CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[Ziggidy]

Again, from a human perspective, Christ's death on the cross was a "failure." It is only when viewed from a spiritual perspective that it was a perfect success.



Yes. And where, exactly, has the pope said anything different?



Sure, when taken out of context by people seeking to create confusion and enmity against Catholicism.



Ok. Since you appear to be among the Christians who don't recognize any authority of the pope (and perhaps even consider him "the enemy"), you can say it however you want.



It is interesting to me that you are so willing to criticize not just the pope's message, but his delivery, and in the same post express support for the idea that each person has authority for interpreting the Bible and the will of God on their own.

Your "paraphrasing" is a reduction to the absurd.



I think I see the real issue.

Thank you for expressing that. It is very helpful.



I'm sorry, I want to help provide a Catholic perspective in this thread (and even in this forum at large), but I'm not sure I even understand that question.

Like it or not, it is truth. My ONLY authority is Christ Himself.....the pope is no different that any other man and has absolutely NO AUTHORITY over me and my relationship with Christ. The pope has no authority over anyone when it comes to their salvation. Like it or not, it is truth.

You may use your excellent writing skills to pick apart posts (my posts), but you sir, cannot change the fact that my relationship with Christ is all I need - any attempt to add other authority is not bible based and is clearly spoken out against in God's word. That's the truth. You may bow and kiss the ring of the pope, but I will not.

 

[T.Lex]

Like it or not, it is truth. My ONLY authority is Christ Himself.....the pope is no different that any other man and has absolutely NO AUTHORITY over me and my relationship with Christ. The pope has no authority over anyone when it comes to their salvation. Like it or not, it is truth.... my relationship with Christ is all I need - any attempt to add other authority is not bible based and is clearly spoken out against in God's word. That's the truth.

Matthew 16:18-19, 18:15-20.

 

[Ziggidy]

Matthew 16:18-19, 18:15-20.

Is that the foundation of your convictions?

Let me just say this. Anything anyone says about the church and its teachings, along with the teachings of the (any) church - MUST ALIGN with the bible.

Just because a man says something, does not make it right. It MUST be verified with the word of God. The catholic church, along with others, do not always align with the word of God. The simple fact that the teachings of the catholic church has changed over the years is a prime example of man made words not aligning with God's word.

I have no dislike, hatred or anything else against catholics or any other individual.....it is the ideology that I disagree with and dislike; whether it is the catholic church or any other that does not align with God's word. It is so convenient to spin scripture to support one's desire for power and control.

 

[T.Lex]

You're changing the question.

You said, "My ONLY authority is Christ himself."

Biblically, that's not what Christ Himself said.

Let me be clear: personally, I believe reasonable people can disagree about the righteousness of Catholicism. I am Catholic. I do not expect (or even want) everyone to be Catholic. Those passages do not, for me, form the basis of my convictions on Catholicism.

But, those passages (among others) suggest that your assertion of primacy in matters of biblical interpretation is not biblical. Which goes to the pope's point about "personal relationship with Christ." We should all have such a personal relationship, but not to the exclusion of the church.

 

[historian]

Are we seriously back to debating the Pope? I'm sure I remember this debate from long ago.

On an aside, I picked up this series a couple of months ago and would recommend it. He does a good job of explanation and teaching.

https://www.ligonier.org/store/survey-of-church-history-complete-dvd-package-collection-parts-1-6/

 

[T.Lex]

Are we seriously back to debating the Pope? I'm sure I remember this debate from long ago.

Don't worry, I won't belabor the point.

 

[T.Lex]

On a different, and much more positive note, a couple of my family members had the opportunity for a tour of the Orthodox cathedral at 106th and Shelborne in Carmel. I think that's foszoe's church. One of the priests was the docent (talk about being overqualified!) and he was impressively knowledgeable and engagingly affable. The architecture and iconography were inspiring and humbling.

I don't know if they offer those kinds of tours to the general public or anything, but I would encourage anyone interested in Christian history generally, and Orthodoxy specifically, to call and see if they can have a similar tour.

 

[JettaKnight]

Guess I'm just slow!
Takes me 10-11 months, trying to average about 4 chapters a night, 30-60 minutes a night.

Granted I'm usually looking up commentary or cross referencing other scriptures or taking notes, or meditating on what I read, etc.
Always learning something new (or re-learning something I forgot! haha)

1189 chapters. To do it in 72 hours would be 16.5 chapters per hour. To read it all in a month would be about 40 chapters per day! wow. hope she spent as much time on homework!

-rvb

IKR?

I read five verses - my mind wonders and ruminates, the next thing I know, I look back down, start reading again, and I'm ten verses before where I had stopped!

 

[2A_Tom]

A misunderstanding of Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18.

Matthew 16:18-19, 18:15-20.

Yep, total misunderstanding.

 

[JettaKnight]

Are we seriously back to debating the Pope? I'm sure I remember this debate from long ago.

I certainly hope we can leave Pontiflex Maximus* out of this.

On an aside, I picked up this series a couple of months ago and would recommend it. He does a good job of explanation and teaching.

https://www.ligonier.org/store/survey-of-church-history-complete-dvd-package-collection-parts-1-6/

That's a excellent, but quick overview. (relatively speaking) Dr. Godfrey does a great job at bringing the history to life and explaining relevance. FYI, the series was chopped up into 20 minute pieces for the radio and podcast, so if you're willing, you can listen to them for free.






* How far did you get in Godfrey's lessons?

 

[2A_Tom]

But back to the Bible.

The Bible is so wonderful, so foll of hope, yet some never get it. I have Heard a self proclaimed atheist say that he has read the Bible. I can confidently say that he has not immersed (BTW that is the correct English translation for baptisthV) himself in it.

