes, Moses brought the tables of testimony down from the mount in his hands and dashed them to pieces. Then YHWH instructed him to build and ark and hew two more stones. YHWH rewrote, in the same words, His law upon those new stones. They were placed these into the ark and they remained intact. So…
When we take YHWH’s commandments into our hands and with our own power try to keep them, we break them. When they are put into our hearts, we do not break them. The second set of commandments were identical to the first. The law that YHWH writes upon our hearts are identical to the ones on stone. If we still cannot keep from breaking them, we are not allowing the commandments to be but in the ark…our hearts. If we think that the law has been changed, we do not get the symbolism or the direct statements in scripture.
Shalom
224-
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
Did you read the link? It shows that the early church leaders did not believe in the real presence of Messiah in the elements. Your church tells you the opposite. So your chruch stands against what is said in scripture and against those that were closest to those that wrote the scriptures. It is not apostolic authority, but apostate authority that you follow.
Shalom
225-
You quoted:
“Matthew 16:16-19
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
It is obvious that the language intends to contrast Peter with “this rock.” Two different words are used. Peter is not “The Rock,” but a small rock. Messiah is saying, “You. Peter, are a little rock, and upon this big rock, that was just revealed to you, will I build my assembly.” What is “this rock”? It is the revelation that the little rock had.
Peter, the little rock, had just had a revelation that was way bigger than himself. Messiah is not going to build his assembly on “flesh and blood” (whether Peter or man’s ideas and teachings) but on revelation from above. A specific revelation. That revelation is that Y’shua is the Messiah the Son of the Living YHWH. Messiah is THE ROCK. The stone that the builders rejected. Peter is not that Rock. He is just little old Peter the small pebble that is cemented into the building as a living stone like the rest of us. So Peter professes:
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Y’shua is YHWH. He is the Messiah and Savior. Without that revelation deep in our souls, we will not be built into His assembly. Hell’s/hades’ gates will not hold those that have true faith in this when the resurrection of the just is accomplished. The second death will have no power of these that are built upon the revelation of Y’shua being the Messiah the Son of the living Elohim.
We can see above that Peter did not say that he, himself, is the Rock. According to him, Messiah is that ROCK. Nothing could be clearer in English and especially the Greek that Peter is just a little rock and not the ROCK.
Shalom
231-
You wrote:
“This refers back to Isaiah 22:22 where Eliakim as steward of the royal House of David was essentially the prime minister of the kingdom.
“And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” [Isaiah 22:22].
Peter himself then is commissioned to become the steward (the Prime Minister) of a kingdom. And while the King is away he has the authority to wield the King’s power. Peter’s authoritative role will continue as the keys of the prime minister are always passed along.”
I guess you have not read the back of the book. Y’shua Messiah is the one that holds those keys…not Peter.
Revelation 3
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
And on earth, Messiah’s half brother James held the position of prime minister in the assembly of Messiah. The book of acts is clear that he was the leader and not Peter.
Ac 12:17 But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.
Ac 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Ac 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
Ga 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Peter obviously feared James and James made the final rulings.
Shalom
236-
Interesting that Messiah did not say that he was giving the key or keys of David but the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Just because the word “key” is used in different passages does not mean that it is speaking of the same key or keys. Yaacob (James) was the leader of the first assembly. He was in the line of Y’shua descended from David. Peter was not. The keys (binding and loosing) of the kingdom of heaven were also given to all the apostles and Yaacob was not an apostle at that time…but we find him as the head guy just a few years later.
Matthew 18
18 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.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Please note that only where 2 or 3 apostles are gathered to make decisions is Messiah in the midst of them validating the decision. Peter is only one apostle and has no right to make decisions by himself. He was called on the carpet after the Cornelius incident. Only after his case was heard did the apostles give credence to what happened. Even in the Cornelius incident, Peter did not make the decision, YHWH did by pouring out His Spirit upon the gentiles without the laying on of Peter or any other apostle’s hands. Peter just went with the decision from heaven.
The only sense in which Peter had a special anointing was in being part of the opening up the door of the gospel first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, then to the gentiles. He only opened the door, for Paul was the apostle to the gentiles and James,Peter, and John to the Jews. Notice the order of the names! James is first. Notice the plurality of the decision makers once again. Peter did not have the authority to decide by himself. Notice that Paul needed a second apostle (Barnabas in this case) to go with him, so that there would be at least 2 to make decisions.
Ga 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Shalom
239-
rockypath1,
And then….
Ac 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me…
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God…
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Then James gave the sentence. He is the obvious judge/ruler. Then the apostles and elders and whole church agreed. With 2 or more agreeing it became the rule from heaven. Peter was only a witness at this trial. He testified about how YHWH used him. The choosing that he speaks of is not when Messiah pronounced a blessing upon him, but when the incident with Cornelius happened. It was a specific choosing at a specific time for a specific task, not a an all time preeminence.
241-
rockypath1,
As has been demonstrated, your position and the Catholic Church’s position is one of apostasy from what the Apostles wrote. You can have your Catholic traditions, but do not make believe that they are apostolic or Biblical in the slightest.
Some that have followed our dialogue may want to read this:
http://www.oodegr.com/english/papismos/kleidia1.htm
Shalom
242-
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“This is the Catholic faith. It has stood the test of time because only that which is established by God CAN stand the test of time.
To say the devil entered the sanctuary from the start is to say satan has more power the God.
Do you really want to say that?”
I do not say that the devil has more power than YHWH. I say that the Catholic Church has doctrines of demons. The Catholic Church does not go back far enough. It has stood the test of time starting from 200 years after Messiah. But what does that mean. Judaism has stood the test of time for much longer and Hinduism too. I did not say that the devil entered the sanctuary from the start. He entered about 50 years after the start and Catholicism reflects this. John and Paul and Messiah are the ones that told us that the devil would and did enter soon after their departing.
Ac 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
So we are to follow the Scriptures and not the tradition of Popes and other men that are deceived and being deceived and that have taken too much upon themselves.
Mt 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mt 13:24 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
YHWH lets both the good wheat and the tares grow together until the end. The tares were planted very close to the beginning but not quite at the beginning. This is the story of the Catholic Church it was not planted at the beginning. It has thought to change times and laws. It has subverted the times and laws of YHWH with its false sacrifices and false feast days and false sabbaths. It promotes idol worship and man worship and Mary worship. It has committed fornication with all the kings of the earth.
Da 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Re 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
Mt 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
If you have an ear to hear, it would be good to hear.
Shalom
244-
rockypath1,
Roy Schoeman may proclaim such, but the apostles sure didn’t. Catholicism has mixed all manner of pagan idolatry, pagan symbolism and pagan holidays into a pseudo Messianic faith that does not resemble the apostolic faith.
Shalom
246-
Sheila,
According to Daniel, the antimessiah will think to change times and laws. This is exactly what the Catholic church did. It changed the feasts and sabbaths of YHWH to the pagan festival dates. It approves of speaking to the dead. It has idols that it calls icons. I could go on, but you see the point.
Shalom
252-
rockypath1,
Messiah says that He is not going to change the law.
Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Daniel says someone will…the antimessiah.
Da 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
So those that think that Messiah changed YHWH’s appointed times and laws are really thinking like the antimessiah and not like the real Messiah said to think. The one that thought to change YHWH’s law is against Messiah. By you own admission it was the Catholic church.
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
It is quite interesting that you did not list one passage in post 247 that says that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. Something that was an absolute commandment that comes right along with not committing murder being surely changed should get more press than that. Don’t you think?
One thing that we know from any study of scripture is that narrative is not normative. There are people that were together on some first days of the week, but nothing showing any command to do so. The only command in the NT about the first day of the week is to lay up in our homes according as we have been prospered and has nothing to do with meeting together. And it is also interesting that this command was during a very special time of year…from Passover till Shavout/Pentecost…during the count to Shavout, which is very ironically the only time that the Greek phrase that we translate “first day of the week” is mentioned.
Strange that the only “first days of the week” that the early believers were ever told about, or that we were told about, are during the counting of weeks during the interval that YHWH tells us to count toward a specific feast of YHWH. What are the odds of that? Strange that no other reference is given about the “first day of the week” except as it pertains to this 7 week period. Strange until we realize that it is said differently in the Hebrew scriptures. It is called “the morrow after the Sabbath.” And strange that this phrase is only used in scripture to denote also the count of Shavuot/Pentecost. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?
Messiah is resurrected and ascends to His Father on the morrow after the Sabbath on the first day of the count of the feast of Shavuot. He is the firstfruits offering (firstfruits from the dead as Paul says). The vast majority of the passages are simply relating the fact that this is the day that Messiah fulfilled this moed/appointment/feast of YHWH. Other than these and the one about storing produce that we mentioned earlier, there is only one that is left.
Ac 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
This one tells us that Paul had just kept the feast of unleavened bread, which is when the count toward Shavuot is begun, and it is now just a few days later he is gathering with some disciples. He is meeting with them as the “first day of the week” commences just after sundown. We would call it Saturday night. He is going to depart on the next morning, which by all logic is Sunday morning. So he will not be meeting on Sunday morning with the disciples. So much for Sunday Sabbath! Paul will be setting out on a journey and those with him will be carrying supplies and loading a ship and sailing on Sunday morning.
