Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

THE BOAST OF THE ARMINIAN

I chose to serve Christ by my own freewill
I love Christ so He will reward me
I asked Christ into my life
I opened my heart to let the Lord come in
I frequently exercise faith in Christ
I repented of my sins so Christ cleansed me
I received Christ’s atonement and teaching
I am a fervent disciple of Christ
I pray to Christ and claim my promises daily
I have given up so much in order to serve Christ
I have kept myself close to Christ
God helps those who help themselves

THE BOAST OF SCRIPTURE

Christ chose me unworthy as I am
Christ first loved me before I ever loved Him
Christ irresistibly called me by His grace
Christ took away my hard heart and gave me one of flesh
Christ granted me faith teaching me how to trust Him
Christ regenerated me by His Spirit and turned me from my sin
Christ drew me with His love and taught me through His Spirit
Christ made me willing to serve Him in the day of His power
Christ intercedes for me in Heaven encouraging me to pray
Christ gave up all to save me (though I deserve Hell)
Christ has kept me close by His grace
God helps the helpless and the incapable


-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 07, 2004

Answers

David, this is a calvinist group.

Do you subscribe to their tenets 100%?

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (eonval@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.

David.., does anything in the Scriptures say that the things you listed under your "boast from the Scriptures" came before we believed?

In otherwords--all of the things you listed seem to be the blessings of believing. Faith is a gift to those who believe...and faith grows as we walk in the Lord.

I think God does all those things when we choose to believe.....

Even the list of things you provide from "boast of the Arminian" comes after believing.... Though i think the lists are unsupportable in reality. No true Christian thinks that they have earned their salvation in Christ.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 08, 2004.

"Christ intercedes for me in Heaven..."

the best bit.

Elp: maybe you too are "Calvinistic".

-- Ian (Ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2004.

Ian, I am Calvinistic when it comes to people being chosen for a mission without the person making that choice: -Abraham(Chosen as a people for God) -Jacob(chosen as a people for God) -Joseph (save family from hunger) -Moses(chosen to take Israelites out of Egypt) -Samuel-Chosen as a prophet,judge, and seer. -David-be a king (ancestor of the messiah) -Isaiah-Chosen to guide Judah -Hezekiah-save Judah -Jeremiah- be a prophet in very hard times -Ezekiel- be a prophet in hard times -Cyrus-free Israelites -Alexander-bring Greek language -John the baptist- lead people into the way -Jesus-show people the Way to the Kindom of God -Peter and James: anchor the way -Paul-Extend the way to the gentiles -Paul of Samosata? , Arrius?, Theodore of Mosuestia -keep God alive , separate from the Son. -Nestorius-?Show God is eternal -Waldo-return to pure living -Huss-return to pure life -Luther-return to pure piety and worship -Stone?-to pure New Testament -New Holy name restorers: Many since the late 1870s .... last on this list: Elpidio Gonzalez

How do I know?

A GIFT OF PROPHECY

Jeane Dixon

taken from the book by Ruth Montgomery

The vision which Jeane Dixon considers to be the most significant and soul-stirring of her life occurred shortly before sunrise on February 5, 1962. ....Three nights before Jean's vision she was meditating in her room when she became aware that the light was dimming. Glancing up, she saw the five bulbs in the crystal chandelier go dark, except for a curious round ball which glowed brilliantly in the center of each. Strangely frightened, she ran into her husband's bedroom and told him of the light failure. Since their other house lights were working properly, Mr. Dixon assumed that a fuse for one circuit had blown, but when he started down the hall to investigate he noticed that Jeane's chandelier was again burning brightly.

The next evening during her meditations the phenomenon recurred. This time Jeane remained quietly in her room, staring at the tiny balls of light in the otherwise darkened bulbs. In approximately ten seconds, she say, she head "a tiny crackling sound." The wires in the clear bulbs then began to glow again, and normal light resumed. When the performance was repeated exactly as before on the third evening, Jeane accepted it as an omen that something important was soon to befall. She did not know when or where. The next morning she overslept, but the sun was not yet up as she walked toward the bay window of her bedroom which faces east.

At she gazed outside she saw, nt the bare-limbed trees and city street below, but a bright blue sky above a barren desert. Just above the horizon was the brightest sun that she had ever seen, glowing like a golden ball. Splashing from the orb in every direction were brilliant rays which seemed to be drawing the earth toward it like a magnet. Stepping out of the brightness of the sun's rays, hand in hand, were a Pharaoh and Queen Nefertiti. Cradled n the Queen's other arm was a baby, his ragged, soled clothing in startling contrast to the gorgeously arrayed royal couple. "The eyes of this child were all- knowing," Jeane say softly. "They were full of wisdom and knowledge."

A little to one side of Queen Nefertiti, Jeane could glimpse a pyramid. While she watched entranced, the couple advanced toward her and thrust forth the baby, as if offering it to the entire world. Within the ball of the sun, Jeane saw Joseph guiding the tableau like a puppeteer pulling strings. Now rays of light burst forth from the baby, blending with those of the sun and obliterating the Pharaoh from her sight. Off to the left, she observed that Queen Nefertiti was walking away, "thousands of miles into the past." The Queen paused beside a large brown water jug, and as she stooped and cupped her hands to drink she was stabbed in the back by a dagger. Jeane says that she "distinctly heard her death scream as she vanished."

Jeane shifted her gaze back to the baby. He had by now grown to manhood, and a small cross which formed above him began to expand until it "dripped over the earth in all directions. Simultaneously, peoples of every race, religion, and color (black, yellow, red, brown and white), each kneeling and lifting his arms in worshipful adoration, surrounded him. They were all as one," Unlike previous visions, which had gradually faded away from Jeane, this one moved ever nearer until she seemed to be in the very midst of the action, joining int he adoring worship. "I felt a tiny seed ready to sprout and grow," she says, "But I was only one of millions of similar seeds. I knew within my heart. "here is the beginning of wisdom" The room was becoming dark again, and though she was still caught up in the spell of the vision, Jeane glanced automatically at her bedside clock. The time was 7:17 a.m. Taken from Great Dreams

Jeane Dixon died on January 25, 1997. I never met her. I have read some of her books and predictions.

The day she had her vision, February 5, 1962, my parents got together to make me, Ian. This happened in an abandoned ranch in Zacatecas, Mexico.

I was born so poor, that my mother could not breast feed me.My grandma said I was so skinny that when she took me to be baptized, she had to check I was still there. My grandfather gave my mom a goat. I was raised by goat's milk. I was so weak, that I started walking well close to age 2.

I went to school when I was 9. I read my first bible at 11(New testament). First full Bible at 13.

I sold fruit and did errands since age 5. My father abandoned me 3 times. I had to support my family.

By age 13 I read about Nefertiti and her husband Akhenaten.It was from a book: Sinihe the Egyptian. Akhenaten was the Pharoah when Joseph died.

After Akhenaten's and joseph's deaths, the new rulers of Egypt like Horemheb enslaved the Israelites. This brought about the birth of Moses.

By age 18 I finished reading Bible in English. Age 18 become leader in Catholic Action in Los Angeles. Age 19 read New Testament in Greek. Age 24 my dreams begin:1986 baseball series of Mets and Red Sox. Age 25-Guadalajara-Vasco Da Gama game,baseball series: Dodgers and Oakland Athetics Age 26-Panama Invasion Age 29 first dream about the Pope. 1994-O.J. guilty but found not guilty. 1994-Mexican Elections-exact % results. 2000 God Yahweh (twice) and Jesus 2001-Afghanistan, Pope, Bush, Prince (The artist) 2002- 2 dreams of the destruction of the catholic Church:one on homosexuality by priests in the Catholic Church. The other in the end of the church I used to love. 2003-Iraq, Saddam Husseyn and son, Bush, Pope, Mom. 2004....jury duty

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

PS: I loved my God Yahweh and Jesus before I was called. I serve them with no strings attached.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.

Elpidio

sp St Paul, St Peter etc put their lives at risk to further the cause.

you, in that same line, are limited to having erroneous dreams about the death o fthe Holy Father, and doing jury service.

who are you trying to kid?

answer this -- if the evidence at trial suggests that the guy is innocent, but you dream that he is guilty, how will you vote? will you try to persuade other jurists that the evidence is misleading? these are very serious questions. you say that OJ was gui;ty but the jury thought otherwise. you dream about the Pope you later retracted and re-wrote.

what do you intend doing if you have such a dream?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2004.

PS Elpidio

i have much sympathy for your tough childhood, and i admire the way that you have succeeded in life. however, i am not going to let that draw me into accepting dreams that have proved to be so spectacularly wrong.

your Pope dream totally bombed, friend.

you might be a lovely chap, but i consider you 110% dis-credited in the prophesy department. by your own words. two. oh no, two de cuatro. heck, i'll add them - that makes six.

you must see it Elpidio.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 09, 2004.

Elpidio..,

I have to wonder *why* it is that you believe that God needed to add any more to His revelation in Christ Jesus?

The cross is all we need. It is the ultimate sign..., and God's Word is a complete revelation to us.

What purpose could God have in giving such a vision to some lady named Jeane?

I can only think that this is not God's work--and therefore, I would be real careful of any messages Jeane has left, especially if they contradict the Word itself.

Jesus did warn about false prophets., and false Christs.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2004.

Gail, for us who are or were Catholic , came from a catholic tradition, or life, God continues to reveal himself.

Though I have to admit that Jesus sightings for Catholics mean God himself. Also apparitions of Mary and the "saints".

The Protestant beieves God has somehow has stopped working because Jesus died for us.

I believe God continues to work. He didn't stopped when he appeared to Abraham. He did not stopped with Jacob, Moses, Aaaron, samuel, Nathan, elijah, Elisha, ...Jesus, ...

I know there had to be people called by God between me and Jesus. There will be others called during my lifetime and into the future. I don't see myself as so special. Rather, as a job given me.

I loved my God Yahweh always. I served God because I love God, not because I want some special favors.

God doesn't work this or that way. Did Abraham stopped suffering,did Jacob stopped suffering, Moses? Samuel?David?Micaiah?Jeremiah?John the Baptist? Jesus? Paul? ...for believing God yahweh?

Except for Abraham,Jacob, and David, most never were rich.

Not all of them could do miracles.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.

As to Jean Dixon, she was a Catholic, Ian.

Famous for predicting not only Kennedy's assassination and Reagan's presidency.Dixon's life.

She had also hadcritics.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.

Of course God is still at work in our lives Elpidio.

He works through His Word and when we receive Christ, He is in us.

But that is not the same thing as thinking that God has any more revelation for the world with respect to salvation.

There are no personal revelations that could mean anything for the world--besides what God has already revealed universally.

The Bible is completed., as is God's Word to us on the issue of salvation in Jesus Christ. Nothing more is needed.

Does that mean that we can't individually hear God speaking to us on a personal level? Not at all.

But certainly God didn't give that lady Jeane a message with worldly or universal consequences--especially when what she received seems to contradict God's Word regarding His works.

The Bible tells us that we need to check the Scriptures every day to see if what we hear about God from people is true.

Yes--the closing of the New Testament, God's Word--is God's completed work with respect to salvation and how we can see eternal life. I wouldn't trust anything outside of that.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 09, 2004.

You yourself said Faith that Jesus warned us against False Christs and prophets.

What if they already entered the Church as "angels of light"?

Have you heard the story of the vision a Pope had around the 1880s about Jesus and Satan about the destruction of the Church? Leo's vision

Leo XIII - a Vision of a Looming Crisis... On October 13, 1884 Leo XIII had just completed a celebration of Mass in one of the Vatican's private chapels. Standing at the foot of the altar, he suddenly turned ashen and collapsed to the floor, apparently the victim of a stroke or heart attack. However, neither malady was the cause of his collapse. For he had just been given a vision of the future of the Church he loved so much. After a few minutes spent in what seemed like a coma, he revived and remarked to those around him, "Oh, what a horrible picture I was permitted to see!" What Leo XIII apparently saw, as described later by those who talked to him at the time of his vision, was a period of about one hundred years when the power of Satan would reach its zenith. That period was to be the twentieth century. Leo was so shaken by the spectre of the destruction of moral and spiritual values both inside and outside the Church, that he composed a prayer which was to be said at the end of each Mass celebrated anywhere in the Catholic Church. This prayer to Michael the Archangel was said continuously until the Mass was restructured in the Second Vatican council.

So even the Catholic Church knows evil will enter it: ...and it has (child molestation, homosexuality, divorce,living together,abortion,...)

So, if even someone like the POPE gets a revelation, and it comes true even after trying to stop it, then, what makes think it did not happen in AD 70? OR AD 325? or AD 381? or AD 431? or AD 451? or AD 1054, or AD 1519?....

That is why I have tried to get to the root of the Gospel.

You have never heard me say I am infallible, I do miracles, if you believe me you will get eternal life, and so on.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 09, 2004.

I am not really sure what you are saying.

It just seems to me that you are too quick to believe man and his visions.

Satan knows the Word better than we do, and he is the master of deception. I have no doubt that Satan has infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church. This religion has abandoned the truth of thr Word in favor of the word of man--tradition, and it has been led astray by demonic visitations who appear as Mary.

The truth can be found only in God's Word--and if what Jean or any other supposed prophet claims cannot be supported in the Sciptures-- then it is not from God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 10, 2004.

Faith

we will know when Satan has entered the Church because it will change its teachings away from constant teachings during the 2,000 period since it was founded by Jesus.

this nearly happened some hundred of years ago. we noticed it then and kicked Luther out. had Luther-Satan been successful at that time, the Church would have denied its God-given magisterium. we would all be using Scripture alone and private interpretation.

AND just look what that's lead to!!!!!!!!! ;-))

30,000 denominations, complete disrespect for the Body and Blood of Christ, complete disrespect for the Mother of God, invalid consecrations, predestination an/or faith alone (mmmm) (and the licence to behave as you will cos it don't matter), gay bishops, abortions, contraception, masturbation, gay marriages, wide-scale divorce, conspiracy theories galore, ..., i can continue.

SOOOO, don't tell me that Satan has infiltrated the Church -- he's got 30,000 others to keep him amused!!!!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

PS Elpidio, i couldn't care less if Jean Dixon was Catholic or not. never judge the book by its cover.

either her dreams are true or not. and true not just by chance.

i don't know as i have never heard of her before. i have no opinion, therefore.

what i am told is that dreams about deaths -- including of others -- tend to be dreams about the dreamer. moreover, the are usually about a re-birth, not a death, and can be seen as positive.

so each time you dream that the Pope or a President dies, it could easily be about something positive that is about to happen in yrs.

have you ever considered that?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

"So even the Catholic Church knows evil will enter it: ...and it has (child molestation, homosexuality, divorce,living together,abortion,...) "

this really is beneath you Elpidio.

1 child molestors -- pervets drawn to the Church in the belief that the austere life of a priest will help them keep their hands to their selves. once identified, morally vilified. the mistake has been made of trying to protect the reputtion of the Church. a MISTAKE. Catholic doctrine is quite clear on childo molestation. ergo Satan has not entered the Church. just a bunch of perverts and some cardinals/ bishops that lack judgement.

2 homosexuals -- ditto. not perverts in the same sense as paedophiles, but people who since birth have a yearning to engage in a gravely disordered act. victims in a way, but doctrine is clear. ergo, Satan has not entered the Church.

3 divorce -- annulment, the rescission of a marriage that never was, on strict grounds. otheriwse, the husband and wife must never co-habit again or they are living in sin. its tough on those who are the innocent victims in falied marriages, but that's doctrine. Satan has not entered the Church.

4 living together -- basically, ditto.

5 abortion -- please! you know the Church is at the vanguard when it comes to the preservation of life, whether its abortion, IVF, cloning, contraception, ....... ergo, Satan has not entered the Church.

you are fast becoming a ravenous wolf, Elpidio. please stop. you know full well that it is the teaching of doctrine that attracts infallibility. the priests, bishops, cardinals and Popes are human beings, no more and no less prone to error that the first Pope, the sometimes idiotic/ erratic, and oftimes severely disloyal, St Peter.

i have more to say, but i must rush. back later....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

next point

in case you have missed it, there is a HUGE battle being fought at the moment by Satan.

one of his tools, the liberal media, are determined to destroy Christianity, and thero punchbag is the Church. because its the biggest. because its the oldest. because its very visible. because its the most strict.

if you use their soundbites, you supportthem in this war. you cut off yr nose to spite yr face.

time and time again, the Church makes the media, not because it has yet again done a good thing (missionary work, anti-abortion work, etc) but because the media have found a stick to beat it with. this may well be what motivated the misguided church leaders to try and place the paedo's where they could do no harm. they know that, if they reported the paedos to the poluice, the media would jump on it - - and you guys would buy it hook, line and sinker.

the media are the vanguard of this assault on Christianity in general. remember American Dream - the dysfunctional familty -- the deleriously happy and admirable gays next door -- the ex-marine that was homophobic only because he was in the closet, and he shot himself because he should have come out -- etc etc -- Kevin Spacey (so where's his wife and kids, eh) -- on it goes.

that homoerotic soft porn that passes as Will & Grace.

MTV -- Christian Aguilera leading young children astray with her G- stringed gyrations.

thisis real.

you are fighting for Satan every time you utter this trash in public.

is that what you want?

i have more.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

Gibson's "The Passion"

Gibson has to pay for it himself -- no-one (ie in liberal media) will back him.

Liberal media nowadays - "WELL, he's made a killing hasn't he. did it for the money."

"Oh - and its sooooo violent,...," Tjis will be the same gay liberal media that makes the average Holywood film that averages 10 sins per minute; and all the rest eg the porn industry,..., and, ...., .

"Ooooooooooooh, and it soooooo anti - Semitic". [PLEASE REMEMBER that "political correctness" is the device of Satan that can numb every statement of principle worth having. the media have used this card so many times. if you are truthful, you will realsie that the Binble is politically incorrect; that is a truth. political correctness is a man-made thing; like protestantism.

then we have the others, the so-called Christians -- "oh, well, its in acccurate, it has Catholic stuff in it [sub-text: we have to grind an axe here]".

WELL! forgive me! but isn't this the greatest conversion tool in a long long time! so why bitch about it. why do the Devil's work. Good Mel put his cojones on the block. he's gotten nothing but rancour in return.

it's all lost on me. Damned if you do; damned if you don't.

and that's where we will all end up if protestants carry on

a) consecrating gays -- on the left of the 30,000

b) supporting Satan -- on the right wing of the 30,000

of course, Elp, you are not Christian, so you msut be licking yr lips at this point in time.

ANYWAYS -- there's loads more.

HOWEVER --- PLEASE note that the Ark of Salvation tows about 30,000 little sampans.

do not bite the hand that feeds you.

if Satan prevails over the Church (he never will, btw, but you do not believe that), he will have you for breakfast. 30,000 breakfasts in the one morning. he's a fat chap.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

Satan can't prevail over the true church of Jesus Christ. And the true church can never be divided.

That should tell you something about religion, Ian. If you don't get anything else--understand that religion is the work of man not God.

The religion of self-effort was born the moment that Eve believed Satan over God-- when he told her that she could be *like* God, knowing good and evil. The woman's response to being caught disobeying God was that the devil deceived her. And he continues to deceive everyone who chooses to ignore God's Word in favor of religion.

Works instead of grace has always been and still is religion, of which Roman Catholicism is a prime example. The Tower of Babel seemed to give creedence to the delusion that man could reach heaven on his own efforts.

You may not think that your Church has changed the original message revealed to us by God in the Scriptures--but in fact--it has. That is what luther protested. He was protesting the devil.

Here is one example of your church twisting the meaning in Scripture. The apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ. He did not, however, make it a condition for church leadership as the Catholic Church has done. This condition has imposed an unnatural burden upon your clergy--and opened the door to evil.

On the contrary--Paul wrote that the bishop should be "the husband of one wife" (1 Timothy 3:2) and set the same requirement for elders (see Titus 1:5,6).

Peter, whom the Catholics erroneously claim was the first pope, was married. so were some of the other apostles.

Paul argued for the rights of an apostle. He argued that he had the right to marry like the rest: "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, and to do as the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Peter?" 1 Corinthians 9:5

The Roman Catholic Church, however, has insisted upon celibacy, even though many popes have repeatedly violated that law down through the ages. The door is opened--and some of the most grotesque offenses have been committed by the clergy in your religion. I am aware that this is true in all religions.., but it seems worse in yours because like you said--you are larger, and you make this outrageous claim to be the only true Church of God. So.., it makes sense that you are called to the plate for that.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 10, 2004.

well done, Faith. carrying on the work of Satan, as per the above. believing, and further propagating, all the propaganda. i am not surprised by yr response. this is the norm. this is the "way of the world".

i will, though it is not for your benefit because you are clearly beyond the pale, trawl through your errors tomorrow/ as soon as i am able.

meanwhile, the Ark of Salvation continues on its path. i cling for dear life. i suspect that i will fall overboard once too many times. countless life boats, but maybe i will hit a rock. my fate is most likely Hell. but i know that i had it all before me. i cannot complain in that regard.

Satan surrounds us. the Ark is a safe haven. destination Heaven (though not for recidivists like me). those little sampans. well, in all honesty, i think they have cut themselves adrift. they're merrily sailing the other way. they're "happy" to do so. they have a special GPS system provided by the PoD.

Bon Voyage, Faith. you have made Satan a happy man tonight. some lurker, somewhere, could take the bait. another human being, another soul, lost to the darkness. to an eternity, earned by selfishness and self-servitude, but thoroughly deserved, all the same.

I have a Rosary to say. i will include you in it. The Mother of God will look beyond my failings and will pray for you too.

but i will come back to address yr errors.

i leave you with this:--->>>>> http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

It is you who makes Satan very happy, Ian., because you too, like Eve- -believe his lies.

In this case., I am refering to your remark that you will probably go to hell. That is not the message of God's Word to thoses who are saved in His Son.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 10, 2004.

Satan is wetting his pants, Faith.

i am most likely destined for hell. no big deal for you.

i know this because i have a grounding that you do not have, in humility, in understanding,..., i do not feel that i have the qualities that will earn Salvation, though i will always do my best, ...., bit i do have a grasp of what is required.

you have ignored everything i have posted. i have posted THE most grave warnings of the inferno that surrounds us.

you are just happy not to be Catholic. what an achievement. what an ambition.

BUT where will it get you.

same place as me, i suspect. trust you will share the ice-cubes.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

QUOTES SHOWING THE AUTHORITY OF TRADITION _______________________________________________

“The best advice that I can give you is this. Church traditions – especially when they do not run counter to the Faith – are to be observed in the form in which previous generations have handed them down.” St Jerome, Letters, 71, 6. (4th Century)

“It is absurd and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed, which we have received from the fathers of old.” St Thomas Aquinas

“Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used.” Pope St Pius V, Quo Primum, 1570

"The truth cannot be hidden, our flag must be flown. It is only through loyalty and openness that we can do a little good, attacked as we are by our enemies, but also respectd by them, such that little by little, gaining their admiration we secure also their return to good". Pope Saint Pius X (1903 - 1914) canonised by Pope Pius XII in 1954 (October 22nd 1912)

"Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See- ----they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."----- Melchior Cano, Theologian from the Council of Trent

Pope Saint Pius X wrote in his Encyclical Against Modernism: "But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those 'who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church'. . . . Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: 'I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church'. Pope St Pius X (Pascendi)

"If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the Church, let him be anathema." Second Council of Nicea

"They knew only too well the intimate bond which unites faith with worship, 'the law of belief with the law of prayer,' and so, under the pretext of restoring it to its primitive form, they corrupted the order of the liturgy in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators." Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 13 Sept. 1896

"Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching ... Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed." --Pope St. Leo the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church

"'One faith,' St. Paul writes (Eph. 4:5). Hold most firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church ... We must hold this for certain, namely: that the faith of the people at the present day is one with the faith of the people in past centuries. Were this not true, then we would be in a different church than they were in and, literally, the Church would not be One." --St. Thomas Aquinas

"I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation." --Pope St. Pius X

"The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition." --Pope St. Pius X

"The Church of Christ, zealous and cautious guardian of the dogmas deposited with it, never changes any phrase of them. It does not diminish them or add to them; it neither trims what seems necessary now grafts things superfluous . . . but it devotes all its diligence to one aim: To treat tradition faithfully and wisely; to consolidate and to strengthen what already was clear; and to guard what already was confirmed and defined." --St. Vincent de Lerins: Commonitoria (5th Century

"The true Church is also to be known from Her origin, which She derives under the law of grace from the Apostles; for Her doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered of old by the Apostles and disseminated throughout the world." --Catechism of the Council of Trent (16th Century)

"For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Ages." -- First Vatican Council (1869-1870)

"I vow ... to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein." --Coronation Oath of the Pope

"Therefore, heresy is from the Greek word meaning 'choice' . . . . But we are not permitted to believe whatever we choose, nor to choose whatever someone else has believed. We have the Apostles of God as authorities, who did not . . . choose what they would believe but faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. So, even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, he shall be called anathema. --St. Isidore

"The true Church is also to be known from Her origin, which She derives under the law of grace from the Apostles; for Her doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered of old by the Apostles and disseminated throughout the world." -- Trent

"I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation." --Pope St. Pius X

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

Ian..,

If I could convince you of anything from the Word of God--I would want it to be the fact that you *can't* earn you salvation. Your works, and mine, are as filthy rags in the eyes of God. We don't save ourselves Ian..but God save us. It is a gift to those who *believe* in the One he sent to accomplish this at the cross. That is what the Bible says.

You believe Satan's lies just like Eve did--if you believe that you could somehow ever qualify for heaven on you own accord.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 10, 2004.

Faith

supposing i decide tomorrow that i will do EVERYTHING i can for the poor.

i sell my house and give the proceeds to the lepers.

i toil and i tarry.

i pray.

how far does that get me?!?!?!?!

PS this does not get you off the rap.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2004.

You see, Faith, Ian as any "good Catholic" thinks any one not "Catholic enough" is going to Hell.

That's a lie!!!

You were right about salvation being God's gift. But gifts, Faith, are only given to those "good people". I prefer the word righteous. Will you give a Valentine card or gigt, a Christmas gift or card, an Easter card,...to an enemy?

In that respect the Catholic Church is closer to the truth. One has to do something to deserve that gift. We all could get it, Faith, but not everyone will.

As to your quotations on I Corinthians 9:5 and I Timothy 3:2 about bishops (episkopoi=church overseers) being married men hits it right through the middle of the nail.

The Catholic Church has created a human tradition, which they call being called by god, that is, celibacy. Unfortunately you cannot repress human feelings and emotions, and passions. What we could call horninness. Humans need this to reproduce.

God's command was for us to reproduce. By creating and enforcing celibacy we force men into repression of sexuality. It doesn't ake long for these repressed feelings to show themselves.

I know that personally. I worked for the Catholic Church. One of my best friends was molested by a priest. He turned gay. He caught AIDS in Hollywood, California. I also got to meet father shanley, my priest at Saint Anne's Church in San bernardino. He had come from Boston. He molested and sold minors for sex.

I wrote to the Pope in 1995,2000, and 2002 to have celibacy as optional, not a requirement for the priesthood.

My suggestion to end the problems with pedaphiles and child molesteres to the Pope: -Celibacy optional -Priests can marry -Have married men working at the altar instead of Children (Even women are at risk. My teachers at the university where I have a minor in religiuos studies were former Jesuit priests who felt being married was God's true call.)

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 10, 2004.

"The devils 'believe' and shudder.

"Faith without works is dead"

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

Mat 10:22 And you will be hated by all on account of My name, but is the one WHO HAS ENDURED TO THE END WHO WILL BE SAVED.

2 Pe 1:10-11 Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you, for as long as you PRACTICE these things, you will never stumble; FOR IN THIS WAY THE ENTRANCE INTO THE ETERNAL KINGDOM OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST WILL BE ABUNDANTLY SUPPLIED TO YOU.

But the biggest and most POWERFUL scripture passage concerning works versus faith alone is Christ's own parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and the only difference between the two is what "they did and didn't DO."

The Catholic Church does not teach salvation by a crass system of works, but rather "faith WORKING through charity." And yet it is HIS grace that works through us anyway, so HE GETS THE GLORY, and when we stand before Him to receive our reward He will in essence be "crowning His own grace." Catechism quoting Augustine (I think).

I'm in a hurry, gotta go.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 10, 2004.

Gail,

We have been through those verses before. I can't see why you Insist on eisigesis. Got to go to church, reply more later..

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 10, 2004.

Ian...,

Even Atheists do good works.

It is faith in Jesus Christ that makes us righteous--and then good works are the natural outpouring of a faithful servant to the Lord.

Jesus said that the world would know us--Christians--by our fruits. Faith is evidenced by our response.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 10, 2004.

David,

Well, EXCUSE ME!!!

I have been watching this forum in amazement the last week as you have allowed some so-called believers to spout all kinds of blatant anti-Christ, anti-Trinitarian heresy, and yet David is silent! But should a Catholic utter the precious words of scripture to demonstrate what Catholics believe and why, they get a little silent rebuke from the self-ordained moderator.

How very much like you,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 10, 2004.

sorry for that very long post of quotations from last night. i only meant to post this one below, but my cut 'n' paste went badly wrong. it is a good summation of much that is wrong in the world today, continuing with the therem froma above:

"Therefore, heresy is from the Greek word meaning 'choice' . . . . But we are not permitted to believe whatever we choose, nor to choose whatever someone else has believed. We have the Apostles of God as authorities, who did not . . . choose what they would believe but faithfully transmitted the teachings of Christ. So, even if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise, he shall be called anathema. --St. Isidore

as for celibacy, when i have some more time. Elpidio is at it again -- propagating satan's lies, as i outlined in the 3 posts above. i will show you how he is doing this later.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

Elpidio: "My suggestion to end the problems with pedaphiles and child molesteres to the Pope: -Celibacy optional -Priests can marry - Have married men working at the altar instead of Children (Even women are at risk. My teachers at the university where I have a minor in religiuos studies were former Jesuit priests who felt being married was God's true call.)"

this is the whole problem. see my post above.

if you had optional celibacy, the gays and the paedo's would still join the Church under the "optional celibacy" heading. ONE MORE TIME -- they join to try to quell their urges and to explain away the lack of wife/family. if they wanted access to kids, they'd just become teachers or social workers, that's a lot easier than 7 years in the Seminary. they think that the discipline of Holy Orders will make them tow the line. it appears not to work.

Elpidio says: "The Catholic Church has created a human tradition, which they call being called by god, that is, celibacy. Unfortunately you cannot repress human feelings and emotions, and passions. What we could call horninness. Humans need this to reproduce.

God's command was for us to reproduce. By creating and enforcing celibacy we force men into repression of sexuality. It doesn't ake long for these repressed feelings to show themselves."

First Elpidio, this is not man made,. it is DISCIPLINE not DOCTRINE, but it is consistent with Scripture.

First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter 7

1 Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband.

.....

7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that.

8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

those entering a Seminary obviously do so in the expectation that they can live up to St Paul's exhortation. those that fall by the wayside quite often leave and marry, or they get back on the wagon.

to say celibacy, especially clerical celibacy, is unScriptural, si simply HOGWASH.

by the same token, Elpidio's appeal to Genesis 1: 28 (And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth) is disingenuous. This CANNOT apply across the board.

notable exceptions:

Our Lord

St Paul

John the Baptist

many of the Apostles

those good God-fearing people in life who do not meet anyone they want to marry

and so on.

priests forego the rewards of marriage and children because they are married to the Church:

St Matthew, Chapter 19:

12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

.....

29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

before you start having a go at the Church, first read SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS, Pope Paul VI's Encyclical of June 24, 1967. it is 20 - 30 pages long. it is very detailed. see, in particular, paras 83 - 89 which deals with the case of priests that fall by the wayside.

to quote from sonme other passages:

"Priestly celibacy has been guarded by the Church for centuries as a brilliant jewel, and retains its value undiminished even in our time when the outlook of men and the state of the world have undergone such profound changes."

"This biblical and theological view associates our ministerial priesthood with the priesthood of Christ; the total and exclusive dedication of Christ to His mission of salvation provides reason and example for our assimilation to the form of charity and sacrifice proper to Christ our Savior. This vision seems to Us so profound and rich in truth, both speculative and practical, that We invite you, venerable brothers, and you, eager students of Christian doctrine and masters of the spiritual life, and all you priests who have gained a supernatural insight into your vocation, to persevere in the study of this vision, and to go deeply into the inner recesses and wealth of its reality. In this way, the bond between the priesthood and celibacy will more and more be seen as closely knit-- as the mark of a heroic soul and the imperative call to unique and total love for Christ and His Church. "

""Laid hold of by Christ" unto the complete abandonment of one's entire self to Him, the priest takes on a closer likeness to Christ, even in the love with which the eternal Priest has loved the Church His Body and offered Himself entirely for her sake, in order to make her a glorious, holy and immaculate Spouse."

gratuitous and unresearched slamming of the Church is Satan's work. he is having a good time on this thread. he hopes that many lurkers will read this and turn to hedonism. "if the priests are corrupt, what's the point?", they'll say.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

as for Faith's point about salvation, let me for the time being share this with you:

St Paul to the Philippians, 2:12

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation."

We are redeemd by Our Lord but not saved. salvation depends upn the state of one's soul at death. it must be free of sin and full of grace that saves.

this means that blind adherence to a list of beliefs is not enough. lack of faith with no works is insufficient. you need both, but ultimately it is the grace of God that saves.

anyways, i think many protestants agree with Catholic teaching. i have always suspected that the differences that show up in debate are mere semantics that really amount to a back-handed compliment.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

I seem to disagree with you on these passages about celibacy, Ian:

Other than Eunuchs reference in Mathew, which no other canonical or rejected book about Jesus and his disciples (200 + of them), there is no requirement of God or Jesus to be celibate.

BTW, Matthew 19:12 doeasn't say priests !!! The word priests is not there. There is also no known saying of Jesus his disciples would be priests but judges.

That is the point of Hebrews: one priest(Jesus) like Melchizedeq.

As to Matthew 19:19 where Jesus says they have to abandon their families, I doubt it. To me, it has to do with priorities. That is, will they choose their family if they are required to preach the gospel.

Right after I Corinthians 7, where Paul explains it is OK to be alone (single)*(You must remember that Jews must marry and have children, Ian)

Paul says in I Corinthians 9:5 that Jesus disciples continued to bring their wives with them. It seems they got converted to Jesus teaching.

The Catholic Church makes them sisters in the sense of church members, yet, the Greek word Gune is also used in Matthew when one looks at another woman and commits adultery. It is also the word used fby Jesus for his mother and the Samaritan woman in John, both married women. The final clue here is that we know from scripture that Peter ad a mother in-Law. So the reference to Cephas, that is, Peter, is about him taking his wife along.

Even books not accepted say Peter's wife was martyred alongside him.

(Click) Have we [2192] echo not [3378] me ouk power [1849] exousia to lead about [4013] periago a sister, [79] adelphe a wife, [1135] gune as well as [5613] hos (with Strongs #) [2532] kai other [3062] loipoy apostles, [652] apostolos and [2532] kai [as] the brethren [80] adelphos of the Lord, [2962] kurios and [2532] kai Cephas? [2786] Kephas

From blue Bible

Like Jesus used to say, they worship me in vain teaching as doctrines the doctrines of men!!!

The Christia Yahwist

The Man of yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

Elpidio

St Paul is a clear as day on this. let me summarise.....

a i would rather you were celibate like me; BUT b if you cannot hack it, take a wife (but one only); AND c if you do, please try raise a respectable household and set a good example.

also, priests do make the glorious sacrifice mentioned in St Matthew ("eunuchs"). in fact it mightbe harder being a priest -- do eunuchs get the urge?

priests do not abandon existing family, but they do abandon the possibility of having a wife & family, because they wish to be a close as possible to Our Lord in the way He lived.

Doctrine/ Dogam it is not; discipline it is; but discipline that is 100% in accord with the Bible. St PAul did it. and supported it.

FURTHERMORE -- and this the why i object to yr innuendo --

1 optional celibacy will not prevent perverts infiltrating the Seminaries and getting ordained.

2 celibacy does not turn priests into paedophiles or gays. paedophiles or gays join paedophilic or gay.

3 if you read SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS, you will see the highest and most noble ideal behind this discipline of the Church. its not just a case of being more flexible in yr approach to the ministry, or being available 24 hours without the pressures of a family life, but there is a deeply spiritual giving involved in the celibacy and marriage to the Church: they are simulating one aspect of the life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the great high-priest who offered up His own Body and Blood for our redemption. we see this too with the monks and the nuns.

i would, therefore, request that you stop polluting the airwaves with this anti-Catholic "gay and pervert" stuff, especially when an analysis of the Bible shows that the Church is 100% onside with Scripture.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

"and yet David is silent!"

Sorry, I don't have time right now.

"you have allowed some so-called believers to spout all kinds of blatant anti-Christ, anti-Trinitarian heresy"

Sorry, I am not the Moderator Paul (or Ed). I do believe in two- sided conversations.

-- (davidortiz@prodigy.net), March 11, 2004.

this is not the rationale behind clerical celibacy, see previous posts, but it is interesting, nonetheless:

First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, Chapter 7:

32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God.

33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided.

34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband.

35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

For centuries--Ian,

The priesthood was largely hereditary. Did you know that?

More than one of your popes was the illegitimate son of the previous and supposedly *celibate* pope.

For example, did you know that Pope Sylverius (536-7) was fathered by Pope Hormisdas (514-23)??

John XI (931-5) was fathered by Sergius III (904-11) of his favorite mistress Marozia. Have you heard of her??