This is a short description of the Bible from the sweet psalmist of Israel. Click on the 7 to see context.

Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

For a lengthier description see, Psalms 119:1.

 

[historian]

That's a excellent, but quick overview. (relatively speaking) Dr. Godfrey does a great job at bringing the history to life and explaining relevance. FYI, the series was chopped up into 20 minute pieces for the radio and podcast, so if you're willing, you can listen to them for free.

* How far did you get in Godfrey's lessons?

I'm currently on saints and the development of the hierarchy.

They are abbreviated, but a really good intro. I'm sure once we get to Calvin they will expand exponentially.

I like how he treated Origen. (WHO WAS WRONG T! HE WAS WRONG! )

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm currently on saints and the development of the hierarchy.

They are abbreviated, but a really good intro. I'm sure once we get to Calvin they will expand exponentially.

I like how he treated Origen. (WHO WAS WRONG T! HE WAS WRONG! )

Oh. Then you'll only get that reference toward the very end of the series.

 

[Ziggidy]

You're changing the question.

You said, "My ONLY authority is Christ himself."

Biblically, that's not what Christ Himself said.

Let me be clear: personally, I believe reasonable people can disagree about the righteousness of Catholicism. I am Catholic. I do not expect (or even want) everyone to be Catholic. Those passages do not, for me, form the basis of my convictions on Catholicism.

But, those passages (among others) suggest that your assertion of primacy in matters of biblical interpretation is not biblical. Which goes to the pope's point about "personal relationship with Christ." We should all have such a personal relationship, but not to the exclusion of the church.

My point revealed. Better articulated than I stated it, but that is my point. The catholic church takes scripture and spins it to mean what they want it to in order to gain and maintain power and control. When one calls you on it, then your reply is the church is needed to make sure the sheep do not wander off; suggesting that sheep may wander because lack of understanding. Enter Holy Spirit - understand, God had already thought of that. The Third person of the Trinity is our teacher. No man can fill the shoes of God, Son or Holy Spirit.....neither can the catholic church............UNLESS it aligns with God's word.

It seems to me, God wants all the glory - and rightfully so. Why would God allow for the creation of a church that allows for individuals to take away His glory? Man made religions do just that - they allow for focus to change AWAY from God. You even suggested it when you say "we should have a personal relationship (with Christ), BUT not to the exclusion of the church". BAM! You are stating that one cannot have that without the church? Blasphemous!

Christ does not need the catholic church's power, control or authority in order to save the sheep. Christ alone has that power and authority. I alone, under my own will, submit to Him and Him alone. The church is a body of individuals who submit to His authority and His authority alone.

 

[CampingJosh]

Yep, total misunderstanding.

So what is a proper interpretation of Jesus's words in those passages?

 

[JettaKnight]

But back to the Bible.

The Bible is so wonderful, so foll of hope, yet some never get it. I have Heard a self proclaimed atheist say that he has read the Bible. I can confidently say that he has not immersed (BTW that is the correct English translation for baptisthV) himself in it.

Not so sure on this. I know plenty of atheist, agnostics, and liberal theologians, than know the Bible quite well, but yet don't believe. It's as if the Word and the Holy Spirit are required.

 

[JettaKnight]

Point of order -
catholic church: The universal church. The body of all believers holding to essential core doctrine.

Catholic Church: The Roman Catholic organization headed by the Pontiflex Maximus that claims to be the true Church.

Capitalization matters.


You may now return to your debate.

 

[historian]

Not so sure on this. I know plenty of atheist, agnostics, and liberal theologians, than know the Bible quite well, but yet don't believe. It's as if the Word and the Holy Spirit are required.

Raises hand...

 

[2A_Tom]

So what is a proper interpretation of Jesus's words in those passages?

Why of course it means that the catholic church was founded on Peter (the first pope) and therefore the pope has the authority to decree anything. That is it in a nutshell. Of course that means anyone who is not catholic will at best attain limbo. Which could be quite fun if it was accompanied, by Reggae music and Pina Coladas!

Point of order -
catholic church: The universal church. The body of all believers holding to essential core doctrine.

Unicorns, (wrong season to say Santa), the Easter Bunny and that concept.

Catholic Church: The Roman Catholic organization headed by the Pontiflex Maximus that claims to be the true Church.
Claims to embody the above disputed concept.
Capitalization matters.You may now return to your debate.

I do not capitalize on purpose in many cases.

 

[T.Lex]

When one calls you on it, then your reply is the church is needed to make sure the sheep do not wander off; suggesting that sheep may wander because lack of understanding.

The cause - lack of understanding, temptation, foolishness - doesn't matter. Christ Himself provided the framework for how to deal with those who might stray, and it includes the church.

Enter Holy Spirit - understand, God had already thought of that. The Third person of the Trinity is our teacher. No man can fill the shoes of God, Son or Holy Spirit.....neither can the catholic church............UNLESS it aligns with God's word.

Indeed.

It seems to me, God wants all the glory - and rightfully so. Why would God allow for the creation of a church that allows for individuals to take away His glory? Man made religions do just that - they allow for focus to change AWAY from God. You even suggested it when you say "we should have a personal relationship (with Christ), BUT not to the exclusion of the church". BAM! You are stating that one cannot have that without the church? Blasphemous!

Hold up. God - through Christ - created the church. To say otherwise is actually blasphemy.

Unlike your blasphemy, which is explicit, I did not say that one cannot have a personal relationship with Christ without the church. Rather, we SHOULD not do that. It is dangerous. It leads to an overdeveloped sense of one's own personal interpretation of the Bible and God's will.

Christ does not need the catholic church's power, control or authority in order to save the sheep.

If you've read very much of my personal expressions of opinion on the omnipotence of the Trinity, you would know that generally agree with that.