But there is one more passage that might give you some hope that the early believers met on Sundays.
Jn 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
This could be Sunday or it could be Monday, depending on what after 8 days means. If it is Sunday, it is still during the count toward Shavuot…the second “first day of the week” during the count. The interesting thing is that nothing is said about anybody meeting for the sake of some kind of new Sabbath, but it was common for Jewish people to get together just after Sabbath ended…still is. It was common for them to get together to count the weeks to Shavuot…still is. Shavuot is literally “Weeks.”
The other funny thing is that the Greek does not really say “first day of the week.” It says “one of sabbaths” or possibly “one of weeks.” The word “day” is not in there. Sounds more like a count to me toward Shavuot than making note of what day of the week it is. And it is interesting that “eight days later” is used here in John instead of “mia ton sabbaton”/”first day of the week.” But I guess the number of days later would be readily known and remembered since they were obeying YHWH’s commandment to count…toward the feast of weeks/Shavuot/Pentecost.
The point of the term that is translated “first day of the week” being used in scripture is to show us that Messiah fulfilled the Scriptural firstfruits offering on the exact appointment of YHWH and not to let us know what day of the week it was…although we would know that if we knew that firstfruits had always been on the morrow after the Sabbath. The other places that the phrase is used tells us that it is during the count and not that Sunday has any special meaning.
“William Cave wrote “… the Sabbath or ‘Saturday’ (for so the word sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers, when speaking of it as it relates to Christians) was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts honoured with all the public solemnities of religion. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius and Clemens’s Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, tells us that they assembled on Saturdays… to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath.”[15]
15. Cave, Primitive Christianity: or the Religion of the Ancient Christians in the First Ages of the Gospel. 1840, revised edition by H. Cary. Oxford, London, pp. 84–85).”
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp
Sunday is not the new Sabbath. It wasn’t for the early believers either. This tradition of men is an obvious instance of the antimessiah system “thinking to change times and laws” instead of obeying Messiah when he said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” He came and fulfilled firstfuits on the exact day. He did not make Sunday holy. He and His disciples continued to remember to keep YHWH’s Sabbath holy. They did not destroy YHWH’s law by defiling it or changing it.
PS: “The Lord’s day” is not a day of the week. If it was, it would be the seventh day, since Messiah said that He was the lord of the Sabbath. The phrase that John uses in Revelation is referring to the time frame that he had a vision of…”the day of the LORD.” He sees all the judgements and darkness of “the day of the Lord” and thus says, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.”
Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.
Zep 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.
15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,
The term “day of the Lord” came to be used in reference to Sunday via pagan worship of Mithra and thus absorbed into Catholic terminology that has always adopted pagan practices.
254-
Rockypath1,
Once again you can show no scripture that actually proves what the Catholic Church says and can only find someone at least 100 years removed from the original early church to back up your doctrine. There is no connection between the real church that was begun by Messiah and what became the Catholic church. It is a stretch of enormous proportions to think that the apostles taught us to celebrate the “pascal mystery” every Sunday. Passover and unleavened bread was celebrated once a year by them…on the 14th day of the first Biblical month. The most ancient tradition from the apostles was:
“A Question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover.”
-Writings of Eusebius, Book 5, Chapter 23, Verse 1
“Chapter 24
1 But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them.351 He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:352
2 “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
3 He fell asleep at Ephesus.
4 And Polycarp353 in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, 354 bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.
5 Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris355 who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, 356 or Melito, 357 the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?
6 All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.358 And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people359 put away the leaven.
7 I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’” 360″
-Writings of Eusebius, Book 5, Chapter 24, Verses 1-7
The church of Rome had already apostatized from this true way of keeping Passover that John the apostle and Polycarp had taught the churches under their charge. Justin Martyr was a product of this early apostasy.
257-
rockypath1,
Obedience, yes…to what the apostles actually wrote and not to fabricated traditions and surmisings coming from a corrupt worship system.
Eusebius was a Catholic that compiled known history. Polycarp was John’s disciple. Polycarp and John and virtually the whole of the eastern church celebrated Passover as per the scriptures and Rome did not at the time of Polycrates writing. Rome was already apostate by mid second century.
In the words of Peter, whom Polycrates quoted, “We ought to obey YHWH rather than men.” Roman Catholicism is the word of men. The scripture is the word of YHWH. Any tradition that does not align with every word of YHWH is apostasy. Your church is full of these sorts of things. It is obvious to anyone that has not been swallowed by it or has not swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
258-
rockypath1,
I do not sneer at the Catholic Church. I grieve over those who have been deceived by it.
