Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[JehovahsWitness]

Not that I have any problem with Paradise on earth

Well that's excellent, because paradise on earth is what we believe and what most of Jehovah's Witnesses look forward to. There are those (not you) that look down their noses as us for believing this and even mock us, implying that such a thing is impossible, so its good to find common ground.

You say you have no "problem" with it since Jesus will be living on earth (correct me if I'm wrong). Do you believe there will be any humans on this earth while Jesus is living on it?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 654 by JehovahsWitness]

Do you see the point? Closeness, nearness, a relationship, intimacy with God or Jesus isn't a matter of location, its a matter of heart

Isn't that kind of 'nearness' what His Body has with Him even now? And this is amazing.

I believe it is yes. That is possible due to the holy spirit and location distance does not weaken or dilute it. Our problem is not location our problem is sin, and once that is removed, we will enjoy the closest of relationships with our maker, whereever he may be.

I apologize if my statement "I believe it is" was ambigous. I meant I believe it is "amazing" .

When I asked if that nearness would be the same as what we experienced now, you said you believed it would be.

You did not ask if the nearness would "be the same" you asked if it is not the same kind" of nearness certain enjoy now; I took that to mean of the same nature. For the record yes it is the same "kind" of nearness. Kind as in type. It will not be identical, for the reasons I outlined in the very post you are refeing to. Obviously if (as I pointed out) sin will be removed, the relationships will not be identical to that which was enjoyed prior to that. I thought that was self evident, apparently not.

[tam]

[Replying to post 672 by JehovahsWitness]

I apologize if my statement "I believe it is" was ambigous. I meant I believe it is "amazing" .

Ah, thank you for clearing that up.

I may have to continue our conversation tomorrow. But I did not want to sign off, and leave you hanging.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

They were in response to your suggestions about the 'mother' analogy.

Yes, I got that. I’m afraid you missed the point. You tried to explain that we should put God above brother and sister, mother and family. To which I replied of course – God always comes first. But just because mothers are human beings and might sin does NOT mean we aren’t supposed to obey our parents. THAT too is one of God’s commands. He did NOT say obey your parents when it suits you. Or stick with my Church when it suits you. God set up an earthly Church that we are supposed to listen to BECAUSE God will be speaking to us through His Church. Otherwise, why would He have established a church?


Does this command “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." negate this command, “Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you�

Of course not! It is odd to me to not get that.

How easy it would have been for God’s people to have abandoned His ways because they were fed up with the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and those in charge. How convenient to claim I don’t have to do what the Church says because some clergy within the Church are jerks. This is the kind of thing God wanted to prevent in declaring ONE authoritative Church!

And if listening to the one who claims to be His Church means disobeying His other commands? You don't see a conflict there?

This is what you aren’t getting. No one is saying a person ought to disobey God’s commands. Just because others might, doesn’t mean you should. Also, His Church is not saying to disobey God’s command. That too is the point – the Church does not contradict Scripture or Christ. It was not a teaching of the Church to kill people or abuse people. Some sinful people within the Church did that on their own and not from some command by God.

Quote:
Quote:
The WTS teaches the vast majority of her people NOT to eat or drink the body and blood of Christ. Even though Christ said TO eat and TO drink; and that unless one does this one has no life in oneself. Her children listen to her teaching, but not to His teaching.


Yes, we are in agreement. A clear command/desire of our Lord that we both agree the JW’s get wrong.


Because they are listening to their 'church', even if that means listening to 'her' over Christ.

No, because they are missing Christ’s commands, just like yourself with regards to something like Confession and the list could go on. They should be listening to what Christ via His Church has commanded us. But once one leaves Christ’s Church such is impossible. At that point a person is simply choosing which doctrines of men he/she has decided to follow. At that point it is more a matter of choosing a church where we like the community, or the music or the entertaining pastor, or whose teachings are more in line with what we personally like and agree with. Certainly you can see how problematic that is.

I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton’s words, “I don’t want a church to be right when I am right. I want a church to be right when I am wrong�.

So how do you know your church is getting it right with regard to Confession?

If we didn’t stick with Christ’s established Church then there is no way we could know if we are getting it right now. Too many sincere individuals have sat down with the Bible and come to different conclusions regarding what it means. God Knew this was the problem of human nature. Precisely why He established ONE, authoritative Church!

NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE!

My Church is the Body of Christ, of which I am part. There are no clergy or laity. Christ is our head, our teacher; our Leader; the cornerstone upon whom we build our faith; our Master and Lord.

That is unscriptural as Christ established a Church with a leader and Scripture even shows us that is exactly what the first Christians understood to be the case, as they took their matters to the Church.

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector�

There was a hierarchical set up from the beginning. Sorry if some off shoots and splinter groups of Christ’s established Church thinks Christ’s set up needed tweaking, but it is clear from Scripture what was God’s intent.

We do not have to come to someone else so that our sins are forgiven (nor does anyone else need to do so - since one can repent and ask Christ directly to forgive them)

Again, to believe that is contrary to Scripture and contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

If they could obey Christ two thousand years ago; why could they not obey Him during the middle ages? Did Christ say, 'don't worry about my commands in the middle ages', or 'you only have to obey my commands when it is easy to do so'?

You can’t be serious with this response. You don’t think people 2000 years ago even at the onset of the establishment of Christ’s Church screwed up and did things Christ didn’t want them to? Do you honestly think the early church did not too have its share of corruption? As long as the Church is made up of human beings there will be sin among its members.

Your whole defense of the Catholic Church can’t be the true church because of things like the Inquisition or sexual abuse is illogical. Seeing how throughout history God has chosen leaders and men He has appointed to spread His message who were not themselves or perfect and who themselves sinned greatly.

What difference does it make what people were interested in? Did Christ state that it is okay to disobey Him if people opposed the status quo? What is the point of Him saying that we must love our enemies, bless those who curse us, do good to those who persecute us... if we get to discard that when we have enemies, in this case enemies who are threatening the status quo?

Wow! I am asking you to try to understand. I am not condoning sin, but I would think all of us can understand how or why people can fall into sin. Can you honestly not understand how a woman could have an abortion? Yes! It is a horrible act to murder the life of an innocent human being and always wrong, but we certainly can try to understand why a woman might rationalize her behavior in doing so. You do realize sincere Christians could have read these passages from Scripture back in the day and tried to rationalize or in some warped sense think they were justified in their actions. That was my point about the comments of the Medieval Ages . . .



***********************************************
The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."


It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.


These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.


The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-inquisition

I... guess I am not surprised at the response. Indeed, it is the only response possible if one is to maintain the belief that the RCC has the approval of Christ no matter what; no matter what she does or says; no matter how far she strays from Him, no matter how many lies she teaches, no matter how much she disobeys Him and teaches others to follow her in her disobedience. No matter how much reproach (rather than glory) she brings upon Christ and upon His Father.

STRAWMAN! No one is saying Christ approves everything faulty men within the Church do. I am saying only what Christ Himself said and that is that He would remain with His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But you and others must not have trusted Christ enough or took Him at His word. Instead, you joined splinter groups that long ago broke off from Christ’s Church.

No, those were the words that He told the Jews (who were under the law still) with regard to the Pharisees and teachers of the law. But that system of worship was torn down with the temple; and no one was then to 'do as they say and not as they do'.

The New Testament did not do away with the Old. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT.

We are to do as CHRIST says. And to do as Christ does.

So why don’t you? Why don’t you confess your sins to the Church who Christ gave the power to forgive sins? Why don’t you believe in the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist? Why don’t you listen to His Church? Do you honor His Mother, Mary? Because Christ did. Aren’t you to do as He did?

Besides, are you suggesting that the RCC did not say to her members that the Inquisition or any forced conversion of adults or children - or any war that they were told to fight... was holy and being done in the name of Christ and God?

I am suggesting there were probably a great number of people within the Church who engaged in and encouraged it, just as I’m sure there were a great number of Southern plantation owners who owned slaves even though clearly slavery is not what God commanded or desired. We are a barbaric, uncivilized people, and often God has to meet us where we are. How do you convince an ignorant person of their ignorance? It takes time.

