Peace to you RR,
RightReason wrote:
[
Replying to tam]
No. I posted this bible passage to counter your claim that one apostle (such as Peter) was appointed leader by Christ, over the other apostles.
Then you would still be wrong and still completely missing the meaning of that passage. If that passage means what you think it means, then God would be contradicting Himself, because throughout Scripture we see God appointing individual men as leaders, whom He gave authority, and whom we were expected to listen to.
Is God contradicting Himself because He no longer requires sacrifices according to the law? Is God contradicting Himself because He no longer expects us to worship in Jerusalem, at a physical temple?
Just because something changed does not mean that God is contradicting Himself.
There used to be a high priest who would once a year make a sacrifice for all the people. This was leading to Christ. CHRIST is the high priest. There used to be a physical temple where the spirit of God is said to dwell. But this also was a shadow; a reflection of things to come. Because CHRIST is the Temple in
whom God dwells (and God dwells within us as well if we are part of the Body of Christ, making us part of the Temple as well).
This didn’t mean these men were perfect, but He still used them.
The point under discussion is about your claim that Christ made Peter leader over the other apostles. The verse I supplied states otherwise. That all twelve apostles had ONE leader, the Messiah.
Speaking to all twelve apostles, Christ said: you are all brothers and
you have one Leader, the Messiah.
He did
not then say... oh, wait, scratch that... eleven of you also have Peter as your leader.
Why can you not just take Him at His word?
Quote:
“But you shall not be called “Rabbi�, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father�, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.�
He is speaking to His apostles, and He is telling them, point-blank, that they have ONE leader. Christ, Himself.
Exactly! There is one Messiah – Jesus Christ Himself -- and He is emphasizing that appointing others and expecting us to listen to them does not negate that fact – it does not undermine His authority.
No.
First, please note what you did. He said that they have
one Leader... and then tells them point blank
who that leader is: the Messiah.
You alter His words ever so slightly to suggest that He is
only saying that there is one Messiah, and they don't have authority over Him. Well, obviously!
They all point back to Him. Jesus’ commands, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven� would make no sense if those they were spoken to were not authoritative leaders, teachers, our fathers. You don’t get to cherry pick one passage and apply it as you like. A comprehensive understanding of Scripture as a whole must be applied.
Stay on point, please. This is about your claim that Peter was granted to be leader of the twelve apostles. But according to Christ, the twelve apostles have only ONE leader: the Messiah.
Scripture goes on to show seeing Peter as the leader was exactly what the first Christians did.
Post 707 on this page at this link deals with your many links and claims about Peter:
viewtopic.php?t=31377&postdays=0&postor ... &start=700
Nope. You did not. You posted a link, a distraction from the truth; and you did not respond to that or to the questions I asked you in post 55.
You clearly must not even have a rudimentary understanding of the time period or the origin of inquisitions so it was necessary to explain it to you, but you simply keep repeating this:
That the popes and bishops and so-called 'teaching authority' did not teach the truth.
This is simply not true.
This is absolutely 100% true. As you are yourself revealing, considering the fact that you keep posting links to explain or excuse or justify their lack of truthful teaching during this time period (which lasted centuries).
Did the popes and teaching authority stand up and teach the truth during this time period? Did they stand up and say to the people that persecuting, imprisoning, and executing those who teach a different message... that this is NOT what Christ taught or did?
Did they stand up and teach the truth about what Christ DID say we are to do with those who teach a different message? Did they even stand up and teach what the apostles taught and did? When some men taught a different message (saying that gentiles needed to be circumcised) claiming to have come from the apostles... what did the apostles do? They wrote a letter confirming that such men did not come from them, and that neither they nor the holy spirit required such a thing.
They did not persecute, round up, prosecute, punish or execute those false teachers. They did what Christ said to do with such ones, and did not listen to them. The popes and the "teaching authority" did not. They did not teach the truth. Why? Did they not know the truth?
So the words that I wrote are indeed true:
That the popes and bishops and so-called 'teaching authority' did not teach the truth.