259-
Rockypath1,
I listened carefully to the link that you provided.
It is not a conversion like the apostle Paul’s. It is an obvious example of demonic visions/dreams where Satan masquerades as an angel of light…disguised as the “blessed virgin Mary.”
In the first 10 minutes, he says that he had totally abandoned his Jewish faith and was an atheist. He was disillusioned. He says that he was “Stupidly selfish.” He was seeking consolation while walking on a beach when he was embraced by total love and total security when he had his experience. The nondescript god that spoke to him wouldn’t reveal his name. Hmmmm? That does not sound like the apostle Paul’s experience. He says that he was willing to receive whoever it was that was revealing himself to him as long as it was not “Christ.” Hmmmm?
In the next 7 minutes we find out that one year to the day later that he was a dream but his memory was as if he was awake and that he was in the presense of the most beautiful young woman that I could ever imagine he just knew it was Mary. He was overwhelmed by her stature and glory and he wanted to throw himself on his knees to honor her somehow. The next morning He knew it was Christ on the beach. H tells us that “God veiled his sin from him” and that the message was not to repent or he would have turned back.
Mary said that she would answer any questions he had. He asked, “What is your favorite prayer to you?” He says that she was coy and said, “I love all prayers to me.” He elaborated about how Mary told him a prayer in Portuguese but that he did not understand the language. But later he found a portugese woman and he asked her to recite prayers and he recognized the first few syllables of the prayer that Mary told him.
He also asked her, “What is this business about the holy spirit? She looked up with an expression melting with love and said, “He is his gaze.”
He began attending a protestant church and asked the pastor, “What about the blessed virgin Mary?” When the pastor answered with far less respect than he knew was do her, he left and started to spend all of his free time hanging around Marian shrines just to commune with Mary. Whenever he was around a mass while he was at these shrines he had a desire to receive communion. He said that the “blessed virgin Mary” was the perfect way to draw him to the catholic church because he was “not ready for Jesus.” He says that he got a lot of consolation at these Marian shrines and a stong sense of her presence.
The above is a perfect example of spiritual deception. It is not a true Christian conversion. It may be a true Catholic conversion to false idol/satanic worship though. Messiah preached repentance from the start and declared His name openly. Mary is never the one He uses to reveal himself in visions and dreams. Not speaking his language to tell this man something and being coy is just seductive Babylonian mystery religion.
Your link proves all the more why no true-hearted and well-meaning protestant would ever fall for Catholic idolatry. As much good will as any Bible believer has, he can never accept this as a true conversion or true faith in Messiah.
260-
Let’s try that again with a few corrections:
Rockypath1,
I listened carefully to the link that you provided.
It is not a conversion like the Apostle Paul’s. It is an obvious example of demonic visions/dreams where Satan masquerades as an angel of light…disguised as the “blessed virgin Mary.”
In the first 10 minutes, this man says that he had totally abandoned his Jewish faith and was an atheist, that he was disillusioned, and that he was “Stupidly selfish.” He was seeking consolation while walking on a beach when he was embraced by total love and total security when he had his experience. The nondescript god that spoke to him wouldn’t reveal his name. Hmmmm? That does not sound like the Apostle Paul’s experience. This man says that he was willing to receive whoever it was that was revealing himself to him as long as it was not “Christ.” Hmmmm?
In the next 7 minutes we find out that one year to the day later that he was dreaming but his memory was as if he was awake and that he was in the presence of the most beautiful young woman that he could ever imagine…he just knew it was Mary. He was overwhelmed by her stature and glory and he wanted to throw himself on his knees to honor her somehow. The next morning He knew it was Christ on the beach. He tells us that “God veiled his sin from him” and that the message was not to repent or he would have turned back.
Mary said that she would answer any questions he had. He asked, “What is your favorite prayer to you?” He says that she was coy and said, “I love all prayers to me.” He elaborated about how Mary told him a prayer in Portuguese but that he did not understand the language. But later he found a Portuguese woman and he asked her to recite prayers and he recognized the first few syllables of the prayer that Mary told him.
Later in the video we find out that he also asked Mary, “What is this business about the holy spirit? She looked up with an expression melting with love and said, “He is his gaze.” I guess I would expect a little better theology than that from someone in the know.
He began attending a protestant church and asked the pastor, “What about the blessed virgin Mary?” When the pastor answered with “far less respect than he knew was do her,” he left and started to spend all of his free time hanging around Marian shrines just to commune with Mary. Whenever he was around a mass while he was at these shrines he had a desire to receive communion. He said that the “blessed virgin Mary” was the perfect way to draw him to the Catholic Church because he was “not ready for Jesus.” He says that he got a lot of consolation at these Marian shrines and a strong sense of her presence.