It is absolutely necessary to trust God – to trust Him when He tells us to listen to His Church. There were many Saints who knew some terrible things were going on in the Church and they set out to change those things, but they knew the proper thing to do was remain in Christ’s Church – not bail on her – not bail on Christ’s promise to us, think we know better, think we could do better on our own. Because IF we leave His Church, we leave Him. And there is no way you could know you are getting it right after that.

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Yep! Everything. So why do you not obey His command to listen to His Church?

You claim you don’t know the Catholic Church is His Church. Again, a topic for another thread, but history, Scripture, meeting the requirements (four marks as mentioned in Scripture) we can know the Catholic Church is His Church. It is the only Church established by Jesus Christ Himself and has an unbroken chain of succession ever since. How do you determine your church is Christ’s Church? Can your church err when it comes to teachings on matters of faith and morals? If so, what good is it? I need to know what God wants of us. I want to do the will of my Father. How can so many of us have different ideas about what is the will of God? Surely, God would not have left us on our own. I want to know Truth and if you believe something opposite of what I do, by the definition of truth, we both can’t be right. Which one of us is right?

Many Christians think the details don’t matter as long as we all love Christ, but how can that be? Of course the details matter. God knows every hair on our heads -- to think it doesn’t matter if John Doe believes the Holy Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Jesus and Jane Smith believes it is merely a symbol doesn’t matter is a little silly don’t you think?

There are so many questions in life that quite frankly matter. And I for one want to know what is right and good and which is pleasing to God and which is not. Here are some examples:

My boyfriend and I love each other, is it ok if we move in together?

My fiancé and I are engaged and planning to marry in a few months, does it matter if we have sex before we get married?

I’ve been having trouble conceiving, is IVF ok? Is it moral?

I am 17 and unwed, is it ok if I have an abortion?

My husband and I don’t want to have children, is it ok if I am on the pill?

My husband and I already have 3 children, is it ok if we use a condom so we don’t have anymore?

I have a same sex attraction, is it wrong to be with the person I love?

Does it matter if I am too tired and don’t want to go to church on Sunday?

Does it matter if my husband and I watch pornography to spice up our sex life?

Is Baptism necessary? Can I just profess my faith?

Does it matter if I believe hell does not exist?

Does it matter if I believe Jesus was really Michael the arch angel?

Does it matter if I don’t believe in angels?

My Church has answers for all of these questions. What happens when sincere Christians who love God want to know the answers to these questions? Do they just read the Bible on their own and hope they get it right? What if they are confused and don’t know? Is there a place for them to go with questions and for answers? Who would go to a church that doesn’t even claim to have the correct answers?

He did not set up a mediator between men and Him.

Then you don’t know Scripture or revelation.

******************************************************

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.
This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.


In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men...� Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…� And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.� What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.� That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.� This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…�
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... od-and-men

Christ speaks to everyone.

Not what I asked.

Christ is God's voice. He is the Word of God. He spoke to more than just the apostles (as evidenced in what is written) He said His sheep would hear His voice.

Then listen to HIM! And do as He commanded – listen to His Church!

Sincere truth seeker #1: reads scripture, prays, listens to Christ and concludes Christ believes a person should not be baptized until he/she reaches the age of reason.

Sincere truth seeker #2: reads scripture, prays, listens to Christ and concludes Christ believes in infant baptism.

Who is correct? Does it matter? Does truth matter? Can there be 2 truths?

An audible voice that teaches people to disobey Christ?

No. An ordinary man who when speaking officially for the Church cannot make a mistake regarding teachings on matters of the faith and morals. Can he be wrong about things in his own life? You bet! He can even be wrong about religious matters if he isn’t declaring what he is saying as something that must be taken as a matter of faith from the Church. Popes are entitled to their thoughts and views regarding theology and even entitled to opinions about political matters. But they cannot nor would not make a papal statement when speaking ex cathedra that is wrong. Christ gave us His word on that and that is the point!

What good is that voice?

I believe I already explained this and would have to ask you, What good is your church’s set up? Where is the authority? Where is the infallibility? If a person is only going to accept or believe part of what their church teaches, why accept or believe any of it?

I will stick with listening to Christ. He has never led me wrong; and He has never taught me to disobey Him.

But you aren’t listening to Christ if you aren’t listening to His Church!

Why would He contradict His own words by making one of them leader over the others?

God made many people His chosen leaders. Do you read Scripture?

(I will check out your links when I have time, and if there is something in them to respond to, I may start a new thread on it)

Please do, especially if you are sincerely interested in the primacy of Peter. It is something all the first Christians believed. So what changed? Perhaps, needing to rationalize one’s split from Christ’s Church.

I believe I asked if Christ was the Truth. I believe also that you said 'scripture is not the pillar and foundation of Truth' ; )

How do you explain why Scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth?

Quote:

The corrupt sinners within the Church weren’t, but the Church was always there teaching the truth and praying for the hurt and oppressed. I have a friend who was sexually assaulted by a priest as a little girl. I asked her how did it not shake her faith? And she said, even as a child she was able to make a distinction between the bad priest and the Church. She said she knew if she left the Church she would be leaving Christ too and she just couldn’t do it.


Ahh! See?

Yes, I see. Do you? She recognizes believing and following Christ’s established Church is not negated by evil members within the Church. Truth is truth.

Peace again to you, RR, and to your dear household,

Thank you – you as well.

[tam]

[Replying to tam]

They were in response to your suggestions about the 'mother' analogy.

Yes, I got that. I’m afraid you missed the point. You tried to explain that we should put God above brother and sister, mother and family. To which I replied of course – God always comes first.

To be accurate, we were speaking about Christ. We must love Christ more than mother, brother, sister, etc. And then I shared more from Him, about how we will obey HIS commands if we love HIM.

The two - loving Him MOST and so obeying HIS commands - are connected.

Does this command “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." negate this command, “Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God has commanded you�

Of course not! It is odd to me to not get that.

I agree, it does not negate that command. But what if your mother or father tells you that you are not to follow Christ? What if your mother or father tells you to do disobey Christ? To commit a crime? To curse someone instead of bless them?

Who do you listen to then?

And if listening to the one who claims to be His Church means disobeying His other commands? You don't see a conflict there?

This is what you aren’t getting. No one is saying a person ought to disobey God’s commands. Just because others might, doesn’t mean you should. Also, His Church is not saying to disobey God’s command. That too is the point – the Church does not contradict Scripture or Christ. It was not a teaching of the Church to kill people or abuse people. Some sinful people within the Church did that on their own and not from some command by God.

But that is not true. The Inquisition (in its many various forms over hundreds of years) operated under the authority of that church.

Before 1100, the Catholic Church suppressed what they believed to be heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but without using torture,[2] and seldom resorting to executions.[14][15] Such punishments were opposed by a number of clergymen and theologians, although some countries punished heresy with the death penalty.[16] [17]

In the 12th century, to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics became more frequent. The Church charged councils composed of bishops and archbishops with establishing inquisitions (the Episcopal Inquisition). The first Inquisition was temporarily established in Languedoc (south of France) in 1184. The murder of Pope Innocent's papal legate Pierre de Castelnau in 1208 sparked the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1229). The Inquisition was permanently established in 1229, run largely by the Dominicans[18] in Rome and later at Carcassonne in Languedoc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

The papal inquisition developed a number of procedures to discover and prosecute heretics. These codes and procedures detailed how an inquisitorial court was to function. If the accused renounced their heresy and returned to the Church, forgiveness was granted and a penance was imposed. If the accused upheld their heresy, they were excommunicated and turned over to secular authorities. The penalties for heresy, though not as severe as the secular courts of Europe at the time, were codified within the ecclesiastic courts as well (e.g. confiscation of property, turning heretics over to the secular courts for punishment).[21] Additionally, the various "key terms" of the inquisitorial courts were defined at this time, including, for example, "heretics," “believers," “those suspect of heresy," “those simply suspected," “those vehemently suspected," and "those most vehemently suspected".[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition


We could even leave out torture or imprisonment or handing 'heretics' over to be executed. The clergy absolutely persecuted those "deemed" heretics and punished them if they did not repent (and even if they did, albeit to a lesser degree).

But Christ said this:

They will put you out of the synagogues. In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me.


Christ said this is how His servants would BE treated. He did not say that this is how His servants would treat OTHERS.

They (jws) should be listening to what Christ via His Church has commanded us.

Oh... that is exactly what they believe they are doing; same as you believe you are doing it. The only difference is who you each believe that church to be. But you are doing the exact same thing.

But once one leaves Christ’s Church such is impossible.

Leaving the RCC or the WTS does not mean leaving Christ (as such it cannot mean leaving His Church)

At that point a person is simply choosing which doctrines of men he/she has decided to follow. At that point it is more a matter of choosing a church where we like the community, or the music or the entertaining pastor, or whose teachings are more in line with what we personally like and agree with. Certainly you can see how problematic that is.

I can. Indeed, when I began looking for the true religion, seeking truth, convinced that there must be some sect/church/group out there who came closest to what I believed to be true... I was looking for those that agreed with what I believed.

It is my Lord who corrected me. He asked me, "is something true because it agrees with you?"

The moment I heard His question, I knew that I was doing wrong. Nothing is true just because it agrees with me. (and I never cared about community, music, entertaining pastors, etc... I cared about TRUTH)

Something is true if it comes from HIM - if HE teaches it - if it is in agreement with HIM.

He is the Truth.

So I stopped looking elsewhere for Truth; and instead followed and listened to Him. As God said,

"This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to Him."

So how do you know your church is getting it right with regard to Confession?

Well, tell me what is wrong in accordance with His words?

If we didn’t stick with Christ’s established Church then there is no way we could know if we are getting it right now.

That is simply wrong. WE can hold all things up to the Light that is CHRIST.

My Church is the Body of Christ, of which I am part. There are no clergy or laity. Christ is our head, our teacher; our Leader; the cornerstone upon whom we build our faith; our Master and Lord.

That is unscriptural as Christ established a Church with a leader and Scripture even shows us that is exactly what the first Christians understood to be the case, as they took their matters to the Church.

No one understood that Christ had established a Church with one of the apostles (peter) over the others. Because He never did that.

And just because some took matters to the apostles does not mean that Christ is not the leader. Some men had gone out and taught false things CLAIMING to be FROM the apostles. The apostles set the record straight, though Paul (who listened to Christ) knew at once that the new 'teaching' was false and confronted those false teachers about it.

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector�

There was a hierarchical set up from the beginning.

This verse that you present is not evidence of any sort of hierarchical set up. Look at the whole context:

If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


1 - confront your brother privately for any sin he has committed against you

If he fails to listen to you then,

2 - bring a couple others along with you

IF he fails to listen to these couple/few others, then,

3 - bring it to the rest of the church


Not to some authority in the church (whatever the RCC has or the judical committee that the WTS has), but to the church itself (the people). Start with just you and your brother, then move on to you and your brother and a couple others, then move on to you and your brother and the rest of the church.

We do not have to come to someone else so that our sins are forgiven (nor does anyone else need to do so - since one can repent and ask Christ directly to forgive them)

Again, to believe that is contrary to Scripture and contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"

Leaving out the whole 'peter is the rock' thing... (although just because Peter was given said keys does not mean that the other apostles were not also given said keys).

Just because one is given power to forgive sins does not mean that sins cannot be forgiven by Christ. It does not mean that one HAS to go to Peter (or the apostles) or to anyone in the Church. It means only that these ones who have the power to forgive sins CAN forgive sins.

Concluding that one HAS to go to them in order to be forgiven is a logical error.

If they could obey Christ two thousand years ago; why could they not obey Him during the middle ages? Did Christ say, 'don't worry about my commands in the middle ages', or 'you only have to obey my commands when it is easy to do so'?

You can’t be serious with this response.

I am quite serious with this response. You are the one who suggested that I keep in mind that these were the middle ages.

Your whole defense of the Catholic Church can’t be the true church because of things like the Inquisition or sexual abuse is illogical.

These were a couple of examples of how the RCC was not a beacon of light; not listening to Christ; indeed could not even have known Him and done/supported/instigated such things.

(sexual abuse was not something ever taught by the RCC, and I did not use it as a reason that the RCC is not the 'church')

***********************************************
The Bible itself records instances where God commanded that formal, legal inquiries—that is, inquisitions—be carried out to expose secret believers in false religions. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5 God said: "If there is found among you, within any of your towns which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently [note that phrase: "inquire diligently"], and if it is true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones."

So? We are not under the law. We are not supposed to be listening to the OT. We - the servants and brothers of Christ - are supposed to be listening to Christ.

Surely the RCC knew this?

It is clear that there were some Israelites who posed as believers in and keepers of the covenant with Yahweh, while inwardly they did not believe and secretly practiced false religions, and even tried to spread them (cf. Deut. 13:6–11). To protect the kingdom from such hidden heresy, these secret practitioners of false religions had to be rooted out and expelled from the community. This directive from the Lord applied even to whole cities that turned away from the true religion (Deut. 13:12–18). Like Israel, medieval Europe was a society of Christian kingdoms that were formally consecrated to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is therefore quite understandable that these Catholics would read their Bibles and conclude that for the good of their Christian society they, like the Israelites before them, "must purge the evil from the midst of you" (Deut. 13:5, 17:7, 12). Paul repeats this principle in 1 Corinthians 5:13.

It might be understandable that men who did not know Christ (and so did not know God) would do such a thing.

How can the Bride not know that she should be listening to Christ?

These same texts were interpreted similarly by the first Protestants, who also tried to root out and punish those they regarded as heretics. Luther and Calvin both endorsed the right of the state to protect society by purging false religion. In fact, Calvin not only banished from Geneva those who did not share his views, he permitted and in some cases ordered others to be executed for "heresy" (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547; and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553). In England and Ireland, Reformers engaged in their own ruthless inquisitions and executions. Conservative estimates indicate that thousands of English and Irish Catholics were put to death—many by being hanged, drawn, and quartered—for practicing the Catholic faith and refusing to become Protestant. An even greater number were forced to flee to the Continent for their safety. We point this out to show that the situation was a two-way street; and both sides easily understood the Bible to require the use of penal sanctions to root out false religion from Christian society.

This just puts the Protestants in the exact same boat as the Catholics. Neither looking to or knowing Christ (and God). Both disobeying Christ, teachings their members to disobey Christ, and telling their members that these deeds were God-approved.

The fact that the Protestant Reformers also created inquisitions to root out Catholics and others who did not fall into line with the doctrines of the local Protestant sect shows that the existence of an inquisition does not prove that a movement is not of God. Protestants cannot make this claim against Catholics without having it backfire on themselves. Neither can Catholics make such a charge against Protestants. The truth of a particular system of belief must be decided on other grounds.

I am not a protestant. Or a catholic.

I belong only to my Lord.

(And the fact that the protestants did exactly the same as the catholics simply shows that they did not leave the rcc completely, but carried within them some of the former teachings/ways/doctrines/etc, that they learned from the rcc. Having left one 'daughter', instead of coming to and remaining in Christ and Christ alone, they simply returned to the former thing, formed and entered into union with another 'daughter'.)

No, those were the words that He told the Jews (who were under the law still) with regard to the Pharisees and teachers of the law. But that system of worship was torn down with the temple; and no one was then to 'do as they say and not as they do'.

The New Testament did not do away with the Old. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT.

Christ is the fulfillment - of the law and of the prophets.

Both of which were meant to point to Him; and now that He is here, we are to listen to Him. Follow HIM.

We are to do as CHRIST says. And to do as Christ does.

So why don’t you?

What is it you are saying that I have not done?

Why don’t you confess your sins to the Church who Christ gave the power to forgive sins?

I have confessed sins I have committed against a 'brother' (in Christ) and asked for their forgiveness.

I have confessed my own sins to Christ and asked His forgiveness.

I ask also that others be forgiven for their sins (against me or others).

So what is it that you think I have done wrong, according to the words of my Lord (of Christ)?