Among the other bastards who ruled the Church were Popes Boniface I (418-22), Gelasius (492-6), Agapitus (535-6), and Theodore (642-9).

There were more. And this is easy enough to check out if you don't believe me.

No wonder Pope Pius II (1154-9) said Rome was "the only city run by bastards." Pius himself admitted to fathering at least two illegitimate children, by different woman--one of them married at the time.

The rule of celibacy (not biblical) literally created prostitutes, making Rome the "Mother of Harlots," as the apostle John foresaw.....

There is no denying that Paul was celibate, and that if one could do it themselves, it would let them free to better serve the Lord. No one denies that this was suggested.

But biblically speaking--it was a recommendation, not a requirement. Paul taught the way in which a church should run--and these guidelines included wives for the majority of the clergy.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 11, 2004.

"I don't believe in two-sided conversations," that is, unless the other side is Catholic!

Perhaps you should go back and read the insulting message you addressed to me, David. I took a break from this forum for several weeks. I come back to post a short, benign, respectful message, and 'lo and behold,' there's David with his trusty anti-Catholic fly swatter in hand ready to zap those pesky varmits out of "his" forum.

IF YOU COULD EVER BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, you would know the reason you got kicked off the Catholic forum is because you are an incredibly rude, obnoxious, self-righteous, know-it-all who really knows nothing at all.

You got your wish . . . I'm gone!

Gail

P.S. Perhaps you should invite some Jevovah's Witnesses or Mormons on board to toy around some new ideas! I'm sure they could add some real flavor to the already obnoxious brew of heresy you have cooking here.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 11, 2004.

Faith,

you make me feel like i am communicating with a child.

the Church's dogma is infallible.

the Church's personnel are not. St Peter certainly wasn't.

the ruling on priests' celibacy pertains to discipline. it seems as if you agree that it was necessary!!!!! assuming that the protestant pamphlets that you are digesting are true ;-))

i am not sure how yopu explain the difference between dogma and discipline to a child.

a/ do that again and no more chocolate

b/ do that again and it's still wrong

you keep copping Faith. the latest one, a non-principled argument, is that the Church i not comprised entirely of Saints. is that really the best you can do?!?!?!?

are you converting, Faith?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

"But biblically speaking--it was a recommendation, not a requirement. Paul taught the way in which a church should run--and these guidelines included wives for the majority of the clergy."

self-serving contradiction after self-serving contradiction.

did he require 30,000 diffeent churches, or just one?

mmmmmmm

and does the One Church remaion true to Scripture? YES it does.

so where does that leave us?

PS did St Paul ever recommedn that the followers of Christ each go and invent their own flavour of Christianity. me thinks not! good nite!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

Well Ian..,

That is exactly what Catholicism is... a religion made by man and his tradition, and it has little to do with the Bible.

There is no need for confession to a priest--there is no teaching of a place called Purgatory.., there is no need for all clergy to be celibate.., there is no need to elevate Mary to the level of some pagan goddess...nada. Talk about adding your own flavour....

Paul wouldn't recognize your Catholic Church because it looks nothing like what he would have hoped for.

The papacy is a false seat--and its history proves it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 11, 2004.

Faith

the fact that you love drifting off subject says something to me.

i would like to return back there.

priests -- the Church says they can be married, and they cannot: but as a matter or internal discipline, they cannot.

where do you come out Faith?!?!?!

i have proved that celibacy is Scriptural.#

St Paul was celibate.

he would most likley far more recognise the Church than the 30,000 protestant denominations: some married, some polygamous, some gay, some lesbian, some atheist, some.........

no more chocolate for you tonight, my dear.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

...save to say that

TIME AND TIME AGAIN it is demonstrated that the Church has everything "to do with the Bible".

you chose to ignore this.

only you know why.

invincible ignorance does not forgive in those circumstances, no siree.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 11, 2004.

How am I drifting off-topic Ian?

You are the one who made this claim:

and does the One Church remaion true to Scripture? YES it does.

I was simply showing you that your claim is false. That is of course, unless you can show me in the Scriptures.., where anyone worshiped Mary., talked about purgatory., confessed their sins to an appointed priest [besides Jesus] or forced everyone serving jesus to be a celibate???

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 11, 2004.

Gail, David is a Protestant.

He is somewhere between you and me. Like him, I believe in proving certain things from scripture.

Like you, I believe that th Catholic Church had its origins in followers of Jesus.

What I object about Catholicsm, the Church where I grew up, is: - many man made traditions we follow like they came from Jesus or God.

-claim to be the Church founded by Christ on Peter. As far as history goes, no one has been able to prove that to me.

I accept the bishop of Rome(The Pope) as coming from the bishops created there by Paul when he went as a prisoner to Rome.

Romans never mentions Peter was at Rome. To believe I Peter says Rome when writing Babylon is to believe he wrote Revelation. Revelation equates Babylon with Rome.

You get upset for trivial stuff.

When David called me a non-Christian, you did not come to my defense.

When Ian at one time called me names, you did not come to my defense.

When James (El Greco) said I was not a Christian, you did not come to my defense.

If you and david already went about the same argument quite a few times, I don't think he wasnts to revisit it if nothing positive came out of it.

I have learned, Gail, for the last 21 years (since I began to suspect Jesus wasn't God Yahweh himself) not to take those kind of comments as personal attacks.

Your job is to defend your faith if you believe your faith is the true one. It doesn't mean people have to agree with you. When you want people to agree with you, then you go to forums which share your beliefs.

Yet, even the Catholic Forum espouses all sorts of beliefs from Catholics: -Those like Emerald, Regina, Jake,...which look for a more traditional Church (Use of Latin,...) -Those like John Gecik and Bill Nelson who want a more frontal attack on luke warm Catholics and a hard pick on those not considered true Catholics. -Those like Eugene Chavez - Wherever the Pope is, there I am. -Those like Paul M, Attila- stress gifts of the Spirit -Those like you who see Catholicsm as to rosy: Gail, Anna, Katherine Ann,... -Those who are liberal-Jim Furst, Rod, ... -Those who like a good dialogue even if the one they argue with is not Catholic- paul H., Ian -Those still not 100% sure of their new faith (recent coverts): Leon,...

So if you are quitting this forum because you want things you're way, I understand..

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

Ian,

Yes, the apostle Paul was "celibate", but he most certainly was NOT a bishop/elder in the church.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 11, 2004.

That is exactly what Catholicism is... a religion made by man and his tradition, and it has little to do with the Bible.

AMEN!

There is no need for confession to a priest

AMEN!! The bible does NOT teach that one needs to confess their sins to a priest.

there is no teaching of a place called Purgatory

AMEN!!! This teaching CANNOT be found in the word of God.

Paul wouldn't recognize your Catholic Church because it looks nothing like what he would have hoped for.

AMEN!!!! The Catholic Church bears NO resemblance to the church we read aabout in the New Testament.

The papacy is a false seat--and its history proves it.

AMEN!!!!! Not only history, but the word of God PLAINLY states that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church and NOT the pope.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 11, 2004.

This thread's format has gone crazy. I'm trying to fix it.

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

David, I think you forgot to close the "row" and "cell" after your initial post. You need to "/tr" "/td" so that the posts line up correctly. At first I thought that the thread was blank, until I scrolled sideways.

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

rod,

I think it's just you. others haven't complained..maybe it's your mac.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 11, 2004.

Ah! and the "table" is too big, now.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

Oh great! Now, I'm gonna get persecuted for using a Mac.
Wonderful.

That's ok. I'm having to add my own HTML to make up for the skewed posts.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

I didn't even know they still made macs... Aren't they like more than 5 years old? And you can stop the html, i'm fixing it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 11, 2004.

Thanks, David.

I own and use a variety of platforms and OS's. But, this Power Mac 2500 is my old friend.

Gail! don't go. You know David and his ways. Stay for the bigger picture. But, if you do go, I understand. You can always return, yes?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

It isn't the Mac that's sour...

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

make that Power Mac 5200.

Heretics? here? nah!!

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 11, 2004.

Gail,

I hope you come back! Another good Catholic apologist is needed over here. Ian has his hands full and I'm bearly qualified.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), March 13, 2004.

To Kevin's post of 11 MArch:

i suspect that the best description would be "Secretary of State to the Vatican City", or even better "Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith".

in that sense, you might have a point.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2004.

Vatican City did not exist when Paul was preaching God's Word.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2004.

Faith

you are RIGHT!!!!!

this was an allegorical suggestion.

you must see the parallels.

St Peter, the Pope.

St Paul, the "first" Cardinal.

[of course, you must see the irony caused by yr latest post and the things you have said on other posts about the Apocalypse of St John!!!!!]

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2004.

Don't mean to dissapoint you Ian--but, huh?

Peter was never pope.., and Paul certainly did not know of the Roman Catholic religion.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 15, 2004.

Faith

interesting point you make ;-)

so who was the FIRST Pope?!?!?!

i can provide Scripture and Church Fathers.

what do you have that supports yr answer (beyond superstition)?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 15, 2004.

I believe that Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178-200), provided a list of the first twelve Bishops of Rome.

Linus is listed first.

Peter's name does not appear.

Eusebius of Caesaria--the Father of your Church history--never mentions Peter as Bishop of Rome. He simply says that Peter came to Rome 'about the end of his days' and was crucified there.

Paul, in writing his epistle to the Romans, greets many people by name, but not Peter. That would be a strange omission if Peter had been living in Rome--and especially if he were Bishop! Don't you think?

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 16, 2004.

here's a set of facts that i have just cobbled from a protestant source ("Lion Handbook to the Bible" which has a delightful little chart at page 680):

St Paul to Romans: written 50 - 60AD St Peter 1st Epistle: written 60 - 65AD

the latter, at 5:13, confirms St Peter to be by then in charge in Rome: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark"

doesthis help?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2004.

That only confirms that Peter was in Rome at the end of his days-- like I said.

I find it intriguing that the secret code word for Rome was "Babylon", don't you?

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 16, 2004.

not "intriguing" at all. Rome was decimating the earliest Catholics. St John had a vision about Rome, and also referred to it as Babylon. the City that sits on 7 hills ---- NOT to be confused with the sovereign etc etc etc ;-))

anyways, my point being that maybe one explanation is that St Peter was not in Rome at the time?

again, can you prove that he was there?

it is not necessary to believe that St Peter was the first Christian to step inside Rome to believe that he was the first Pope.

that comes from Scripture and is acknowledged in the early writings of the Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2004.

just to be clear, the protestant source i have quoted believes that St Paul wrote TO the Romans about 7 years before the Supreme Pontiff wrote FROM Rome.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2004.

IOW, can you prove that the Supreme Pontiff was in Rome at an earlier date, and to the knowledge of the Cardinal Prefect?

you will prove that there being no phone, no airlines, no email, no telegraph, no fax, no reliable postal service, no cars, ...., is irrelevant to your argument.....;-))

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2004.

Why would I want to prove that Peter was in Rome at an earlier date? I don't think I understand your jargen.

By Supreme Pontiff, I assume you mean Peter?

Whose the Cardinal Prefect?

I think we can safely assume that Peter was not in Rome at the time that Paul was addressing the Roman Church.

Now if Jesus had left Him the keys and he was the pope--don't you find it odd that none of the New Testament writers seem to be aware of this little detail?? Including Peter Himself?

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 16, 2004.

"Why would I want to prove that Peter was in Rome at an earlier date?"

just a thought Faith. enirely logical, btw. do you often write letters to friends at homes that they have yet to occupy?

"I don't think I understand your jargen. By Supreme Pontiff, I assume you mean Peter? "

Yes. the first Supreme Pontiff

"Whose [sic] the Cardinal Prefect?"

St Paul

"I think we can safely assume that Peter was not in Rome at the time that Paul was addressing the Roman Church."

so WHY!!! would the Cardinal Preferct address the letter to the Pope if he was not there?

"Now if Jesus had left Him the keys and he was the pope"

its in the Scriptures, FAith. you can read. why ask "why"?

" --don't you find it odd that none of the New Testament writers seem to be aware of this little detail?? Including Peter Himself?"

this is nonsense -- see above

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 16, 2004.

Faith, this is one of those rare ocurrances I believe you are absoulutely right: Vatican City did not exist in Paul's days, Peter is never mentioned as creating a see in Rome, Peter was not the first Pope,...

On this I have to agree with Ian: Jesus gave Peter certain duties (keys)with respect to church membership.

But Jesus also did the same for James his brother(Gospel of Thomas), I Corinthians, Acts,...John(see Acts, Galatians), and Paul (see Acts, I Corinthians 15, Galatians).

By the way, it was James, Jesus brother who made the final decisions, not Peter. See Acts, see Galatians, see James.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 16, 2004.

Ian.., could you show me where in Romans Paul ever addresses Peter??

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 16, 2004.

i NEVER said he did.

you are not getting my point.

are you saying that the Supreme Pontiff was in Rome when St Paul wrote there? are you saying that he ought to have been an addressee of the letter?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.

Elpidio

you're going to have to be specific here. there are plenty of instances in the Bible where St Peter is clearly the leader of the pack, as one would expect of the Supreme Pontiff.

on the bigger picture, it can be no mistake that the Eastern Church has constantly slipped into heresy, to be retrieved by the Western; and that it eventually went the way of schism.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.

Ian..,

I am saying that if peter were bishop of Rome--then Paul should have greeted him there. But he didn't mention Peter at all. That is a strange omission if in fact Peter were left by Jesus as the first pope. The Catholic Church declares that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. So I ask for Biblical evidence that he was such--and I can find nothing. All we read is that Peter came to Rome towards the end of His life and was crucified there. That's all the Bible reports.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 17, 2004.

faith

you are getting confused here.

who said that St Peter had to be the first Catholic to reach Rome?!?!

could there not have been a community without a bishop? a growing community?

could not St Peter have decided to establish the Holy See in Jerusalem? of course he could.

i think you need to takea further look at this from a practical perspective.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.

Ridiculous Ian..,

Only Rome has ever claimed to be the headquarters of Christianity with the papal throne. The claim is that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 17, 2004.

"Ridiculous"

aren't you over-reactinga little.

explain WHY St Peter HAD TO BE in Rome when St Paul wrote there?

Where is this in Scripture?

how does this prevent St Peter being first Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff, which he was?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.

Ian..,

Just stop and think for a minute.

If Peter was Bishop in Rome.., and Paul was writing to the church in Rome..,and he is greeting everyone and their uncles--don't cha think Paul would have also greeted Peter--especially if Peter were the Bishop?????

I think that this strange omission of any mention of Peter--is an indication that Peter wasn't there. And if he wasn't there--he wasn't likely the Bishop either!!

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 17, 2004.

ONE MORE TIME

did there have to be a bishop in Rome when St Paul wrote to the Romans?

hypothetical question: but consider it please.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 17, 2004.

Well let's see Ian..,

Was Peter Bishop to Rome or not?

If yes--when?

I would assume that if jesus laid hands on him and left Him as Bishop- -then he had to be Bishop at the point..no?

Does your church claim him as Bishop to the church in Rome? Or not??

Even if Peter was on a mission or something.., Paul would still have acknowledged Peter as the Bishop of Rome or of the entire church--if he were. But the apostles all seem quite unaware of this position that Peter supposedly held. Even Peter himself seems in the dark.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 17, 2004.

Faith, you are in error in your statement concerning Eusebius. Please pay particular attention to the last three lines of this quote.

"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria... Linus ... was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there ... Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24,(A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:81

There are probably close to 200 quotes in all concerning Peter's headship of the church. But you already know that since I have posted them ad nauseum on other threads.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 17, 2004.

Faith

you have gotten this the wrong way round. i think i now understand yr confusion.

Our Lord made St Peter Pope, not Bishop of Rome. He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom, thereby making him His Vicar on Earth. these terms may not have been used then, but they are the labels that describe the unique and supreme office that was handed to St Peter.

now, at that point, St Peter could well have chosen Jerusalem or Antioch or any other town or city to be his. as it happens, he chose Rome.

it is only here that there significance to the office of Bishop of Rome -- because it provide the line of succession for the Papacy. St Peter was a bishop of Rome. spiritual possession of the Keys to the Kingdom passed from St Peter, as bishop, to Linus as next bishop.

..and just to repeat for your benefit, St Peter could have chosen Jerusalem or another episcopate. he chose Rome. the rest is history. simple really when you understand this.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 18, 2004.

Everything you claim--is just that--a claim.

You have no proof or evidence that Peter was ever Bishop, pope or any other title you would like to purport.

The Scriptures are silent on the matter--as are the early church fathers.

Trust me when I tell you that it isn't me who is confused.

You just buy what your religion is selling you. I don't.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 18, 2004.

Faith

this is a regressive experience, so it would appear. we keep going round and round. anyways, please reead this:

St Matthew Chapter 16 vv18 - 19: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

this is from Scripture. Our Lord appoints St Peter as Pope. quite clearly.

having been elected Pope, by being given the Keys to the Kingdom, St Peter could well have chosen Jerusalem or Antioch or any other town or city to be his.

as it happens, he chose Rome -- hence the significance to the office of Bishop of Rome, as it provide the line of succession for the Papacy.

have i answered yr questions, Faith?

i am very happy to persevere with this, as i feel that we will get there in the end.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 18, 2004.

Gail wrote, "There are probably close to 200 quotes in all concerning Peter's headship of the church."

Yea, and there is NOT one mention in the word of God that Peter was the head of the church much less the first pope. This is nothing but a FABRICATION of the Catholic Church.

Dear readers, if you believe that the pope is the head of the church, then you really have not read nor do you understand the word of God for this nonsense is NOT taught by Peter NOR is taught by any of the other inspired writers of the New Testament. To claim that Peter was the first pope is nothing but pure IGNORANCE of God's word.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 18, 2004.

Dear readers,

The church is built upon the CONFESSION that Peter made in Matthew 16:16 "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." and NOT upon Peter.

It is interesting that Catholics base their whole religion upon one spurious passage in this chapter that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus appointing Peter to be the first pope. When people understand this lie, then the whole Catholic religion falls for it is based upon the understanding that Peter was the first pope. Not once is Peter ever called a pope, nor is this office even spoken of in the New Testament.

It is Jesus Christ who is the head of the church and NOT the pope. (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 1:22-23, Ephesians 5:23).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 18, 2004.

How long did Peter live in Rome? In Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greeted entire households and named 29 individuals. But he did not mention Peter. Surely this would be an astonishing omission if Peter was living in Rome and was bishop there. Historians today suggest that Peter lived in Rome for three or four years at most. Irenaeus, the influential Bishop of Lyons (178-200), stated that the first Bishop of Rome was not Peter but Linus. The Father of Church History, Eusebius, wrote about the year 300 that “Peter preached to the Jews throughout Pontius, Galatia, … and near the end of his days, tarrying in Rome, was crucified.” In his writings, Eusebius never once referred to Peter as Bishop of Rome.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 19, 2004.

Dear Readers:

i have but one second to deal with this right now but PLEASE BEWARE, when a protestant offers you am opinion on the Bible, there are some EXTREMELY IMPORTANT factors that you need to take into account:

1 it is their PERSONAL view -- how many people do you trust to take their personal view, not many i'd guess

2 it is a view based upon the bible given them by Catholics, even though many of them spend their days trying to pillary the Church -- the hypocrisy of it

3 from the very same Bible given them by Catholic they have extracted and destroyed the same books that were once extracted and destroyed by the Jewish leaders many centuries ago in an attempt to de-Christianize the Bible - the hypocrisy

4 there are many others, but time is SHORT.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 19, 2004.

Faith this is a regressive experience, so it would appear. we keep going round and round. anyways, please reead this:

St Matthew Chapter 16 vv18 - 19: "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

this is from Scripture. Our Lord appoints St Peter as Pope. quite clearly.

having been elected Pope, by being given the Keys to the Kingdom, St Peter could well have chosen Jerusalem or Antioch or any other town or city to be his.

as it happens, he chose Rome -- hence the significance to the office of Bishop of Rome, as it provide the line of succession for the Papacy.

have i answered yr questions, Faith?

i am very happy to persevere with this, as i feel that we will get there in the end.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 19, 2004.

I am unaware of having asked you anything Ian...

I have no questions., just points to be made.

The rock is Jesus--in case you missed that fact in the Scriptures-- which God gave us.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 19, 2004.

Faith,

let me remind you of some of the things you have said, and of some of the replies I have provided:

"You have no proof or evidence that Peter was ever Bishop, pope or any other title you would like to purport. "

i have provided Scripture.

"The Scriptures are silent on the matter--as are the early church fathers"

I have provided Scripture and early Church wiritngs.

there is not muuch else i can add. this is what you sought. this is what i have given you.

QED.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 19, 2004.

When Jesus responds to Peter that he is right about *who* Christ is--- the Son of the Living God--he tells Peter that it is on that revelation--which God the Father revealed to him (Peter) that He (Jesus) will build His Church. And it is on *this rock*--what rock?? The Rock of Christ--

Look through the Scriptures Ian. God is the rock of our salvation and the church is built on the foundation that Jesus Himself established at Calvary.

Even if you can't come to this conclusion reading the Scriptures because your view is tainted by Catholic dogma--Matthew 16 still says nothing about establishing a papal throne.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 19, 2004.

Faith

what does Cephas mean?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 20, 2004.

It means Peter.., or Petros.., little pebble.

The rock of which the Lord speakss is that common confession made by all who are a part of the church of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

This is seen, I believe, in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly--he changes from a direct address to the third person--"this rock," when speaking of Peter's confession.

He does not say, "Upon you, Peter, I will build my church." But instead, we have a clear distinction between Peter (Petros) and the demonstrative pronoun preceeding (Petra) the confession of faith, on which the church is built.

Petra= large rock or foundation.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 20, 2004.

so you are saying that "Cephas", the word based in Aramaic, means little pebble?

right?!?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 22, 2004.

Not that it matters Ian--but the book of Matthew was never written in Aramaic. It is written in Greek. The *two* words used are Petra and Petros!

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 22, 2004.

here we go again!!!

Faith makes a bold statement, anti-Christian in nature.

when questioned, obfusction, the "slippery eel" effect,.., ever tried to grab onw with yr bare hands? i have. its tough.

so AGAIN:

I repeat:

"so you are saying that "Cephas", the word based in Aramaic, means little pebble? "

Faith, over to you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 22, 2004.

Definition Cephas = "stone" another name for the apostle Peter

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 22, 2004.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi? number=2786&version=kjv

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 22, 2004.

Since there is no large or small.., masculine or feminine name for rock in Aramaic--Cephas just means rock.

But Matthew--in Greek--had a full language from which to make his God inspired point. Petras, large foundation. Petros., little stone or pebble!

What does the Aramaic matter Ian? You think you've made a point--but it is moot. The New Testament wasn't written in Aramaic.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 22, 2004.

I'll just leave you two alone... I'm lost in the 'debate'.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 22, 2004.

Faith- The letters of Paul, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, James, Jude, Acts, Luke, definately in Greek. Their style is Good.

Mark uses Aramaic words (talitha Cumi, Abba,rabouni, Elohi Elohi lama Sabachtani, ...), John (rabouni), Matthew is still in Hebrew letters in the 4th century (See Jerome),, so these Gospels are in Aramaic or used an Aramaic background. Revelation seems a translation from Aramaic. This explains the Use of 666 which stands for Emperor Domitian (81-96 AD) as the beast. K DOMITSINOS as one adds the letters in Hebrew (Aramaic was written in Hebrew letters by Jews) adds up to 666. K is Kaisaros (title for emperor) in Greek.

Try that in Greek? You can't.

Paul makes sure we know Jesus spoke Aramaic because in writing to the Corinthians he says:

1Cr 16:22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. Notice Maran translates the word Lord.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 22, 2004.

anti-bold.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 23, 2004.

i am sure that i could not have taken this point further with Faith any better. thank you.

that leaves St Peter as the Rock, the first holder of the Keys, with the power to loose and bind. and its all Scriptural.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 23, 2004.

When Christ gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19), he explained what it meant: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

..and in John 20:22-23:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven: if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all--not just Peter. Therefore it is unwarranted to claim that Peter had special power over the other apostles. Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the new Testament and was unknown even in the Roman Catholic Church until centuries later.

Peter was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles--but no special authority.

In his epistles, Peter exhorts equals--he does not command subordinates: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder" (1 Peter 5:1).

Christ told the apostles to make disciples through preaching the gospel. He added that each person who believed the gospel was to be taught to obey everything that he had taught the original twelve. In order for every new disciple/believer to do all that the original twelve were commanded to do--meant that every ordinary disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ as the original apostles did.

Whatever commands and empowerment the apostles received from Christ were passed on to all who believed the gospel., who in turn passed this on to their converts and so on down to the present time. Obviously then--not just some special class of bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes, or a magisterium.., but all Christians are the successors of the apostles.

The history of the early church in the New Testament bears this out. The apostles made disciples by the thousands and passed on to them all of Christ's commands., and Christ himself, from heaven, empowered these new disciples to carry on his great commission. Christians multiplied and churches were established throughout the Roman Empire.

There were no cathedrals and the local church met in people's homes. Leadership was by a group of godly elders who were older and more mature in the faith. There was no hierarchy, locally or over a wider territory--which had to be obeyed because of a title or office. There was no select class of priests who had special authority to act as intermediaries between God and people.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 23, 2004.

Faith

did Our Lord distribute further Keys amongst the Apostles?!?!?!

is that what you are saying? is that in the Scriptures?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

I provided the Scripture verses that show that Jesus gave the keys to all his apostles and commanded them to pass this on to all future disciples/believers.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

Grounghog Day, FAith.

"did Our Lord distribute further Keys amongst the Apostles?!?!?!

is that what you are saying? is that in the Scriptures? "

Chapter & Verse please.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

You are really thick or something, Ian--no offense.

I gave the verses in my original post, that you question!

Matthew 18:18:

Jesus is speaking to the disciples...

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

..and in John 20:22-23:

Speaking to all the disciples...

"And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven: if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

you keep saying these things to me Faith (eg "are you really thick or something"). but each time you do that, it is because i have pointed out your purposive, wishful re-writing of Scripture.

to illustrate, over in this thread (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00Bgd9), you said that it was clear from Apocalypse 18 that there was an intimate relationship between the whore of Babylon and God. BUT upon exanimation it transpired that there is no such suggestion in Scripture and that the "intimate relationship" follows because you interpret the whore as the Church which is intimately related to Christ as His Bride. it exists in your imagination, NOT in Scripture, so you re-present Scripture accordingly.

the same thing is happening here.

in this case, you are saying that the Keys were given to all the Apostles BUT (!!!) the Scriptures you provide do not mention "keys" anywhere.

in this case, St Peter, the Rock and the only Rock, is also the sole recipient of the Keys.

St Matthew 18 (from KJV):

[17] And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[20] Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

i have provided Scripture that shows the Keys being handed to St Peter. where is yr Scripture that shows other "keys" being distributed?

there's certainly nothing in the KJV to help you.

of course, if you believe that the 2 are the same, maybe you would like to prove the point. however, if you practice Sola Scriptura, surely the proof must come from Scripture alone or it is not doctrine?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

When Christ gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19), he explained what it meant: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So what you are telling me is that because the word *key* isn't used in the verses below, that it simply isn't the same thing? Wow....no wonder you are not very good at theology Ian!

Matthew 18:18:

Jesus is speaking to the disciples...

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

..and in John 20:22-23:

Speaking to all the disciples...

"And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven: if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

You, Ian.., are being very dishonest to the Word of God if you deny simple teaching like this.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

"...no wonder you are not very good at theology Ian..."

this is water of a duck's back Faith. you will only get RSI if you keep it coming!

anyways, i try to read Scripture without adding in my own words.

so PROVE, if you can, that there is NO significance to being given the Keys. these words are in the Bible. they must mean something. only St Peter was given the Keys. that's Scripture.

he was also given the power to loose and bind. theren is an "and" between the two -- not a "so" or "therefore"

eg you have the Keys "so" you can loose and bind eg you have the Keys "therefore" you can loose and bind eg you have the Keys "and" you can loose and bind

this is a natural interpretation. you need a reason to give Scripture an unnatural interpretation.

and why oh why do i keep having o do all the work. you must start justifying yr points, or just stop bothering posting.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

So then Ian.., what do you think the *keys* are about--if not to loose and bind? What did Jesus say they were for? Scripture please??

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

NOOOO Faith.

this is the point.

if you RE-WRITE Scripture, you must find a good reason to do so.

people do not come here to hear yr private views.

this is supposed to be a Christian place to post, not "faithian".

if you can support yr views, then support them. otherwise, keep them to yourself (and have the good grace to admit it when you're caught out).

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

Ian, what is she 'caught out' with? (thread is too long for me to read right now)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), March 24, 2004.

I posted the Scripture that shows you that Jesus gave all disciples the same keys to loose and bind and forgive or retain sin....

You need to show that these keys were not about loosing and binding., if you are to prove that the keys were only given to Peter.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

side note--

The ability to forgive sin wasn't meant that a human being could forgive sin.., only God can do that. But the *key* to forgiveness of sin is Jesus Christ, which we as beleivers have in our possession to share with others so that they could receive forgiveness too..

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

Here we go Ian...

...from your own Church's words...taken from the "New Advent"

(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term in such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded....

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

David

"caught out with" ----- re-writing Scripture.

eg Scripture says "X".

BUT Faith manintains, with some vigourous zeal, that Scripture says "Y".

AND to get from "X" to "Y" you need to be Faith.

in this case, and to really cut to the point, only St Peter is explicitly given the Keys. Faith maintains that all the other Apostles were given the Keys -->> in Scripture!!! but this is not in Scripture. do a basic word-search.

it is, therefore, unScriptural.

(1) in this case, Faith believes that the power to loose and bind is the same as being given the keys.

(2) AND she then imputes her beliefs unto Scripture

(3) SO Scripture SAYS THAT the other Apostles received the Keys.

(4) this is mis-representing Scripture.

(5) this is actually frowned upon in Scripture.

the Bible is the Bible. FAith's views are her views. should [ever!!] the twain meet, then Glory Be. But one is certainly most superior to the other.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

furthermore:

i had already researched New Advent before i engaged.

Faith is unlikely to have read New Advent. but she is happy to post it here.

this bit, uuuuum: "This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term in such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010)"

read it again Faith: "This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised"

furthermore, David, look at what this entry is concerned with. funny coincidence!

time and time again, everyone else does research and tries to present an honest story. from FAith, we get the unresearched, unScriptural Gospel according to Faith.

....full of sound and fury, strutting its last,..., etc

its very, very, VERY boring debating with Faith because you know that, even if you resort to using the KJV, she is still going to keep re-writing it. but i am happy to keep trying.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

Ian., you are not paying attention.

Your own church agrees that the keys meant such things as binding and loosing--but not limited to just that. Your own church then admits that it is clear that this authority is given to all the disciples. It then goes on to say that the keys are not connected with the papal claim.

I didn't need to read New Advent to understand this. I just thought that you would concede when you saw that your own church is in agreement with me.

Of course--they still deny that all people who put their faith in Christ are the church. They think the Church is your private little institution--but that is another topic.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

this is lke an old English pantomime.

"Ohe no she didn't; oh yes she did; yad-de-yah-de-yah,..."

Faith,

if you RE-WRITE Scripture, you must find a good reason to do so.

people do not come here to hear yr private views.

if you can support yr views, then support them. otherwise, keep them to yourself (and have the good grace to admit it when you're caught out).

posting stuff from a resource that you do not "trust" [a Catholic source], does not get you there.

EITHER

a/ you can substantiate what you say - OR

b/ you are making it up.

the "keys".

where in Scripture were they handed out to anyone other that St Peter, the first Holy Father?

chapter and verse please: or an apology for misusing Scripture.

everything else is your OWN PERSONAL VIEWPOINT -- and that means jack-all.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 24, 2004.

You are dishonest....this is Scripture whether you understand it or not.

When Christ gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19), he explained what it meant: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

..and in John 20:22-23:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven: if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all the apostles--the church--not just Peter.

Therefore it is unwarranted to claim that Peter had special power over the other apostles. Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament.

Your own Church says as much.

Don't accuse me of rewriting the Scriptures Ian. And please stop referencing the KJB as though that Bible were my Bible--it isn't. Not that it makes a whole lot of difference. Quote my verses i9n just about any Bible and you will find the same thing.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 24, 2004.

Faith

the word "Key" barely occurs in all normal versions of the NT.

it seems to occur with unusual frequency in the Faithian Version that you use -- and that lives in yr head.

call me all the names of the day. what i say is true. you are RE- WRITING Scripture because it does not say what you wish it said.

"keys". spelt K-E-Y-S,........, mentioned only twice (i think).

only St Peter was ever given them. the Rock was given the Keys. how you must resent that, but that is Scripture for you.

Heah, i am starting to sound like a Sola Scripturist... or maybe Catholics are the truest to the Bible despite what "certain people" would have us all believe,....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 25, 2004.

What are the Keys about then?

Figure out what jesus meant by using the word keys.

I think that jesus explains what he means by *keys* in the very next line.

If I am wrong--then why don't you tell us what Jesus meant???

If I said to someone., "I am giving you the keys to my heart. You will be able to convince me of anything and I will always love you."

What do you suppose I mean by *keys?*

And if I said to someone else..."I love you so much! You could convince me of anything and I will always be yours."

Would you think that I gave this other person the same thing--even if I didn't use the term *keys?*

For me--the word *keys* simply means access or ability. Jesus told Peter that he would be able to loose and bind and forgive....and he told this same thing to all the other disciples as well.

You are being literarily irresponsible if you think that you hold some *other* meaning just because of the word keys. And if there is some other meaning--then tell us, please.

-- Let's try this again., (faith01@myway.com), March 25, 2004.

Faith

the OT shows that St Peter was given the Keys.

no-one else was.

FACT, Jack.

the rest is your personal theory -- compared to the Word of God, COMPLETELY WORTHLESS.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 25, 2004.

The best thing to do is interpret scripture in light of scripture. Judges 3:25, Isaiah 22:22, Revelations 3:7, Revelations 9:1, Revelations 20:1

Clearly, "keys" represent power and authority.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 25, 2004.

Still.., the power and authority--while not limited to loosing and binding or forgiving sin--was extended to all the disciples., not just Peter--as I have shown with Scripture. That is my point.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 25, 2004.

that IS the point Faith.

1/ inside yr head, the keys were passed around like snuff at a wake.

2/ inside the Bible, they were given to St Peter - and NO-ONE ELSE.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 26, 2004.

The keys to the kingdom of heaven are given to all apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ--as I showed you in the Scriptures. Ignore it if you need to---and continue in your false papal doctrines that arose because of such denial. It isn't my problem--just yours.

Read it and weep...

When Christ gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19), he explained what it meant: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

..and in John 20:22-23:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven: if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all the apostles--the church--not just Peter.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 26, 2004.

Christ gave Peter the keys. Peter was the ONLY one to whom Christ gave the keys. Jesus did give a mandate to the apostles. They were given the authority to forgive and retain sins.

The Bible says the apostles are the foundation of the church. From that foundation is a succession of bishops and presbyters . . . in direct line to the apostles. They have been given a special dispensation, according to the word of God AND according to history.

"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44 (A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17

"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69

"Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.' " Hegesippus,Memoirs,fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History,4:22 (A.D. 180),in NPNF2,I:198-199

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:33:8(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:508

Just a few quotes. There are many many more. The Roman Catholic Church today is the DIRECT descendant of the apostolic foundation of the Church commissioned by Christ himself.

Gail

P.S. Quotes compiled by Joseph Gallegos and taken from the Ante- Nicene Fathers.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 26, 2004.

The problem stems from the misunderstanding on the part of the Catholic Church--who thinks that only certain bishops and priests are Jesus' disciples.

The Word of God tells us that *all* believers were given the same power and authority.

That is because as believers, we can share Jesus Christ with all--and they too, can find forgiveness. Only God can forgive sin--by the way.

When Christ gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19), he explained what it meant: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

..and in John 20:22-23:

"And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven: if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all--not just Peter. You place way to much emphasis on the idea that the word key was used in each case.

It is unwarranted to claim that Peter had special power over the other apostles. Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament and was unknown even in the Roman Catholic Church until centuries later.

Peter was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles--but no special authority.

In his epistles, Peter exhorts equals--he does not command subordinates: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder" (1 Peter 5:1).

Christ told the apostles to make disciples through preaching the gospel. He added that each person who believed the gospel was to be taught to obey everything that he had taught the original twelve. In order for every new disciple/believer to do all that the original twelve were commanded to do--meant that every ordinary disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ as the original apostles did.

Whatever commands and empowerment the apostles received from Christ were passed on to all who believed the gospel., who in turn passed this on to their converts and so on down to the present time.

Obviously then--not just some special class of bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes, or a magisterium.., but all Christians are the successors of the apostles.

The history of the early church in the New Testament bears this out. The apostles made disciples by the thousands and passed on to them all of Christ's commands., and Christ himself, from heaven, empowered these new disciples to carry on his great commission. Christians multiplied and churches were established throughout the Roman Empire.

There were no cathedrals and the local church met in people's homes. Leadership was by a group of godly elders who were older and more mature in the faith. There was no hierarchy, locally or over a wider territory--which had to be obeyed because of a title or office. There was no select class of priests who had special authority to act as intermediaries between God and people.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 23, 2004.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 26, 2004.

"The problem stems from the misunderstanding on the part of the Catholic Church--who thinks that only certain bishops and priests are Jesus' disciples." ANSWER: FALSE. It is no misunderstanding, it is an historical fact.

"The Word of God tells us that *all* believers were given the same power and authority." ANSWER: FALSE. The authority was given to Peter and the apostles ALONE. There were no throngs of people standing around. Read your Bible. Show me where scripture mentions crowds of people standing around whilst Christ was giving the mandates.

"That is because as believers, we can share Jesus Christ with all-- and they too, can find forgiveness. Only God can forgive sin--by the way." TRUE!

"When Christ gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19), he explained what it meant: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ANSWER: TRUE, and as you said CHRIST GAVE PETER THE KEYS!

"That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." ..and in John 20:22-23: "And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven: if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'"

ANSWER: THESE MANDATES WERE GIVEN TO THE APOSTLES WITH PETER AS THE CHIEF APOSTLE! Read your Bible, Faith, show me where ANYONE ELSE IS MENTIONED BESIDES THE APOSTLES?

"Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all--not just Peter. You place way to much emphasis on the idea that the word key was used in each case."

ANSWER: FALSE! Scripture gives this mandate to the apostles, not EVERY believer. Again, where do you read in scripture that these mandates were for ALL BELIEVERS! You are simply reading into the text your own suppositions.

Then you say I'm "making too much of the word key." Well, let's see, there's the "Key of David," the "Key of Hades," the "Key to the kingdom." No, Faith, you are disparaging the word. I am simply reading scripture in light of scripture. The word "key" is a word used only several times symbolizing something very special INDEED!

"It is unwarranted to claim that Peter had special power over the other apostles. Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament and was unknown even in the Roman Catholic Church until centuries later."

ANSWER: FALSE, FALSE, FALSE! Did you not read any of the quotes from the pre-Constantine Fathers concerning Peter that I have posted over and over again. The Shepherd's Mantle was given to one person . . . PETER! Christ is addressing Peter and Peter ALONE when he gives him the keys!

"Peter was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles--but no special authority."

ANSWER: FALSE. Again, show me where Christ addresses anyone other than Peter when he gives him the mantle, when he gives him the keys to the kingdom!

"In his epistles, Peter exhorts equals--he does not command subordinates: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder" (1 Peter 5:1).

ANSWER: WE ARE ALL EQUAL, yet some have different ROLES! WE ARE COMMANDED IN SCRIPTURE TO SUBMIT TO OUR LEADERS, Faith. How do you rewrite those scriptures. Do you know which ones I'm talking about? I will be happy to post them. Just say the word. Scripture is replete with admonitions to listen to our LEADERS, to submit to their authority!

"Christ told the apostles to make disciples through preaching the gospel. He added that each person who believed the gospel was to be taught to obey everything that he had taught the original twelve." ANSWER: Okay, I can go along with that.

But, "In order for every new disciple/believer to do all that the original twelve were commanded to do--meant that every ordinary disciple must have the same authority and power from Christ as the original apostles did."

ANSWER: EVERYONE DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME ROLE TO PLAY, NOR THE SAME GIFTS! There are deacons, there are presbyters, there are bishops IN THE BIBLE. Do you ignore those scriptures TOO! We are all part of the same body, but different parts have different functions. Surely you know that.

"Whatever commands and empowerment the apostles received from Christ were passed on to all who believed the gospel., who in turn passed this on to their converts and so on down to the present time."

ANSWER: FALSE, you cannot prove that anywhere from scripture, AT ALL, AT ALL, AT ALL! Christ gave the mandate to his apostles and to Peter as the leader of the pack.

"Obviously then--not just some special class of bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes, or a magisterium.., but all Christians are the successors of the apostles."

ANSWER: ROLES, Faith, it's all about ROLES! God gives ROLES to women, God gives roles to men to play within marriage. Likewise, God gives ROLES to members of His Church. He gives gifts according to His will, and He gives leadership roles according to His will THROUGH APPOINTMENTS, just like in SCRIPTURE!

"The history of the early church in the New Testament bears this out. The apostles made disciples by the thousands and passed on to them all of Christ's commands., and Christ himself, from heaven, empowered these new disciples to carry on his great commission. Christians multiplied and churches were established throughout the Roman Empire."

ANSWER: Where are you getting this stuff? Let's see some proof. Let's see some scripture that supports your theory. Let's see how scripture supports the idea of "self-ordination." "You got a house, lead a group." Where is that in scripture, Faith? Christ established a Church. Appointments were made in the N.T., and they were made throughout the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. If your theory is correct; i.e. that house churches with no leaders was the way the church ran, there should be some proof of that Faith. But there is no proof whatsoever. There is no mandate for self-appointed leaders in scripture AND the records from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries OVERWHELM your theory with references to apostolic succession.

"There were no cathedrals and the local church met in people's homes. Leadership was by a group of godly elders who were older and more mature in the faith. There was no hierarchy, locally or over a wider territory--which had to be obeyed because of a title or office. There was no select class of priests who had special authority to act as intermediaries between God and people.

ANSWER: FALSE! FALSE! FALSE! Again, you have not read any of the historical writings of PRE-Constantine Fathers! Leaders were APPOINTED in scripture, and not self-appointed, but APPOINTMENTS WERE MADE and consecrated by the laying on of hands.

Again, just show me one scripture where leaders were "self-ordained" as they are now within Protestantism. Show me one scripture that supports this notion, Faith. You can't because there are NONE!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 26, 2004.

Who said self-ordained Gail?

We are ordained by the high priest himself. Jesus Christ.

He started His church with the twelve apostles and they were commanded to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations of people.

"Teaching them (the disciples they make preaching the gospel) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt 28:20

That statement cannot be confined exclusively to a leadership hierarchy. Such had been the Jewish priesthood, which was a shadow of the things to come, and became terribly corrupted--only to be done away with at the cross. Read Hebrews 7:11-28...or better yet--read on through chapter 10.

None of Christ's promises to the apostles were only for them or for some elite class. All Christians pray in Christ's name--yet this promise was given originally to the original twelve. All Christians take the bread and wine in communion--yet it was to the original twelve that Jesus said, "Do this in rememberance of me." It is clear that everything Jesus said to His inner circle of disciples applied to their converts and to all Christians today.

The Catholic who believes that there is a hierarchy to answer to--has been forced under the power of Rome--causing them to look to a priest for that which is the heritage of every true disciple of Christ.

I think that if Christ's words to Peter in Matthew 16:18 made him the first infallible pope--then we have a serious problem because the very next words out of Peter's mouth denied the very heart of the gospel by declaring that Christ need not go to the cross. The Lord responded to Peter...something to the effect--"Get thee behind me, Satan!"

Also Gail--all you have to do is read the new Testament--Acts in particular, to see what church looked like and where people came together. I personally don't care what anyone after the original church says in your quotes--which aren't even verifiable.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 26, 2004.

P.S If you believe that every pope has been succeeded by the laying on of hands from the pope before him--think again!

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 26, 2004.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree, Faith.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 26, 2004.

Faith,

You are wasting your time with these Catholics. They just don't get it and they prefer to be deceived by their Church and they will continue to be deceived for Satan is the great deceiver.

CLEARLY the giving of the "keys" to Peter in Matthew 16:19 are a DIRECT REFERENCE to the "binding and loosing" that ALL of the apostles were given in Matthew 18:18. The TRUTH is right there in front of them and they clearly REJECT what has been written.

Catholics CLEARLY TWIST this verse as they do many others to prop up their FALSE DOCTRINE that Peter was the first pope. The word of God does NOT support this theory NOR was Peter ever a pope as this is nothing but blasphemy against our Lord Jesus Christ to claim that a MAN (the pope) is head over the church that Jesus built. Scripture CLEARLY states that Jesus is the head of the church and that leaves NO ROOM for the pope.

There is NO PROOF that Peter had authority over the other apostles. Nor can any Catholic PROVE that Peter was the first pope from the pages of the New Testament.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 26, 2004.

Hi Kevin..

I agree with you 100%.., and while I may be wasting my time--I can't help but want to try anyway.

Maybe eventually, I will burn out.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 27, 2004.

Don't burn out, Faith. Instead of big bonfires, you should try little candles.

................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.

Dear Readers

the Bible shows that Our Lord gavethe Keys to ONE person, St Peter.

anyone who tells you differently is lying. Scripture is clear. there is BUT ONE instance of Keys being handed over by the Incarnate Word.

they were given to the first Pope.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 27, 2004.

You are such a bore Ian.,

Anyone with any literary skills whatsoever can see that the keys are to loosing and binding and forgiving--something Christ obviously gave to all the disciples.

Even your Church acknowledges as much--so why don't you--and stop harping on a non-sequitur!!

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 27, 2004.

Dear readers,

Ian says, "the Bible shows that Our Lord gavethe Keys to ONE person, St Peter."

Anyone who UNDERSTANDS the Bible, knows that this is a FALSE statement.

Ian claims that "anyone who tells you differently is lying."

This also is NOT the truth for the keys are symbolic for the "binding and loosing" which ALL of the apostles had the KEYS to open even though it does NOT specifially state that the other apostles had the "KEYS" to which Ian alludes.

The "keys" allowed one to have the power to "bind and loose" to claim that the other apostles were NOT given the keys the same as Peter just shows how BLINDED people are to the TRUTH of God's word.

Yes, "Scripture is clear." to those who HONESTLY search the word and read ALL that is spoken of any one subject.

To claim that "there is BUT ONE instance of Keys being handed over by the Incarnate Word." is nothing more than pure IGNORANCE of Scripture.

Don't be fooled by someone who says, "they were given to the first Pope." for Ian could NOT prove that Peter was the first pope if his life depended on it for this is NOT what the word of God states.

Peter NEVER was the first pope NOR does such an office exist in the word of God.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 27, 2004.

Dear Readers

the Bible shows -- QUITE LITERALLY -- that Our Lord gave the Keys to ONE person, St Peter.

anyone who tells you differently is lying. Scripture is clear. there is BUT ONE instance of Keys being handed over by the Incarnate Word.

they were given to the first Pope.

READ YR BIBLES!!!

it's all there.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 27, 2004.

Dear Reader

1// they tell you the Bible is the sole rule of faith -- BUT they can never tell you where the Bible actually says that -- BECAUSE it does not say that

2// AND they do this YET they ignore what the Bible says -- just look above for evidence ("Keys" -- according to the Bible, ONLY EVER given to St Peter, NO-ONE else)

3// "they" -- well there's a laugh -- they are a disparate bunch -- see this thread -->>> http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00BuDE. this is where this religion gets you. the battle of personal prejudice against personal prejudice. that's why there are over 30,000 different protestant denominations. AND amongst those denominations, any theoligical consensus is both a practical and theoretical fluke.

hang around readers and just see how many times these wolves actually agree on anything other that that they hate Catholics. just how Christian is that?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 27, 2004.

This url is not found:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00BuDE

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 27, 2004.

try this one: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=00BuDE

they are always at it. how many times on older threads (noew destroyed) did Kevin argue with David. i recall reading these and the disagreements were profound, the debates quite aggressive.

the one area of common ground is overt "dislike" (understatement in most cases) of the Church.

what does that tell you? is the tail wagging the dog? i really do think so.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 28, 2004.

Ian wrote, "the Bible shows -- QUITE LITERALLY -- that Our Lord gave the Keys to ONE person, St Peter."

Dear readers, please also note that the "binding and loosing" was also given to ALL of the apostles and NOT just Peter. The "keys" quite literally refer to the "binding and loosing" and Ian does NOT know what he is talking about. Ian continues to use the oft repeated Catholic argument that Peter was the ONLY one given the keys and that is just NOT TRUE.

Ian wrote, "anyone who tells you differently is lying. Scripture is clear. there is BUT ONE instance of Keys being handed over by the Incarnate Word."

Once again Ian repeats his words but he does NOT bother to explain how the other apostles were able to have this same "binding and loosing" power even though they were not given the "keys" that Peter was given. Let Ian explain how this is possible if Peter was the ONLY one given the keys.

Ian wrote, "they were given to the first Pope."

For a second time, Ian does not bother to explain or show through scripture that Peter was the first pope. Please notice that he does a good job of ASSUMING, but little in the way of PROVING that this is indeed the case.

Ian wrote, "READ YR BIBLES!!!"

Yes, please read your bibles and you will see that Ian is NOT speaking the truth.

Ian wrote, "it's all there."

Yes, it is for those who are HONESTLY searching for the TRUTH.

Ian continued, "1// they tell you the Bible is the sole rule of faith -- BUT they can never tell you where the Bible actually says that -- BECAUSE it does not say that"

Please notice dear readers that we will be judged by the words that Jesus spoke and we have His words written down for us in the New Testament. (John 12:48). Since there is NO PROOF that Jesus words are not in the New Testament, this CLEARLY shows that the Bible is the SOLE RULE OF FAITH. You can either believe Jesus, or believe Ian, the choice is yours to make.

Ian wrote, "2// AND they do this YET they ignore what the Bible says -- just look above for evidence ("Keys" -- according to the Bible, ONLY EVER given to St Peter, NO-ONE else)"

Please notice dear readers that Ian still does not explain that if Peter was the only one given the keys to "bind and loose" how the other apostles also had this POWER (keys) to "bind and loose".

Ian wrote, "3// "they" -- well there's a laugh -- they are a disparate bunch -- see this thread -->>> http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00BuDE. this is where this religion gets you. the battle of personal prejudice against personal prejudice. that's why there are over 30,000 different protestant denominations. AND amongst those denominations, any theoligical consensus is both a practical and theoretical fluke."

Ian once again uses the oft repeated argument "there are over 30,00 different protestant denominations..." but please notice that he does not tell you that ALL of them came from the Catholic Church who is the MOTHER of all division.

Ian wrote, "hang around readers and just see how many times these wolves actually agree on anything other that that they hate Catholics. just how Christian is that?"

Ian has yet to prove that he is a Christian in the first place nor has he proven the point that those of here "hate Catholics", this is just another of Ian's assumptions with NO PROOF offered.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 28, 2004.

Dear Reader,

only one person was ever given the Keys -- read the Bible -- that was St Peter.

anyone who says otherwise is twisting Scripture and telling you lies.

it's all in the Bible should you care to read it. quite literally.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 28, 2004.

PS Kevin

very worryingly, you say

"[nor has he] ... proven the point that those of [us] here "hate Catholics""

are you telling me that you do -- But that I need to prove it?!?! SURELY YOU HAVE JUST PROVED IT?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 28, 2004.

Ian continues to write, "only one person was ever given the Keys -- read the Bible -- that was St Peter."

Please notice he still does NOT answer my question when I said: "Please notice dear readers that Ian still does not explain that if Peter was the only one given the keys to "bind and loose" how the other apostles also had this POWER (keys) to "bind and loose"."

Then Ian continues to state "anyone who says otherwise is twisting Scripture and telling you lies."

Once again Ian throws out an accusation, in that he accuses me of "twisting Scripture and telling you lies", but does not bother to answer my questions.

Dear readers, there is NO PROOF that Peter was the first pope and this is the TRUTH according to the word of God and those who state this to be true are the ones who are guilty of telling lies and twisting Scripture. God has sent "strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12). Ian wrote, "very worryingly, you say "[nor has he] ... proven the point that those of [us] here "hate Catholics"

Then Ian continued, "are you telling me that you do -- But that I need to prove it?!?! SURELY YOU HAVE JUST PROVED IT?"

Sorry Ian, you have not proved any such a thing of which you accuse me once again. I merely responded to a statement that YOU made when you said "?other that that they hate Catholics?", and no, there was nothing in my writing that has me "worried" at all for I do not hate Catholics nor have I ever stated this to be true.

Once again Ian , you make an accusation that you CANNOT prove.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 28, 2004.

Kevin

you can keep posting on this for as long as you want -- BUT in the Bible only ONE SET of Keys are handed over, and they are given to St Peter.

each time you argue that other Keys were handed over, you lie because that is not in the Bible.

forr goodness sake man, you lot spend your whole time saying that Catholics do not read the Bible. seems to me that you are happy to add words here and there as it suits yr personal agenda.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 29, 2004.

Ian,

How about answering my question instead of posting the same thing OVER and OVER again.

You wrote, "you can keep posting on this for as long as you want -- BUT in the Bible only ONE SET of Keys are handed over, and they are given to St Peter."

I also EXPLAINED this to you and you have YET to respond to what I wrote.

You wrote, "each time you argue that other Keys were handed over, you lie because that is not in the Bible."

I NEVER said "other keys were handed over" NOR have I lied and I CHALLENGE you to PROVE this to be the case IAN. Please cut and paste my words where I state "other keys were handed over". Please do NOT make another accusation that you CANNOT prove. You are very good at making these accusations, how about PROVING them for a change???

You wrote, "forr goodness sake man, you lot spend your whole time saying that Catholics do not read the Bible."

Here you go again Ian with another accusation. Please once again CUT AND PASTE my words where I said in my whole time on this thread saying " Catholics do not read the Bible ". If you CANNOT do this, then who is the one guilty of LYING???

You wrote, "seems to me that you are happy to add words here and there as it suits yr personal agenda."

Which words are you speaking of Ian??? I am not here to "suit my personal agenda" as you so state. How about answering some questions that have been asked of you instead of quoting the same thing over and over again and NEVER bothering to respond what is posted???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 29, 2004.

Ian, Kevin will NEVER admit that Christ was only talking to Peter when he gave him the keys, even though the text mentions NO ONE ELSE. He can only take the text literally so long as he has a preconceived dogma for which it fits.

You see, Ian, within Protestantism, the method by which one interprets scripture changes as often as you NEED it to.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 29, 2004.

Dear readers,

Gail and other Catholics will NEVER admit that Christ was ALSO talking to the OTHER APOSTLES when He gave them the SAME AUTHORITY (the keys were symbolic) to "BIND AND LOOSE". Gail and other Catolics will also NEVER believe what is WRITTEN for ALL of the apostles had the SAME POWER for this does NOT fit what she has been told to believe by her Catholic authorities.

You see Dear readers, with Cathoicism, they TWIST scripture to fit their doctrines most of which CANNOT be found in the word of God.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 30, 2004.

No, Kevin, I'm just reading scripture at face value. I don't have to twist scripture to try to make it fit my preconceived notions like you do.

When Christ gives the keys to Peter, I simply look at the text to see if there is any mention of others present at this meeting. Clearly, the answer is NO. SCRIPTURE MENTIONS NO ONE ELSE.

When Christ breathes on the disciples and says "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whatsoever sins you RETAIN are RETAINED, and whatsoever sins you forgive are forgiven," again I look to see if there were throngs of disciples standing by. Again, the answer is NO.

What is amazing about you, Kev, is that so much of the time, you DO read scripture at face value, and you also read scripture in light of scripture . . . MUCH TO YOUR CREDIT, but then when it comes to those troublesome "Catholic" passages you do sommersaults, just like Faith and just like David. (Though I must admit Faith is definitely the Acrobat-Par-Excellence when it comes to scriptural gymnastics!)

Anyway, God Bless you both, and may you both enlighten each other in the truth.

Gail

P.S. Hey, if you can't agree on anything else, you can always fall back on ole faithful; a mutual loathing of anything and everything Catholic!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), March 30, 2004.

Gail,

You wrote, "No, Kevin, I'm just reading scripture at face value. I don't have to twist scripture to try to make it fit my preconceived notions like you do."

Unfortunately you are mistaken Gail and are being dishonest with the word of God.

Were the other apostles also given the POWER to "bind and loose" Yes or No??? If Yes, then they were also given the keys even though the text of your Bible does NOT say specifically that they were given the keys. To state anything contrary to this TRUTH is being dishonest with the word of God.

You wrote, "When Christ breathes on the disciples and says "Receive the Holy Spirit. Whatsoever sins you RETAIN are RETAINED, and whatsoever sins you forgive are forgiven," again I look to see if there were throngs of disciples standing by. Again, the answer is NO."

I would like for you Gail to EXPLAIN how the apostles were able to "RETAIN" and "FORGIVE" sins in the New Testament. The SAME power was given to ALL of the apostles for they were ALL there in this instance. In the instance with the keys, Peter was there and in another instance ALL of the apostles were there and lo and behold they were given the SAME power. Hello...

You wrote, "What is amazing about you, Kev, is that so much of the time, you DO read scripture at face value, and you also read scripture in light of scripture . . . MUCH TO YOUR CREDIT, but then when it comes to those troublesome "Catholic" passages you do sommersaults, just like Faith and just like David. (Though I must admit Faith is definitely the Acrobat-Par-Excellence when it comes to scriptural gymnastics!)"

Sorry Gail, there is no gymnastics here, the ONLY gymnastics are those doctrines that Catholics teach that are NOT in accordance with the word of God.

You wrote, "P.S. Hey, if you can't agree on anything else, you can always fall back on ole faithful; a mutual loathing of anything and everything Catholic!"

Was this comment really necessary Gail??? Did I come back and call you all sorts of names when you were the one who did all of the name calling??? No, not once did I ever say anything derogatory to you NOR have I ever "loathed" Catholics whether you choose to believe it or not. I do not dislike Catholics, I vehementely oppose their doctrines because they are NOT in accordance with God's word and that is all. Once again Gail, like most Catholics in this forum, please if you are going to make an accusation, how about some PROOF that I am guilty of the things in which I am being accused???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), March 30, 2004.

Dear Reader

what i have learned with Kevin, Faith et al is that it pays to stick to the point and not to be distracted.

so i will repeat again -- in the Bible only ONE SET of Keys are handed over, and they are given to St Peter.

each time you argue that other Keys were handed over, you lie because that is not in the Bible.

JUST READ THE BIBLE. IT'S ALL THERE.

and Gail's last two posts provide a textbook description of the salacious hypocrisy and Scripture-twisting that Kevin, Faith et al resort to attack the Church.

then go look at some other threads and watch them rip each other apart!!!!! Sola Scriptura in action ;-)))

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 31, 2004.

Umm..Ian??

You really are enept!

I suppose you are unaware of the ripping that goes on within your own church?

http://disc.server.com/Indices/209132.html

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 31, 2004.

Faith

Have you read any of the articles there?

Why would you even go to a Catholic site, Faith?

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

I actually used to post there before they let this place slip out of the bag, so-to-speak.

I like quite a few people there, and actually see them as closer to the truth. They are like protestants in a sense, though they seem to still keep one foot stuck in the door.

Jake banned me a while ago tho....

What can I say? I am drawn to the lost....

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 31, 2004.

Hee..hee....leader for the lost....Just kidding, I couldn't resist.

So, that's where Jake wound up, or started?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

Not sure what you mean?

Are you saying that Jake left here possibly banned? And then opened his own board?

I don't know.

I posted there last summer before I knew this place. I actually made some friends there--some I still keep in touch with via email.

I get the impression his board has been up for years. It is funny to watch them come over to this site and post trouble on the Catholic board.

My whole point to Ian--is that division is an earthly human problem, yet Christ says His church cannot be divided. Therefore--it is obvious that His church is *not* of this world. This includes the Roman Catholic Church--which is at the heart of division.

The great schism in 1000 A.D was do to a disagreement with Roman doctrine. And the Protestant Reformation led by Luther--was in response to false Roman doctrine as well.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 31, 2004.

Jake and I traded words on the Catholic Forum way back when. I don't believe Jake has ever posted in this forum.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

No., I have never seen him here either.

But he posts at a site hosted by a Jewish doctor--a site he discovered through a Religion and Ethics board that I was posting at before I stumbled onto his Trad. site.

It seems that we aren't aloud to go to his site for the purpose of preaching, but its okay for him to come to other sites for that purpose.

He has a bit of a double-standard.

He posted this picture on that site--no words, tho I guess a picture can speak louder than words. But this site is hosted by a nice Jewish man..Lol!!

jake Re: The Coming of the Messiah Thu Mar 4 22:10:46 2004 206.149.212.162

The picture might not show up...but it's a picture of Jesus knocking on a door.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 31, 2004.

Can you post the URL?

I did notice that about Jake.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

rod..

http://disc.server.com/Indices/208699.html

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 31, 2004.

Not exactly your conventional depiction of Jesus at the door.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

The staff and hat Jesus has. Is it a Jewish thing or a Christian thing?

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

What's the difference?

Christians in those days were Jewish.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 31, 2004.

Jewish by ethnicity and race, but Christianity was by faith.

Today, the Jewish faith does require the man to walk with a staff and hat. Christianity has fewer requirements dealing with attire.

The picture seems to implicate the Jewish Traditions--Jesus with his staff and hat.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

The conventional pictures of Jesus at the door have removed the staff and hat. I wonder why? Could there be something having to do with those Jewish Traditions?

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

Or, better yet, is Elpidio on the right path with his Ebionite overtones? Has Christianity made such a drastic turn away from true Traditions that they have removed "staff and hat" from our doctrine? Makes one think about those Gentiles, St. Paul, and the entire New Testament. Afterall, Jesus was/is Jewish and so was Paul. Well, it's only food for thought.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

I am not quite sure what traditional pictures of jesus at the door you are talking about??

Does the Catholic Church have some?

Anyway--Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. This picture looks quite biblical to me.

I don't really understand what you are going on about.

My whole point is that jake thinks he is perfectly appropriate.., yet, no one could get away with anything like this on his site.

He used to post at the Ken's Religion and Ethics board which is linked at the top of the site I gave you. But they chewed him up and spit him out real quick.

-- (faith01@myway.com), March 31, 2004.

That's a good one, Rod.

Maybe I forgot the hat!!!!

Well, I'll use a Mexican sombrero.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.