The above is a perfect example of spiritual deception. It is not a true Christian conversion. It may be a true Catholic conversion to false idol/satanic worship though. We know that Messiah preached repentance from the start and declared His name openly. Mary is never the one He uses to reveal himself in visions and dreams. Not speaking this man’s language to tell him something and being coy is just seductive Babylonian mystery religion.
Your link proves all the more reason why no true-hearted and well-meaning protestant would ever fall for this Catholic idolatry. As much good will as any Bible believer has, he can never accept this as a true conversion or true faith in Messiah.
264-
rockypath1,
I am no fan of John MacArthur , but he hits many nails on the head in this presentation. Please do me the favor listening to the first 25 minutes of this presentation and 48:00-1:04:00 and 1:14 to the end…if you dare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuJ077vOXTI
Everyone else,
Please listen to the link above and the link that rockypath1 posted. It will be obvious where the truth lies.
Shalom
268-
rockypath1,
No need to apologize insincerely. Your posts show how brainwashed you are and how hateful you are toward those that simply show facts proving Catholicism to be a false religion. I simply believe what the scripture says instead of ridiculous man-made mystery cult inventions that came from pagan sources. There is no connection between the apostles and the pope or real presence or Maryolatry or indulgences or purgatory or the great wealth and pomp. NO CONNECTION!
The very things that you say your god would not do, Messiah prophesied would happen. The apostles warned that it would happen. And it happened. And the Catholic Church is the continuing embodiment of it happening. The real assembly of Messiah is not a Church system. It is a small remnant of people that have found the straight gate and the narrow way and follow the Lamb where ever He leads. That hear His voice and obey His Father. The Catholic Church has a different father and a different Messiah. It sits as a queen and will soon be destroyed.
Mt 13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
31 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:
32 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.
33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Re 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
Contrary to your logic, the kingdom of heaven becomes corrupted. It is full of Satan’s emissaries. It grows into a mutant plant that houses fouls/demons. The whole thing becomes leavened with sin and false doctrine. And YHWH calls all that are truly His to come out of this monstrosity…this whore.
The gates of hades will not prevail against the real assembly. It cannot hold the true believers in the grave. Hell already has those that follow the false system in shackles even while they live and they do not even know it. Messiah will return for His small, true, simple, spotless bride and resurrect them to sit by His side. And the huge whore will be judged for living deliciously off of its poor patrons and the kings of the earth. And heaven and the prophets and apostles will rejoice over her destruction.
And just so you know, the mother of harlots has daughters. All those little church systems that have been born out of this great whore that continue to keep her feasts and her sabbaths will fall with her. But there are some people of good will and that have honest hearts that will heed the call to come out of Babylon before it is too late. It has been happening from the beginning. And Rome and her daughters have persecuted the real bride the whole time. The wicked step sisters have looked on the real Cinderella with disdain, but the real prince will come for His true love and the others will go out unto weeping and gnashing of teeth…and some, for a time, might think that they are in purgatory, but they will be sadly mistaken.
Your religion is mostly about “The blessed virgin Mary” and bread and wine that mysteriously turn into flesh and blood. Magic and fertility cult worship will not go over very well in the end. The testimony of your famous Jew that became a Catholic tells us all we need to know to run as fast as we can from your idolatrous witchcraft laden system that piles up treasures while the world starves. It sits a queen for only a few more years.
There is time for you to come to your senses and leave before it is too late. Maybe you should listen to the link I provided and think long and hard about what is said instead of heaping insults on a man that has guts enough to speak what he thinks is true. I listed to your link and detailed much of its contents and showed the outrageousness of it. Do a point by point critique of MacArthur’s presentation showing how he is wrong or how he lies…if you are a Catholic of good will.
272-
rockypath1,
Who killed Paul and Peter? Rome. Who ruled Jerusalem when John penned Revelation? Rome.
Does Rome set on seven hills/mountians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome
And just to be clear, all false religions are included in Babylon the whore. The Catholic Church is just the obvious overarching system that fits in every aspect. Judaism and Jewish apostasy to Baal worship in the past is certainly included in the whore along with Hinduism and Islam and the New Age movement. And the Catholic Church has killed so many NT prophets and preachers and witnesses of Messiah that it is ludicrous to deny the obvious.
And my reading of Matthew 13 is only too obvious to the unbiased reader. The kingdom of heaven becomes corrupted and leavened with sin and false doctrine and grows way beyond the bounds of nature. The only system that claims to be the kingdom of heaven that fits this description is Roman Catholicism and its offshoots.
Peter was in Rome when he penned this:
1Pe 5:13 The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter
“The question now meets us – Is “Babylon” to be taken in a mystic sense, as a cryptograph for Rome, or literally? Eusebius, and ancient writers generally, understand it of Rome. Eusebius is commonly understood to claim for this view the authority of Papias and Clement of Alexandria (as has been stated in the Introduction, p. 9.). But the historian’s words (‘Hist. Eccl.,’ 1. 15. 2) seem to claim that authority only for the connection of St. Peter with St. Mark’s Gospel; the identification of Babylon with Rome seems to be mentioned only as a common opinion in the time of Eusebius. It is said that there is no trace of the existence of a Christian Church at the Chaldean Babylon, and no proof, apart from this passage, that St. Peter was ever there.”- Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/1_peter/5-13.htm
Who is Babylon? Rome.
274
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“SO WHO IS BABYLON – THE GREAT CITY MOTHER OF WHORES
ANSWER
REV 1:8 The GREAT CITY “where also their lord was crucified – JERUSALEM
NOT ROME!”
You have purposely misquoted and misconstrued this passage. You have even mislabeled it.
Re 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
The great city where Messiah was killed is called Sodom and Egypt…not Babylon. Rome is called Babylon.
276-
rockypath1,
I guess everyone but you thinks that there is more than one “great city.” Babylon-Rome is a great city and Jerusalem-Sodom is a great city. Pretty easy, huh? Here a few more great cities:
Ge 10:12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
Jos 10:2 That they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty.
Jon 1:2 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
287-
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“Roy Schoeman (New York Jew as he describes himself offers some remarkable insight on the role of Jews today in salvation history and in their ongoing salvific role.
It is fascinating stuff on many angles.
Here is part 1 of 14 parts. They get more interesting as they go.”
I listened intently to the first part. It is interesting. It shows Catholicism for what it is. A magic mystery cult. It offers a false salvation. It has a false savior named “Blessed virgin Mary.”
In the video the god that revealed himself/herself would not reveal his name. The virgin would not answer him in his own language, but in Portuguese. Repentance was not preached. The whole thing was occultic.
Go ahead and watch the first video for yourselves. No one could be deceived by it except those with no spiritual discernment that have been blinded by years of listening to a false spirit guide or brainwashing in a mystery religion.
Here is my brief summary of the video:
I listened carefully to the link that you provided.
It is not a conversion like the Apostle Paul’s. It is an obvious example of demonic visions/dreams where Satan masquerades as an angel of light…disguised as the “blessed virgin Mary.”
In the first 10 minutes, this man says that he had totally abandoned his Jewish faith and was an atheist, that he was disillusioned, and that he was “Stupidly selfish.” He was seeking consolation while walking on a beach when he was embraced by total love and total security when he had his experience. The nondescript god that spoke to him wouldn’t reveal his name. Hmmmm? That does not sound like the Apostle Paul’s experience. This man says that he was willing to receive whoever it was that was revealing himself to him as long as it was not “Christ.” Hmmmm?
In the next 7 minutes we find out that one year to the day later that he was dreaming but his memory was as if he was awake and that he was in the presence of the most beautiful young woman that he could ever imagine…he just knew it was Mary. He was overwhelmed by her stature and glory and he wanted to throw himself on his knees to honor her somehow. The next morning He knew it was Christ on the beach. He tells us that “God veiled his sin from him” and that the message was not to repent or he would have turned back.
Mary said that she would answer any questions he had. He asked, “What is your favorite prayer to you?” He says that she was coy and said, “I love all prayers to me.” He elaborated about how Mary told him a prayer in Portuguese but that he did not understand the language. But later he found a Portuguese woman and he asked her to recite prayers and he recognized the first few syllables of the prayer that Mary told him.
Later in the video we find out that he also asked Mary, “What is this business about the holy spirit? She looked up with an expression melting with love and said, “He is his gaze.” I guess I would expect a little better theology than that from someone in the know.
He began attending a protestant church and asked the pastor, “What about the blessed virgin Mary?” When the pastor answered with “far less respect than he knew was do her,” he left and started to spend all of his free time hanging around Marian shrines just to commune with Mary. Whenever he was around a mass while he was at these shrines he had a desire to receive communion. He said that the “blessed virgin Mary” was the perfect way to draw him to the Catholic Church because he was “not ready for Jesus.” He says that he got a lot of consolation at these Marian shrines and a strong sense of her presence.
The above is a perfect example of spiritual deception. It is not a true Christian conversion. It may be a true Catholic conversion to false idol/satanic worship though. We know that Messiah preached repentance from the start and declared His name openly. Mary is never the one He uses to reveal himself in visions and dreams. Not speaking this man’s language to tell him something and being coy is just seductive Babylonian mystery religion.
Your link proves all the more reason why no true-hearted and well-meaning protestant would ever fall for this Catholic idolatry. As much good will as any Bible believer has, he can never accept this as a true conversion or true faith in Messiah.
289-
Eliyahu,
Is necromancy only wrong for Jews, or is it wrong gentiles also?
Ro 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
The Catholic faith is opposed to Biblical faith. It is anti-Messiah.
291-
rockypath1,
You have produced no proof of real presence belief until possibly the middle of the 2nd century. The early church from its beginning has not been such. The pagan aberration of mystical cannibalism and magic crept in and deceived many. The real assembly of Messiah has always stood against these things. The Catholic Church has always been apostate and full of paganism and occultic practices.
You wrote on another thread:
“Was He such an incompetent teacher that He would not make sure that this teaching was understood properly[?]”
He was such a great teacher that He could spell out exactly what He meant and still puprposely keep people from understanding Him. And then clarify to His disciples with sayings like “the flesh profiteth nothing.”
Mt 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
And you only quoted half of this verse:
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
“The flesh profiteth nothing” is in direct reference to Messiah’s discourse on eating His flesh. He explained Himself privately to His closest disciples and most of the others left, precisely because they were left with the misunderstanding that they would have to become cannibals. “Eating His flesh” is gaining spiritual nourishment from hearing His words and putting them into practice.
Joh 4:32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
The people in Messiah’s day that heard Him say to eat His flesh and drink His blood had the good sense to not follow someone that would teach this literally. The disciples had the good sense enough to continue to follow Him once He told them that it was a metaphor. They followed Him because he had the words of life, not because His physical flesh and blood would be literal food.
But what of the church system that thinks that He was being literal and still claims to follow Him? What of the people that go along with this? It is not good sense. It is paganism. It is mystery religion…mystery Babylon. It teaches a false Messiah…a cannibal…a pagan entity.
You wrote on another thread:
“Paul, the didache, Ignatius, Justyn martyr and all the many others should be enough.”
Paul does not teach real presence, as I have demonstrated. The didache does not teach it. Ignatius wrote in the second century and it is in doubt what he teaches about it. Justyn Martyr is late second century.
Some reading our dialogue would probably like to read this:
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.
Luke 22
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.
What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.
Paul is a second witness.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.
This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.
297-
rockypath1 believes in the infallibility of and office…a mere man. I believe in the infallibility of YHWH’s word. That word explicitly denies real presence doctrine. Rockypath1 may continue to pile historical record upon historical record showing what the apostate Catholic Church always believed, but it will be piled on the foundation of paganism and traditions of men and not on the real foundation of Messiah and the apostle’s doctrine. Catholics of good will would do well to read for themselves and think for themselves and leave off on the talking points.
Luke 22
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Please note that this is to be done in remembrance of Messiah, and is thus symbolic in nature. If the “real presence” was indicated, it would not be in remembrance, but in actuality.
What was in the cup? Wine. No blood, but the new covenant in His blood. It was a covenant meal, not a lawful way to enjoy cannibalism and imbibe eternal life.
John 6
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life…
67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Messiah is not saying to remember Him by eating Him. He is saying to remember Him by eating unleavened bread and and drinking the cup of wine after the Passover dinner, which just happens to be called the cup of salvation/deliverance. A memorial is not the real thing. So let’s do what Messiah said and memorialize Him on the day in the way He said to, and not participate in some pagan magic incantation and cannibalistic mysticism.
Paul is a second witness.
1Co 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
We symbolically show (Literally: announce or declare.) the Messiah’s death until He returns. We do not bring down His flesh and blood, we bring down the message of it. We do not produce the actual flesh and blood of His death. That is a much different type of showing. We do it in remembrance…as a memorial.
This is what the apostles taught. Whatever church “father”, not matter how early, that actually teaches real presence is simply in error. Whatever Church does this, is deceiving us.
301-
rockypath1,
You wrote:
“Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation.”
There is nothing in any writing before the middle of the second century that would show that the very early church believed that they were eating real flesh and drinking real blood. It is a memorial of His death. We declare His death by partaking of wine and unleavened bread that quite remains bread and wine. This is what Luke and Paul obviously say. The constant Catholic interpretation started in the middle of the 2nd century and not at the beginning. It is doctrines men and doctrines of demons. Here is what some early leaders thought:
“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”- Clement’s Paedagogus Book 1, chapter 6
“Now, if ‘everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,’ even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that ‘every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.’” (Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)
They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (Tertullian-On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
http://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
So now you can dispute the evidence.
Hi Rockypath,
I have to say I think those who experience constant defamation have a predisposition to become defensive sometimes “before” the slurs even appear. I think perhaps that’s the case now. I’m not of the militant ilk that Bo is and I know he is very arrogant in his presentation and interaction with others and it’s difficult to not respond in like manner. He can be very unkind in his remarks and I think he needs to examine his heart and see and correct his error. But, I hate to see you making broad generalizations as I don’t recall most others here treating you with anything but generosity. Certainly I am not in agreement with your beliefs, but, I think perhaps you were taught those things by others and would not have adopted those beliefs if left to yourself and a Bible.
I didn’t learn anything from any church or denomination as I was stuck with a back that had collapsed after 10 years after a car wreck when I picked up the Bible. I spent 2 years reading and studying it and I feel blessed to have had that beginning without any outside interference. That’s not to say that everything was crystal clear in all areas, but, when I did go outside of the Bible and read commentaries and the work of various scholars I was certainly able to determine truth from error very quickly. It’s a rare occurrence to have had that experience and I don’t hold it against anyone who is taught error by others. There comes a time, however, when all should examine their personal beliefs in light of Scripture as that is the place where the truth of God should begin. I understand that it’s almost impossible to disentangle ourselves from long held beliefs and it’s a rare thing to disassociate ourselves from tradition which has built a tall hedge around those beliefs, but, if what we’re taught doesn’t align with Scripture why would we continue to favor man-made beliefs over the word of God?
Can you see the errors that Bo walks in? I believe you can. Is it merely because you were taught differently that you can see it, or, is it because you’re able to defend those beliefs from Scripture? I hope it’s from Scripture, otherwise you’re just as guilty for allowing others to do your thinking for you.
The entire Body of Christ is disjointed and coming undone because we’ve all left off building on the Foundation Stone, which is Messiah, Jesus. The Shepherd of our souls and His Kingdom is not of this world and we are drawn astray when we live too much in this world and not enough in the Heavenly Kingdom. When we begin to “bite and devour each other” we are playing into the hands of the prince of this world and his desire to destroy what Messiah has built. We have to be on guard relentlessly against the wiles of Satan who uses strife and dissension to divide and conquer us. So, no matter our man-made traditions we must cling to Messiah and the Gospel of life and leave off quenching the Spirit who is given to each of us to guide us into all truth. That should be the uniting force that restrains us and keeps us until the Lord returns. No institution and no man-made traditions should take the place of our moving and living and abiding in the Body of Christ as brothers and sisters joined together with Christ as the Head of His Church. To love one another as Messiah loved us is not just a suggestion, it should be our life.
If anyone, be he Pope, Pastor, Priest or Teacher usurps the authority of Scripture, then, yes, we’ve got serious problems. And many are the errors being promulgated within the Body today by way of various denominations and lone sects and teachings. “If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?” We should all of us return to the foundation of our faith and to the commonality of the Gospel of the Kingdom. If proper doctrine is not preached by human shepherds than we have a responsibility to try to reason with them and set them straight. If they refuse to yield to the authority of Scripture than we should leave off following them—regardless of who they are.
The Lord will judge all when He returns, not by how well they followed orthodox doctrine, but, how well did they follow Him?
Can we agree on that?
And I know how infuriating Bo can be and I firmly believe he’s adopting the same attitude that the priests of Jesus day did—“come not near me for I am holier than you.” Let’s determine that there is no doctrine other than Scripture that can correct his error, certainly no ceremony will do it.
Please, let’s live in the Body in Peace and the Lord will judge His people when He returns. May we all be found without spot, without pollution from the things of this world, especially the spirit of this age who wars against us all.
I’m truly sorry for all the malignant and malicious comments made by those you have dealings with who claim to be Christians, but, whose behavior denies it. I’m guilty of being drawn away by it myself and am constantly having to check my own words and repent. Some refuse to repent. I’m not saying that we should lie down and let everyone walk all over us and we need to defend our convictions, sometimes forcefully, but, I do believe we should interact without spiteful words, especially since we will all give an account of them. And, yes, I’m preaching to myself! 🙂
Wishing you peace and joy in the Holy Spirit and may you abide only in Messiah and His Word until His return. We need to unite against the evils of this present world.
Thanks.
Oh for heaven’s sake, Bo! How long have you had that prepared for—a month and a day? Good grief, it’s like reading the first chapter of a book.
I hope you’ve read what I wrote to Rocky. I’m very worried about the spirit that pervades some of these posts. And, no, I’ve not read yours. I need to return to the other thread and then move on to pursue those things that may actually bear some fruit for the Kingdom by saving lost souls who don’t already know Jesus.