What you mean to say is
I said exactly what I meant to say.
If the so-called "Church" refused to speak and teach the truth just as Christ taught us, what good was it? What good IS it to anyone SEEKING to KNOW the truth? To anyone seeking to know Christ?
Gee, if the scribes and Pharisees were often hypocrites and didn’t even understand many of the teachings themselves, did that mean God’s Church was unimportant and unnecessary?
So your answer to the question is to compare the RCC to the scribes and the Pharisees? I have no problem with that comparison.
And um... if you recall, the Pharisees and the scribes had their authority
taken from them. The heir had come; the high priest; the King and Lord and Teacher and Master... and we are to listen
to Him.
So are you sure that is the comparison you wish to make?
So, the question you ask is pointed more toward your own beliefs – What good IS it to anyone SEEKING to KNOW the truth to have a non authoritative “body of believers� without a centralized, united, authoritative, infallible, visible, earthly organization?
Asked and answered a few posts back:
By speaking truth as they are given to speak to whomever they are sent to speak that truth TO. By doing as Christ - their leader - commands. By teaching others to obey all that Christ has commanded. By pointing to Christ so the people seeking Him can know who it is they are supposed to be emulating and obeying and hearing and following. So that people may come to HIM to have life. By bearing witness to HIM. By asking forgiveness for those who sin against them; for those who fall short?
By listening to Christ and teaching others to do the same. Is that not what we are supposed to do?
Those seeking to know God – to know truth would have been expected to get their information from where God designated.
You mean like the One God designated here:
"This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."
As Jesus said, “Do as they say, not as they do�
Except for when He said, 'you have heard it said, but I tell you now...'
He did not say, “Don’t listen to those guys.� He did not say. “My Church is corrupt and you can take it or leave it.� No instead what He expected was to inform us this was the way He set things up. It is for our own good. He doesn’t really care if there are personalities we don’t like. He didn’t care if we liked those He chose, or if we would rather belong to a group that had a beautiful choir, or if we felt more comfortable hiding behind our own rationalization that we believe in Him but are anti-religion. He knew that would simply become a very convenient way to NOT follow Him rather to follow whatever it is we justified.
As you are justifying the heinous acts and the lack of truth in the teachings of the RCC?
Why in the world do you think that He came to set up the exact same system that was meant only as a tutor to lead us to Christ? He was now the high priest, to whom we must listen. He was now the Temple, into whom we enter, in whom the spirit of God dwells. He is now the mediator (the ONE mediator) between man and God.
He rebuked such notions. We were still expected to obey His Church, as they have been put in charge to safeguard Sacred Scripture.
Please cite the command that states, "You must obey my church (even though you are my church so that makes no sense), since they are in charge of safeguarding sacred scripture."
What do you suppose would have happened if the Popes and the Bishops had stood up and spoken the truth instead of participating in those un-christ-like tribunals and persecutions
I’m sure some of them did.
Not the pope or anyone in charge, obviously.
In fact, like was explained, but you ignored, was the original purpose of the inquisitions were to give people a say/a fair trial and not just allow the state to chop their heads off like the state would have preferred.
Who taught that they should be put on trial to begin with? Is that what Christ taught? If not, then why did they not stand up and teach the truth, as Christ taught? What would have happened if they did?
(giving approval to them, albeit a 'less unfair' version of them)? What do you suppose would have happened if they announced that Christians (the Body of Christ) do NOT persecute or punish or judge and condemn anyone? What if they, in no uncertain terms, taught what Christ taught instead? Did as Christ did instead?
Uuummmm . . . have you read Deuteronomy?
Indeed, but so?
You do realize that your justifications mean that the Church started out knowing what to do with 'heretics' (do not listen to them)... but somehow they later allowed themselves to become barbaric and uncivilized, completely ignoring the examples they were 'safeguarding' in sacred scripture. What makes you think these barbaric and uncivilized people who had so fallen away from Christ and His teachings - fallen so far away from the teachings that the apostles knew, that the early disciples knew, that 'sacred scripture' recorded - what makes you think they could have taught anything true during this time period from Christ with regard to doctrine?