Why don’t you believe in the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

I do just as Christ said in eating the bread (His body) and drinking the wine (His blood).

Why don’t you listen to His Church?

Because God said to listen to His Son.

And because I am His Church (part of her), and so that would be like saying, listen to yourself.

If I am (part of) His Church, I am to listen to Him.

Do you honor His Mother, Mary? Because Christ did.

Define 'honor'.

Aren’t you to do as He did?

Yes, but the RCC seems to do 'honor' Mary more than Christ said to do and did, by elevating her over others who are his 'brother, sister, mother, cousin, etc'. So I'm not sure I can answer your question honestly without first understanding your term.

Besides, are you suggesting that the RCC did not say to her members that the Inquisition or any forced conversion of adults or children - or any war that they were told to fight... was holy and being done in the name of Christ and God?

I am suggesting there were probably a great number of people within the Church who engaged in and encouraged it,

... including the papacy...

just as I’m sure there were a great number of Southern plantation owners who owned slaves even though clearly slavery is not what God commanded or desired.

Why do you keep comparing yourself to others who disobeyed Christ? As if that makes it understandable? As if it doesn't show that you did not have any more guidance than these others; that you were not listening to Christ any more than these others; that you did not have any more truth or light than these others?

How does that bode well for your claim that you are the true Church?

We are a barbaric, uncivilized people, and often God has to meet us where we are. How do you convince an ignorant person of their ignorance? It takes time.

This is not a matter of taking time. Christians have had His words from the start; and the apostles never ordered or took part in persecution of others. Such things were done against them. So it is not like the knowledge was not known from the start and it was just a matter of time (more than a thousand years) for some to learn not to be ignorant.

It is absolutely necessary to trust God – to trust Him when He tells us to listen to His Church. There were many Saints who knew some terrible things were going on in the Church and they set out to change those things, but they knew the proper thing to do was remain in Christ’s Church – not bail on her – not bail on Christ’s promise to us, think we know better, think we could do better on our own. Because IF we leave His Church, we leave Him. And there is no way you could know you are getting it right after that.

This is exactly what the WTS teaches. I hope some of her members are paying attention to this conversation.


But if you think that some of those 'heretics' (or apostates as the WTS would call them) who were executed or imprisoned or ex-communicated, etc, were not actually members of the Body of Christ... then you are not paying attention to His words and warning.

Because He said that such things would be done TO His servants. He never said that His servants would do such things to others.

"Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

Yep! Everything. So why do you not obey His command to listen to His Church?

You keep repeating that; I keep disputing it. I would like you to now post the scripture that shows Him saying this, and we can discuss that.

Can your church err when it comes to teachings on matters of faith and morals? If so, what good is it?

People in the Body of Christ can err. But since we have no leaders except Christ, each of us should be holding all things up to the light that is Christ. His Bride does not say 'listen to me'... but rather listen to Christ. Hold all things up against the Light that is Christ. HE is the Truth. HE is the One who has the words of eternal life. Come to HIM. Follow HIM.

I need to know what God wants of us.

Then listen to His Son.

I want to do the will of my Father.

Then believe in His Son (which means doing as that Son commands).

Surely, God would not have left us on our own.

He did not. He sent His Son, who does not leave us orphans. He is with us.

I want to know Truth

Christ is the Truth. If you want to know Him - if you want Him to reveal Himself to you, if you want Him and His Father to make their home within you, then you must keep His word, obey His teaching/commands.


"If anyone loves me, they will keep MY word. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with(in) them."

and if you believe something opposite of what I do, by the definition of truth, we both can’t be right. Which one of us is right?

True, we cannot both be right. I would suggest that it would be Christ who is right.

If we are discussing things to determine which 'belief or deed' is right, then let us hold all things up against the Light that is Christ.

If it is not against Christ and it is not against love and it is not even against what is written (beginning with what Christ has said, since He is the Truth), then what problem would you (or I) have with it?

We are not the masters of each other's faith.

Many Christians think the details don’t matter as long as we all love Christ, but how can that be? Of course the details matter. God knows every hair on our heads -- to think it doesn’t matter if John Doe believes the Holy Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Jesus and Jane Smith believes it is merely a symbol doesn’t matter is a little silly don’t you think?

I think it matters; but I think the one in error (of understanding) could be forgiven, as long as that one is still obeying the command to DO. When the one in error is able to hear and understand the truth, then Christ could lead them into the truth of that matter.

... specific questions snipped...

My Church has answers for all of these questions.

The WTS also claims to have answers for all of those questions.

Does that mean that the answers either of these two religions provide are true?

He did not set up a mediator between men and Him.

Then you don’t know Scripture or revelation.

I do not. I know ONLY Christ. But HE knows the scriptures and revelation.

In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men...� Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

Of course we are to offer such things. That does not mean that we come to men and then those men go to Christ and then Christ goes to God.

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Yes...

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…� And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.� What is an apostle if not a mediator?

One who is sent forth, as your definitions from Thayer states. Sent forth by Christ to preach Christ (bear witness to Him). It does not mean one who stands BETWEEN a person and Christ. Preventing a person from coming to Christ, themselves.

Christ speaks to everyone.

Not what I asked.

Yes, I do hear His voice.

Christ is God's voice. He is the Word of God. He spoke to more than just the apostles (as evidenced in what is written) He said His sheep would hear His voice.

Then listen to HIM! And do as He commanded – listen to His Church!

I do listen to Him. You are telling me to listen to something else instead.

An audible voice that teaches people to disobey Christ?

No. An ordinary man who when speaking officially for the Church cannot make a mistake regarding teachings on matters of the faith and morals. Can he be wrong about things in his own life? You bet! He can even be wrong about religious matters if he isn’t declaring what he is saying as something that must be taken as a matter of faith from the Church. Popes are entitled to their thoughts and views regarding theology and even entitled to opinions about political matters. But they cannot nor would not make a papal statement when speaking ex cathedra that is wrong. Christ gave us His word on that and that is the point!

What good is that voice?

I believe I already explained this and would have to ask you, What good is your church’s set up? Where is the authority?

Christ is the authority of His Church (His Bride; His Body)

Where is the infallibility?

Only in Christ.

If a person is only going to accept or believe part of what their church teaches, why accept or believe any of it?

I don't know why they would believe any of it (instead of simply believing Christ), but I certainly don't see why they should believe all of it, when they can see that some of it is against what Christ teaches.

We are not to pick and choose what words of Christ we should listen to and which ones we are free to discard.

Why would He contradict His own words by making one of them leader over the others?

God made many people His chosen leaders. Do you read Scripture?

Old testament you mean?

So?

Are we not to listen to Christ?

Christ said that the apostles had ONE leader: Christ, Himself. He did not then appoint one of the apostles over the others.

(I will check out your links when I have time, and if there is something in them to respond to, I may start a new thread on it)

Please do, especially if you are sincerely interested in the primacy of Peter. It is something all the first Christians believed. So what changed? Perhaps, needing to rationalize one’s split from Christ’s Church.

It is not something the first Christians believed. Please do support that with evidence.

I believe I asked if Christ was the Truth. I believe also that you said 'scripture is not the pillar and foundation of Truth' ; )

How do you explain why Scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth?

Is the Church (which has pillars and foundations - such as the apostles - in her) not built upon the Truth... the cornerstone... ie, Christ? The Church OF the Truth (Christ)?


May anyone who seeks and anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"

Peace again to and yours, RR,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

(edited just to fix the quote marks)

[tam]

Peace to you JW,

Not that I have any problem with Paradise on earth

Well that's excellent, because paradise on earth is what we believe and what most of Jehovah's Witnesses look forward to. There are those (not you) that look down their noses as us for believing this and even mock us, implying that such a thing is impossible, so its good to find common ground.

You say you have no "problem" with it since Jesus will be living on earth (correct me if I'm wrong).

I have no problem with the belief that Paradise is upon the earth; because the Holy City does come down out of heaven (paradise with her) and is established upon the earth.

(not that it matters if I have a problem with something - who am I after all? - I just mean I have no problem accepting it)

Do you believe there will be any humans on this earth while Jesus is living on it?

Yes of course. Such as those who reign with Him (His Bride). As well as those who are subjects of the Kingdom (the sheep from the sheep and the goats parable, who are invited into the Kingdom).

These are all in the Kingdom.


(there are also those goats who are outside the Kingdom, in the darkness, but on the earth still... for a time)



Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[RightReason]

[Replying to tam]

Uuum . . . seems like we continue to talk past each other. You chide the Catholic Church for having leaders and hierarchy and honoring Mary, even though all of those things are Scriptural. You claim it should only be about us and Jesus – that there is no need for the Church or priests, etc. And all the while you quote Scripture to me and tell me you are following Jesus. And you fail to see the irony. Do you think Scripture fell from the sky? Yeah, that would be the Church that gave you Scripture. Revelation via Christ’s Church and Sacred Scripture are what have helped you even understand who God is and what He expects of us.

Also, you and WTS have more in common then you keep implying WTS has with the Catholic Church. You both deny the authority of your churches. You claim WTS considers their church the one true governing body, but you fail to recognize that they themselves don’t claim their organization to be error free when it comes to teachings about the faith and morals. And how could they? They have changed their teachings over the years. They have even changed their “acceptable translations� and tell their followers to disregard all previous translations. They have made false prophesies. You both deny the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. You both consider it a mere symbol – contradicting Christ’s exact words in Scripture.

What it boils down to is you do not understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches and you do not seem to understand the logic and importance behind Christ establishing One, Authoritative, and Apostolic Church. You take for granted that your faith today is precisely because my Church has safeguarded Sacred Scripture and implemented the Sacraments to the flock for that last 2000 years – Baptizing and making disciples . . . . Christ himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church.


In concert with His redemptive act, Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church. First, He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said "build," as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles.

Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained."(John 20:23)

Third, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, "Do this in memory of Me." (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to "Make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches.

The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for over 2,000 years.

God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb1.htm


Suppose Jesus had not established a single, visible church with authority to teach in his name. Suppose he had left it up to us. Suppose the Church was our invention instead of his, only human and not divine. Suppose we had to figure out the right doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, the sacraments, Mary, and controversial moral issues like contraception, homosexuality and euthanasia. Who then could ever know with certainty the mind and will of God? How could there then be one Church? There would be 20,000 different churches, each teaching its own opinion.

Instead, we do have one Church, with divine authority. As the Father gave authority to Christ (Jn 5:22; Mt 28:18-20), Christ passed it on to his apostles (Lk 10:16), and they passed it on to the successors they appointed as bishops, the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church. “Authority� does not mean “power� but “right�—“author’s rights.� The Church has authority only because she is under authority, the authority of her Author and Lord. “No one can give himself the mandate and the mission to proclaim the Gospel. The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ’s authority� (CCC 875).

The authority of the Church has been necessary, for example, for us to know the truth of the Trinity. This most distinctively Christian doctrine of all, the one that reveals the nature of God himself, the nature of ultimate reality, was revealed by God clearly only to the Church. It was not clearly revealed to his chosen people, the Jews. It is not clearly defined in the New Testament. God waited to reveal it to the Church.

This authority of the Church, then, is not arrogant but humble, both (a) in its origin, as received from Christ, under Christ; and (b) in its end, which is to serve, as Christ served (see Jn 16)

http://legatus.org/why-did-christ-establish-the-church/


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




Jesus chose the apostles to be the earthly leaders of the Church. He gave them his own authority to teach and to govern—not as dictators, but as loving pastors and fathers. That is why Catholics call their spiritual leaders "father." In doing so we follow Paul’s example: "I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).


Jesus gave Peter special authority among the apostles (John 21:15–17) and signified this by changing his name from Simon to Peter, which means "rock" (John 1:42). He said Peter was to be the rock on which he would build his Church (Matt. 16:18).

In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, Simon’s new name was Kepha (which means a massive rock). Later this name was translated into Greek as Petros (John 1:42) and into English as Peter. Christ gave Peter alone the "keys of the kingdom" (Matt. 16:19) and promised that Peter’s decisions would be binding in heaven. He also gave similar power to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18), but only Peter was given the keys, symbols of his authority to rule the Church on earth in Jesus’ absence.

Christ, the Good Shepherd, called Peter to be the chief shepherd of his Church (John 21:15–17). He gave Peter the task of strengthening the other apostles in their faith, ensuring that they taught only what was true (Luke 22:31–32). Peter led the Church in proclaiming the gospel and making decisions (Acts 2:1– 41, 15:7–12).

Early Christian writings tell us that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome (who from the earliest times have been called by the affectionate title of "pope," which means "papa"), continued to exercise Peter’s ministry in the Church.

All the alternatives to Catholicism are showing themselves to be inadequate: the worn-out secularism that is everywhere around us and that no one any longer finds satisfying, the odd cults and movements that offer temporary community but no permanent home, even the other, incomplete brands of Christianity. As our tired world becomes ever more desperate, people are turning to the one alternative they never really had considered: the Catholic Church. They are coming upon truth in the last place they expected to find it.


Although people try to avoid the hard doctrinal and moral truths the Catholic Church offers them (because hard truths demand that lives be changed), they nevertheless are attracted to the Church. When they listen to the pope and the bishops in union with him, they hear words with the ring of truth—even if they find that truth hard to live by.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-o ... r-of-truth

I agree, it does not negate that command. But what if your mother or father tells you that you are not to follow Christ? What if your mother or father tells you to do disobey Christ? To commit a crime? To curse someone instead of bless them?

Who do you listen to then?

Well then you know that there is something off with your parents, you pray for them and try to get them help, but it doesn’t mean they are no longer your parents. And it also doesn’t mean God’s plan of having parents wasn’t a good idea and exactly the set up He desired for us.

But that is not true. The Inquisition (in its many various forms over hundreds of years) operated under the authority of that church.

Again you really need to go back and study history and this time period. It was actually the government who wanted the Spanish Inquisition, not the Church and there were Popes who complained to Spain about the conduct of the Inquisitions. Heresy at this time in history was less about religion and more about unity and loyalty to the state. I encourage you to do some serious research on the matter.

Also God’s people in the OT had slaves and there were even laws about how they should treat their slaves, but that doesn’t mean slavery was condoned by God. A distinction can be made. The same thing goes for things like the Inquisition during the Medieval age.

Something is true if it comes from HIM - if HE teaches it

And what do you see as Him teaching? Does He teach Baptism? Confession? The immorality of homosexual acts? The existence of hell? The Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist? Blood transfusions as ok? Divorce as ok? IVF? Masturbation? The Trinity? The celebration of Christmas? 77 virgins waiting for us in heaven? The earth as a literal paradise in the here after? Serving in the army? And once you answer all those questions you can tell me how you know you are right, because for every way you respond I can find a sincere Christian believer who thinks God teaches the opposite of what you think He teaches. Quite a conundrum. Gee, if only we had a visible, authoritative earthly voice to guide us. Oh, wait – we do! Because nothing else would make sense!!!!!!

That is simply wrong. WE can hold all things up to the Light that is CHRIST.

Ha,ha,ha . . . yes, that is why we have thousands of splinter groups and off shoots of Christ’s Church all teaching different things. Tell me do you believe in purgatory? How can you know for sure if there is a purgatory or there isn’t? Please enlighten me what the light of Christ reveals to you and then explain to me why the light of Christ reveals something different to someone else? And please tell me how you can distinguish between the Light of Christ, your own thoughts and projections, or deception from Satan (Satan is usually pretty clever. He doesn’t usually show up with a pitch fork and horns. He usually relies on tricking one with almost truth, but changes or slips one lie in there to make it less noticeable. He gets us to thinking the truth is a lie and the lie is truth). So tell me again how you are able to see past this master of lies and not allow yourself to be fooled?

No one understood that Christ had established a Church with one of the apostles (peter) over the others. Because He never did that.

I provided the link that gives all the Scriptural evidence showing He did. Also, like I said it is something the early Church all knew and believed to be true.

Clement of Alexandria


"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).


Tertullian


"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).


The Letter of Clement to James


"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).


Origen


"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


Cyril of Jerusalem


"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).

"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).

"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]" (ibid., 17:27).


Ephraim the Syrian


"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).


Ambrose of Milan


"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).


Pope Damasus I


"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome


"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).


Pope Innocent I


"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).


Augustine


"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).


Council of Ephesus


"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).


Pope Leo I


"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-primacy

Not to some authority in the church. . . , but to the church itself (the people)

Uhh no. The context is quite clear. It starts with us trying to solve our matters privately and ends with if that can’t be done then take it to the Church (beyond the lay people, beyond the one we have the beef with). We are to take it to the Church because the Church has such authority. Jesus told His disciples, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him�. Sins can’t really be forgiven if they aren’t told. This, all I have to do is ask God for forgiveness is a cop out – though I can understand the attraction – seems quite convenient.

We are not supposed to be listening to the OT

Huh? Yes, that is why it is part of Sacred Scripture. Mosaic Law might have changed, but moral law, whether spoken of in the OT or the NT has not changed. The OT is not off limits to us. We have much to learn from it.

It might be understandable that men who did not know Christ (and so did not know God) would do such a thing.

Wow, guess you would tell a woman that had an abortion that she is an evil murderous monster who obviously does not know Christ, less she could never have committed such an atrocity.

I am not a protestant. Or a catholic.

I belong only to my Lord.

Yep, your “Body of Christ� group is just one more of the 1000 other splinter groups who think they are doing it how Christ would want them too only they can never know if they are in fact relying on personal revelation vs revelation from God.

So what is it that you think I have done wrong, according to the words of my Lord (of Christ)?

I think you fail to listen to His established Church, other wise you would recognize the authority of His Church and not see His establishment of One, Authoritative, Apostolic Church with priests and bishops and popes as wrong or bad. I think you fail to trust Christ’s own words, “He who listens to you, listens to me.�, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.�

I think you have not taken His words, “Truly, truly, I say to you my Body is True Food and Blood is true drink� literally as He intended.

I think the, “It’s only about me and Jesus� really means “it’s about me – what I want – what I will accept and what I won’t� The fear of Jesus giving authority to an earthly Church really just comes down to lack of trust in God and fear of obedience.

Because God said to listen to His Son.

And His son says, “He who hears you, hears me.�

Yes, but the RCC seems to do 'honor' Mary more than Christ said to do

The Bible says that Mary’s soul, still very much alive and well as are all souls in heaven, magnifies the Lord (Luke 1:46). The Bible also says (Luke 1:48) that ALL GENERATIONS are to call her blessed (and presumably to really mean it, and not just pay lip service). Like the Old Testament Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:4) which carried manna from heaven, the word of God, and the rod of Aaron that was dead and came back to life, Mary, in her womb carried Jesus who is the bread of life (John 6), the Word made Flesh (John 1), and who also was dead and who came back to life. Her adoptive son, St. John, says in Revelation 11:19 that he sees the long lost Ark of the Covenant. In the next sentence he describes the Ark as “A Woman (Genesis 3:15) clothed with the sun� (Mary appeared as a Woman Clothed with the Sun at Guadalupe, in 1531). Catholics do not worship the very much alive (Matthew 22:32) Mary, but we do ask for her very powerful intercessory prayers (1 Timothy 2:1, James 5:16) alongside of us and Jesus, not between us and Jesus. After all, if we are to imitate Jesus who honored his mother and father, shouldn't we do the same? And if we want Jesus to be our brother, doesn't that automatically make...Mary...our...Mother? And besides all that, we know from Luke 6:43 that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. In Luke 1:42 , we learn that Jesus is the fruit of Mary's womb, so if Jesus is pure and holy, then so must Mary be, although she is not a goddess. Luke 1:30 says that Mary had found favor with God BEFORE conceiving Jesus in her womb. In Luke 1:28 Gabriel calls her "full of grace" before the incarnation; one cannot be full of grace and have any sin, otherwise she would not be full of grace. There is a huge difference between the veneration due to Mary and the saints and the worship to God alone, just like there is a huge difference between the honor you must give your earthly mother and father and the worship due to God alone. And no one gives honor to their earthly father by ignoring or putting down their own mother; Rather, if you truly love your earthly father, then you will honor his wife, your mother, as well. No one would get into your house if they said that they love you, but your mother was a useless "vessel" or "incubator" for you, and had nothing to do with how you turned out. The exact same thing goes for getting into heaven as well.
http://www.catholicbible101.com/whennoncatholicssay.htm

You keep repeating that; I keep disputing it. I would like you to now post the scripture that shows Him saying this, and we can discuss that.

Christ said that the apostles had ONE leader: Christ, Himself. He did not then appoint one of the apostles over the others.

Actually He did. You must not have read my previous link. It’s all in there.

It is not something the first Christians believed. Please do support that with evidence.

Already did. See above. The primacy of Peter wasn’t questioned (it was something all knew and understood) until people like Martin Luther came along and had his own personal erroneous theology he felt like pushing.

Is the Church (which has pillars and foundations - such as the apostles - in her) not built upon the Truth... the cornerstone... ie, Christ? The Church OF the Truth (Christ)?

Yes, Scripture uses the words pillars and foundations because that is what the Church is – a literal, earthly, authoritative institution – not only a body of believers. And you’ll notice Scripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth – not it is built on truth.

Peace again to and yours

Ditto.

[tam]

Peace to you RR,

You quoted a good chunk from various sites in your response to me. I am clipping those out of my response. The content in them merely repeats things that you have said, that I have responded to them in my previous post. The responses are not going to be different just because your points are repeated in various articles.

[Replying to tam]

Uuum . . . seems like we continue to talk past each other. You chide the Catholic Church for having leaders and hierarchy and honoring Mary, even though all of those things are Scriptural.

What I have done, RR, is held up the (claims) of the RCC against the Truth (Christ, the Light). And I believe what I did with regard to Mary is ask you a question about what you meant by 'honor'.

You claim it should only be about us and Jesus – that there is no need for the Church or priests, etc. And all the while you quote Scripture to me and tell me you are following Jesus. And you fail to see the irony. Do you think Scripture fell from the sky? Yeah, that would be the Church that gave you Scripture. Revelation via Christ’s Church and Sacred Scripture are what have helped you even understand who God is and what He expects of us.

Couple of points:

Scripture did not come from the RCC. Sure, the RCC compiled some of what had already been written, and preserved some of that. But the words in what is written did not come from the RCC. So I think the irony is that the institution that compiled/preserved some of these writings, cannot themselves see what is written in them.

And Christ (the Image of God, the Truth, the Word of God) is the One who has shown me who God is, helped me to understand Him, and what HE expects of us.

Also, you and WTS have more in common then you keep implying WTS has with the Catholic Church. You both deny the authority of your churches.

Christ is the authority of His Church (of which I am a part). I do not and have not denied Him.

You claim WTS considers their church the one true governing body,

As you consider about yours.

but you fail to recognize that they themselves don’t claim their organization to be error free when it comes to teachings about the faith and morals. And how could they? They have changed their teachings over the years. They have even changed their “acceptable translations� and tell their followers to disregard all previous translations. They have made false prophesies.

I have not failed to recognize this. They are taught that they must remain in their 'church' no matter what, because it is God's visible organization on earth. Even if that organization gets things wrong, they must remain because there is 'nowhere else to go'.

That is exactly what you are taught about the RCC.

What it boils down to is you do not understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches

Disagreeing with (and pointing out where it is in contradiction with Christ) does not equal not understanding it.

and you do not seem to understand the logic and importance behind Christ establishing One, Authoritative, and Apostolic Church. You take for granted that your faith today is precisely because my Church has safeguarded Sacred Scripture and implemented the Sacraments to the flock for that last 2000 years – Baptizing and making disciples . . . . Christ himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church.

I do not owe my faith in Christ (and God) to the RCC 'safeguarding of sacred scripture'.

My faith is a gift.

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets: ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to Me John 6:45

I agree, it does not negate that command. But what if your mother or father tells you that you are not to follow Christ? What if your mother or father tells you to do disobey Christ? To commit a crime? To curse someone instead of bless them?

Who do you listen to then?

Well then you know that there is something off with your parents, you pray for them and try to get them help, but it doesn’t mean they are no longer your parents. And it also doesn’t mean God’s plan of having parents wasn’t a good idea and exactly the set up He desired for us.

That is not the question I asked.

But that is not true. The Inquisition (in its many various forms over hundreds of years) operated under the authority of that church.

Again you really need to go back and study history and this time period. It was actually the government who wanted the Spanish Inquisition, not the Church and there were Popes who complained to Spain about the conduct of the Inquisitions. Heresy at this time in history was less about religion and more about unity and loyalty to the state. I encourage you to do some serious research on the matter.

There are more inquisitions than just the Spanish one. I provided information in my previous post to support my statement. What you (or anyone reading) does with that is up to you.

Also God’s people in the OT had slaves and there were even laws about how they should treat their slaves, but that doesn’t mean slavery was condoned by God. A distinction can be made. The same thing goes for things like the Inquisition during the Medieval age.

The same thing does NOT go and I don't even know how you can draw the same parallel.

God's people in the OT were given laws about how they should treat their slaves.

Christ gave specific instructions AGAINST such things as inquisitions, persecution of others... such as turning the other cheek, blessing those who curse you, etc, etc. He never gave anyone specific instructions about how they should treat heretics and apostates except for those things listed above. And these:

He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. Luke 21:8

"Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. Matt 24:23


And I made this point a couple of times in my previous post:

Christ said that such things would be done TO His servants. He NEVER said that HIS SERVANTS would DO such things to OTHERS.

Can you not SEE what that SAYS about your organization?

Something is true if it comes from HIM - if HE teaches it

And what do you see as Him teaching? Does He teach Baptism? Confession? The immorality of homosexual acts? The existence of hell? The Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist? Blood transfusions as ok? Divorce as ok? IVF? Masturbation? The Trinity? The celebration of Christmas? 77 virgins waiting for us in heaven? The earth as a literal paradise in the here after? Serving in the army? And once you answer all those questions you can tell me how you know you are right, because for every way you respond I can find a sincere Christian believer who thinks God teaches the opposite of what you think He teaches. Quite a conundrum. Gee, if only we had a visible, authoritative earthly voice to guide us. Oh, wait – we do! Because nothing else would make sense!!!!!!

Is what I said untrue? Because if it is not untrue... if in fact it is TRUE... why are you arguing against it? Why are you trying to say that it does not make sense?

Could it be a lack of faith?

Because the RCC is no test of truth. I should think that is obvious. The RCC - whom you believe gave the rest of us sacred scripture - cannot manage to even follow the words of Christ as recorded in those scriptures.

That is simply wrong. WE can hold all things up to the Light that is CHRIST.

Ha,ha,ha . . .

You laugh... but if the RCC had done that at the time of the inquisition (or even with regard to some of their own teachings/doctrines/practices that are not what Christ taught), then many who were persecuted and imprisoned, and robbed, punished, etc, would not have suffered. At least not at the hands of the supposed "church".

yes, that is why we have thousands of splinter groups and off shoots of Christ’s Church all teaching different things.

We have thousands of splinter groups and offshoots of the RCC because,

A - some people saw the false things (either in teachings or deeds) of the RCC; and recognized that Christ - the LIGHT - could not be in her.

B - some heard Christ calling them out, and a few even came to and remained in Him.

C - some, coming out (for either of the reasons above), did not come out and remain in Christ. Instead, they simply created (or joined) another daughter (sect/denomination). Thereby being unfaithful to Christ, the one they claim to be their King, but against whom they commit adultery with other kings (of the earth) - be those kings political or religious or whatever.

D - the same things have happened with each subsequent daughter formed.


And of course some are kicked out... and they too might form another daughter, if they do not simply turn to atheism - OR - come to Christ and remain in Him.

Tell me do you believe in purgatory? How can you know for sure if there is a purgatory or there isn’t? Please enlighten me what the light of Christ reveals to you and then explain to me why the light of Christ reveals something different to someone else? And please tell me how you can distinguish between the Light of Christ, your own thoughts and projections, or deception from Satan (Satan is usually pretty clever. He doesn’t usually show up with a pitch fork and horns. He usually relies on tricking one with almost truth, but changes or slips one lie in there to make it less noticeable. He gets us to thinking the truth is a lie and the lie is truth). So tell me again how you are able to see past this master of lies and not allow yourself to be fooled?

How about you ask all those questions of yourself?

I know there is no 'catholic' purgatory because Christ did not and does not teach it.

The LIGHT (that IS Christ) does not reveal different things to different people. But that does not stop people from making claims, nor does that stop people from erring.

Which is why we are not to listen to men... but rather to Christ.

In any case, I know (from my Lord) to test the inspired expressions against Him (who IS the Truth and the Light), against love (since God is love), and against what is written (beginning with what Christ has said). If something is against the words and deeds of my Lord, against love, and against what He has taught me... then I know that it is not true.

But I responded to that in the last post.

As for the Adversary masquerading as an angel of light, you might want to take a look at your own house for that. If you are just going to remain in and follow the RCC no matter what evil they might do, simply because they claim to be the church that Christ established (even though their words and deeds are in contradiction with His own)... well... that doesn't make much sense to me. Seems like a perfect recipe to getting fooled into believing that a lie is the truth.

No one understood that Christ had established a Church with one of the apostles (peter) over the others. Because He never did that.

I provided the link that gives all the Scriptural evidence showing He did. Also, like I said it is something the early Church all knew and believed to be true.

I have no doubt that the early RCC believed this to be true, but so what? There were false teachers right from the start. But what you said is that the first Christians knew and believed this to be true. You have zero scriptural evidence of that; and indeed, all of your quotes (that I have snipped due to length), are from people who lived between 200 and 450 AD.

Not a single one of those is from any of the first Christians.

Not to some authority in the church. . . , but to the church itself (the people)

Uhh no. The context is quite clear. It starts with us trying to solve our matters privately and ends with if that can’t be done then take it to the Church (beyond the lay people, beyond the one we have the beef with).

It doesn't say 'beyond the lay people'. You are adding to His words.

We are to take it to the Church because the Church has such authority. Jesus told His disciples, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him�. Sins can’t really be forgiven if they aren’t told.

A - we take it to the church so that the person who sinned against (you), can be (hopefully) convinced by the members in that church that they did indeed do wrong. After failing to convince that person yourself, and then failing to convince that person with just two or three others. It had nothing to do with being forgiven by the church.

B - as to what you have said: Do you have something from Christ stating, 'sins can't be forgiven if they aren't told'... coupled with... 'sins can't be forgiven if they aren't told to the church'? I'd like you to present those scriptures please.

Because you keep failing to understand that just because Christ gave authority to His disciples to forgive sins does not mean this is the only way that sins can be forgiven.

This, all I have to do is ask God for forgiveness is a cop out – though I can understand the attraction – seems quite convenient.

Really?

Do we not have forgiveness in Christ? Does His blood not cover us, so that we have forgiveness in Him? Is He not the high priest interceding on our behalf?

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace Ephesians 1:7

And what about:

and forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us. Matthew 6:12

And what about:

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. Matthew 6:14


Or this:

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Ephesians 4:32


Or this:

Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. Colossians 3:13

Did those who put Christ to death first 'tell' their sin before Christ said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do..."?

We are not supposed to be listening to the OT

Huh? Yes, that is why it is part of Sacred Scripture. Mosaic Law might have changed, but moral law, whether spoken of in the OT or the NT has not changed. The OT is not off limits to us. We have much to learn from it.

I never said it was off limits. I said (the part you clipped), that we are to listen to Christ. Do you disagree?

If the RCC (and the protestants) listened to Him, then how could they possibly have justified their inquisitions, their witch burnings, their enslavement of people, etc?

It might be understandable that men who did not know Christ (and so did not know God) would do such a thing.

Wow, guess you would tell a woman that had an abortion that she is an evil murderous monster who obviously does not know Christ, less she could never have committed such an atrocity.

I don't know which exact logical fallacy this is, but I know its one of them. Maybe even a couple of them.

It also is not true so you should probably refrain from guessing what I would or would not do.

And we are not talking about the actions of a single person.

We are talking about the actions of an entity that claims to operate on the authority of Christ, but did (and taught others to do) exactly the opposite of what Christ taught and did.

I am not a protestant. Or a catholic.

I belong only to my Lord.

Yep, your “Body of Christ� group is just one more of the 1000 other splinter groups who think they are doing it how Christ would want them too only they can never know if they are in fact relying on personal revelation vs revelation from God.

THE (not my) Body of Christ belongs to Him.

The apostles were part of the Body of Christ; Paul was part of the Body of Christ; Christians (though not all who claim to be Christian truly are) are part of the Body of Christ.

From the first century until He returns.

His Body can indeed know that they are relying upon HIM, because HE is their HEAD, and HE speaks to them. As He said He would.

So what is it that you think I have done wrong, according to the words of my Lord (of Christ)?

I think you fail to listen to His established Church, other wise you would recognize the authority of His Church and not see His establishment of One, Authoritative, Apostolic Church with priests and bishops and popes as wrong or bad. I think you fail to trust Christ’s own words, “He who listens to you, listens to me.�, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.�

I think you have not taken His words, “Truly, truly, I say to you my Body is True Food and Blood is true drink� literally as He intended.

I think the, “It’s only about me and Jesus� really means “it’s about me – what I want – what I will accept and what I won’t� The fear of Jesus giving authority to an earthly Church really just comes down to lack of trust in God and fear of obedience.

I responded to all of these accusations in my previous post, RR. If you are just going to repeat them while ignoring my response, then I can only refer you back to my previous post.


You thinking that Christ cannot speak to His sheep and lead them into all truth WITHOUT some earthly organization... how is THAT not the very lack of faith and trust in both God and His Son, that you are accusing me of?

I don't trust men. I don't give men my obedience and my faith. I have faith in my Lord, I trust my Lord - who is alive, truly, and not absent - and I obey HIM.


So these accusations you make that I have some sort of fear of obedience... are absolutely groundless.

Because God said to listen to His Son.

And His son says, “He who hears you, hears me.�

These words do not contradict or negate the first words, RR. Why can you not understand that?

Yes, but the RCC seems to do 'honor' Mary more than Christ said to do

The Bible says that Mary’s soul, still very much alive and well as are all souls in heaven, magnifies the Lord (Luke 1:46).

Mary said the words at Luke 1:46 WHILE she WAS alive (in the flesh).

The Bible also says (Luke 1:48) that ALL GENERATIONS are to call her blessed (and presumably to really mean it, and not just pay lip service).

She was/is blessed. So were/are many other people. What is your point? Some people are blessed with one thing, and some another. Mary was blessed to be the mother of [Jesus].

but we do ask for her very powerful intercessory prayers (1 Timothy 2:1, James 5:16)

1Timothy is speaking of intercessory prayers being made by people who were alive yet in this world, in the flesh.

James 5:16 is also speaking to and about people who were very much alive on the earth, in the flesh.

Neither of those verses supports your position about Mary.

And why would we need Mary (or any other saint who has died - and AWAITING - the first resurrection), when we have Christ, the High Priest, the one mediator between man and God?

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--[Jesus] Christ, the Righteous One. 1John 2:1

If we sin we have an advocate with the Father: Christ.

After all, if we are to imitate Jesus who honored his mother and father, shouldn't we do the same? And if we want Jesus to be our brother, doesn't that automatically make...Mary...our...Mother?

I'm not sure that it does.

"Who are my mother and brother and sisters...? He who does the will of my Father in heaven are my mother and brother and sister..."

If you think that it does, then I am not going to argue with you about it. It did mean that for the disciple Christ loved, the one whose care He gave His mother into, to take care of her after His death and resurrection and ascension. Which is part of the commandment to honor one's mother and father, and also from love (which is the law of God).


But in what way do you think that honor is supposed to be expressed? Because I do not venerate my mother and father in death. That does not mean that I am not honoring them.

Luke 1:30 says that Mary had found favor with God BEFORE conceiving Jesus in her womb.

Yes, and?

In Luke 1:28 Gabriel calls her "full of grace" before the incarnation;

Even the KJV renders that verse:

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Rather, if you truly love your earthly father, then you will honor his wife, your mother, as well. No one would get into your house if they said that they love you, but your mother was a useless "vessel" or "incubator" for you, and had nothing to do with how you turned out. The exact same thing goes for getting into heaven as well.

Strawman.

Ah... but I see this is not directed at me in the first place; it is just a copy-paste of an article.

You keep repeating that; I keep disputing it. I would like you to now post the scripture that shows Him saying this, and we can discuss that.

Christ said that the apostles had ONE leader: Christ, Himself. He did not then appoint one of the apostles over the others.

Actually He did. You must not have read my previous link. It’s all in there.

I would think that it would be exceedingly simple to quote a couple of verses from Christ stating that He was appointing Peter over the other apostles. The fact that His ACTUAL words state exactly the OPPOSITE, seems to be lost on you, and on the RCC itself.

Though it is no surprise that the RCC would ignore His words; how else would they maintain their followers, their authority, etc? But why would you (or anyone else who joins themselves to her) ignore His words?

Is the Church (which has pillars and foundations - such as the apostles - in her) not built upon the Truth... the cornerstone... ie, Christ? The Church OF the Truth (Christ)?

Yes, Scripture uses the words pillars and foundations because that is what the Church is – a literal, earthly, authoritative institution – not only a body of believers. And you’ll notice Scripture says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth – not it is built on truth.

Oh, I'll give you that one. The RCC is not built on the Truth (Christ).

Of course, they're not even denying that, and this presents no red flag to you (or all the others joined to her) at all.



Peace again to you, and to yours, and to anyone else reading,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 635 by tam]

I don't think this thread was dedicated to Catholic (or Jehovath's Witness) bashing but to discuss the doctrine of Paradise. If I wanted to critic the Catholics or the JWs (I'm not suggesting you have done so in your post, but it has been done in this thread) I would set up a thread question to do so, so as not to hijack the OP. Personal opinion.

That sad, returning to the topic at hand, I think that humans can live forever and be happy on the earth.


Artists impression

Yes. The Bible says so, quite explicitly, even though some say that it doesn't mean what it says when it says "the righteous will inherit the earth and live FOREVER UPON IT." (Psalm 37:9-11,29) How much clearer could it be?

Anyway, that picture of people building that home is pretty cool. I wouldn't mind having that completed one for my house in Paradise. I tend, though, toward liking very large homes, and probably will want something out of stone and three times as big.

[onewithhim]

The point being made was that Paul's words contradict the idea that this 'nearness' is the same thing that we can have right now. [...] But each time that I state this, you try to convince me that it is the same 'nearness', regardless. ...

That is untrue, I will thank you not to attribute to me points that I have not made. I hope I am making myself clear. If you look back over my posts you will see that I have indeed indicated that in Paradise, when the new Jersualem comes down from heaven, and God's tent is with mankind, when sin has been removed and mankind is once again enjoys the relationship with humans as he did with the first man Adam, that we will enjoy a greater intimacy with God and Jesus. If you note what openend this discussion, I even pointed out that I personally see no reason why we might not even hear the voice of God or Jesus as Adam did in the paradise of Eden or converse with him as a Father and a child does. So I respectfully ask you to kindly not put words in my mouth; thank you in advance.

What I also pointed out however is that geography, physical location is no impedement on this intimacy, that the holy spirit can reach any part of the universe and that, to support that we have the intimate relationship Jesus had with his father, while he (Jesus) was in the physical realm.

If you think this miraculous ability to be "with" someone in the fullest sense while physically apart is beyond God's ability, feel free to state that clearly.

JW

Well yes, Jesus said that he would be "with" his disciples to the end of the age, even though he has been in heaven. He will always be "with" us in that way, with him being in heaven and us on the earth. (Matt.28:20)

.