And if a heretic is someone teaching a different message from the RCC, what do you call someone who teaches a different message than Christ?
Quote:
Quote:
Did Christ ever do those things or instruct His apostles to do those things?
Quote:
Can you explain this?
Did God ever tell the Israelites to have slaves and stone people to death? Yet in Scripture we see . . .
Once again you conveniently sidestep the question. You do this because the answer is no, and because the answer is no, it clearly shows that the RCC did
not teach the truth on these matters.
these so-called representatives of God and of Christ did not teach the truth; and disobeyed the very command that Christ gave them "Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you."
Actually, they did not.
Yes, they did. This is black and white. They did
not teach disciples to obey all that Christ had commanded. They did not even teach WHAT Christ commanded.
You keep making excuses for them, but this is not a statement of judgment, this is just a fact.
Quote:
It is the Church who speaks out against oppression throughout the world. It is the Church who has always fought for those who do not have a voice. It is the Church who protects the most vulnerable among us
You cannot be serious.
I am serious. You once again think Christ’s Church can’t be Christ’s Church because sometimes human beings get it wrong. Now it’s my turn – you can’t be serious.
You conveniently left out the many examples of the RCC
doing this oppressing, silencing those who do not have a voice, and harming the most vulnerable among us. And you wave that all away with a 'sometimes human beings get it wrong'.
I am sorry, RR, but the RCC is not from Christ.
Yes, she is. This would be like saying, “I’m sorry Moses, you are not God’s leader and messenger. Those 10 commandments you are holding do not come from God. How do we know? Because you are an ordinary man who has sinned� Even though the fact that God intended to speak thru Moses can be confirmed from history, the miracles God did thru Moses, and the fruits we see that came from Moses’ leadership all prove Moses was sent by God for His people to hear.
We can see who the RCC is from by her fruits as well.
Your position is illogical and unscriptural.
I have used scripture to support all that I have shared; and faith. Looking to men and thinking it impossible that Christ could Himself lead His church is lacking in faith.
To simply claim the church is the Body of Believers who “follow� Christ is a generic useless convenient ideology.
The Church is the Body of Christ, with Christ as her Head, Leader, Master, Teacher, King and Lord.
This is exactly what scripture records as well.
Tina from Detroit uses Scripture to show we have to wash each others feet every day if we want to be saved as Jesus instructed the Apostles.
He did not instruct His followers to wash others feet
every day, but we ARE to do all that He commanded the apostles, so yes, we are indeed supposed to wash each others feet.
As He said,
"If anyone loves me, they will obey my commands. My father will love them, and we will come and make our home with him."
Ben from Atlanta uses Scripture to support polygamy and justify his having multiple wives.
Scripture might support that.. but are we supposed to be listening to scripture, or to Christ?
"This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."
Ken from Chicago swears he has read Scripture and has been inspired by the Holy Spirit and believes baptism is only valid if we use pure Spring water from the alps.
Did Christ teach this? Did Christ and everyone else get baptized in pure spring water from the alps? If Ken from Chicago believes baptism is only valid with pure spring water from the alps, then by all means, Ken from Chicago can get baptized with pure spring water from the alps. What does this have to do with anyone else? Or are you suggesting that people should be listening to Ken from Chicago?
Madge from Texas believes the Trinity is a falsehood. Tim from Rhode Island believes the Trinity is true. Julie believes in hell. Shawn believes hell does not exist. They ALL claim to be followers of Christ. They all have tested what they believe. They all are sincere truth seekers. And THAT is what your notion of the church gives us – NOTHING.
Using your same example, multiple religions claim to be the true religion; multiple religions claim to have the sign of the true church and use scripture to support their claim; these multiple religions all teach and believe different things, while claiming to be based upon scripture and/or holy spirit.
How can we know which is true and which is not?
By testing such things against Christ, the Light, and listening to Him. Putting HIM first, loving Him most.
Same as with individual people who are claiming this or that from Him.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy