| QUOTE |
| From where comes the guarantee that the bible is the unique unchanging book by which the christian church and christian message must be controlled? |
From the Bible, of course. That is the kind of circular arguments I just love from Xians.
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Rebellion against the Church |
| Posted by: Heimdall Nov 17 2004, 08:57 AM |
| Here is a little thing that I did on another forum, this is aimed towards our resident and any passing Christ Cultists that have the "faith" to anwer..... In the beginning there was the word and the word was Jesus. “On this rock will I build my church”, was what Jesus said to Peter. Peter founded Christ’s church in Rome and was the first bishop of that church. Christianity became the state religion in the 4th century CE and Peter’s church attained Primacy in late 4th Century, early 5th century CE. The Bishop of Roman (who came to be known as the Pope meaning father) became the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ, the person that spoke for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. When Luther nailed his 93 theses to the door of the church, he rebelled against God! Those that followed him (to this present day) rebelled against God. What is the penalty for this rebellion? Look at Satan and his minions! Rebellion dooms you to eternity in the deepest depths of Hell! There is nowhere in the scriptures that says corruption within the church negates Jesus’ proscription to Peter. How can you, as a Protestant, justify your rebellion against the Trinity? |
| Posted by: Diogenes Nov 17 2004, 01:15 PM |
| Good question. In addition, if they reject that church, then how can they embrace that book that was compiled, approved and sanctified by that church and its bishops in the 4th century? |
| Posted by: fortunehooks Nov 17 2004, 01:36 PM |
| oh my, any brave protestant out there want to give an answer. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 17 2004, 02:14 PM |
| Πέτρος is Peter or a stone πέτρα is rock as in a really big massive bedrocky sort of thingy. This will be the explanation. Jesus, didn't build the chruch on a little stone, Peter, but on the foundation stone of of what Peter had just said in verse 16: Thou art the Christ, the son of the Living God. |
| Posted by: Diogenes Nov 17 2004, 02:33 PM |
| Good point, Chef. Regarding the stone/rock distinction, in Greek, that's true, but in Aramaic (I've been told, since I don't speak it), there is no distinction between the two words. The peter/rock is a Jesus quote and he spoke aramaic. Anyway, that brings up a whole other set of questions regarding what was (allegedly) said and what ended up being written down. |
| Posted by: Reach Nov 18 2004, 06:39 AM | ||
Same explanation. The Church would be built on the foundation of, or the same revelation, that Peter ascended to/was given, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. |
| Posted by: Mad_Gerbil Nov 18 2004, 07:32 AM | ||
I've seen Protestant apologists use this approach and I've seen them discount it. Those that discount it say that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built but that is something different than guaranteeing that there would be an unbroken line of 'popes' in Rome by which Christian Church must be controlled. |
| Posted by: Diogenes Nov 18 2004, 08:50 AM | ||
From where comes the guarantee that the bible is the unique unchanging book by which the christian church and christian message must be controlled? |
| Posted by: Wolfgang Nov 20 2004, 10:09 PM | ||
From the Bible, of course. That is the kind of circular arguments I just love from Xians. |
| Posted by: ficino Nov 21 2004, 06:16 AM |
| Because I love quoting myself, I can't resist adding a reference to my testimony over on the main board, dated 9/15/04, where this point against the Reformers is outlined and some references given to important works on Catholic positions about authority, scriptural canon, and justification. Back when this controversy mattered to me, I came to the conclusion that the RCs are the ones who are truly scriptural because they use use scripture as it is intended, i.e. within a triad of scripture-tradition-living magisterium, not alone, as it wasn't intended. |
| Posted by: spidermonkey Nov 21 2004, 08:13 AM | ||
Silly Heimdall, dontcha know that Luther's opponents weren't True Christians™?  |
| Posted by: nivek Nov 21 2004, 10:34 AM |
| Heimdall... If I try and justify "rebellion again' da church" I give them the authority over me they desire to have.. When I tell any of them to FOAD, leave me alone due inpart due to Arms, Bad Attitude towards them, and preferences and even convictions I am willing to get hurt over in preserving my Freedom, they tend to keep their distances... Owe nothing to the Church, churchies, nor any of their interesting little thoughts, philosophies and/or actions.. They are Free to stay on their side of the 500 meters distance and fence, I'll stay on mine.. n, Freeman, Rebel by preferences |
| Posted by: kemeticpoet Nov 21 2004, 05:27 PM |
| I wish I had known about that, Randen, when a former aethiest-turned-Catholic fed me that line about Peter. My only response to her was this, and I still have no answer(although I haven't studied Catholicism enough, perhaps there is one): So Jesus gave authority to Peter. What evidence is there that he was the "First Pope" and that all these other popes descend from a direct line? How do I know that some early Catholic didn't make up a bunch of bullshit names and claimed them as a direct line? Seriously, anybody can fill in the blanks. Peter (some years pass) Current Pope "Current" meaning current at the time the timeline was written. I can easy make up enough names to fill that time, and since all this historical evidence was invented to claim some Jesus walked the earth anyway, it doesn't seem to me too difficult to make up more evidence of other popes that one might pull out of their ass. If nothing else, you can use the old Christian "But you can't disprove it!" line. |
| Posted by: Heimdall Nov 23 2004, 07:28 AM |
| Well, it seems that our resident Cultists aren't sure enough of the validity of their denominatons to even address this! Figures! |
| Posted by: Reach Nov 23 2004, 07:48 AM | ||
 Mayhaps you'd be of a mind to send them an invitation to post their thoughts on this subject...The Member List of Apologists adamsrib believer biblethumper ByTheir FruitsYeShallKnowThem cherishteddy ChristineTGallagher Derek Desiree dsiple faith89blackrose Grace happycollegekid joel kasperistheman lowB Mad_Gerbil mosa PeaceFire Rapha redstar2000 SOIL-ITU SparkleMotion The Believer the elemental Totallyatpeace victoria plum Wanna-be Writer Note: A couple of the "friendlies" have been removed from this list by a change in their designation as "Apologists." |
| Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 23 2004, 09:19 AM |
| There are some things about that general area of scripture (Matthew 16) IMO, which need to be read together, in-context, in order to get anywhere close to a coherent meaningful (workable?) understanding (in light of the many historical abuses of the papacy - as I see it anyway). For instance, just after the place where Jesus calls Peter a rock (and speaks about the 'keys to the kingdom') he mentions the famous 'get thee behind me Satan' line, relating to a comment made by none other than the presumed 'Rock', Peter himself. (The Stone (rock) that the builder's rejected was Jesus - the son of the living God) - or at least the understanding of Jesus as being in fact God come in flesh. -Dennis |
| Posted by: Heimdall Nov 23 2004, 09:56 AM |
| Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 16:17 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. 16:18 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. 16:19 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. Sorry, I think it is quite clear! Nowhere did Jesus mention the builder's stone as himself. So either the passage means what it says, or your little savior needs to take a comprehensive speech/writing class! |
| Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 23 2004, 11:25 AM | ||||||||||
Sorry I don't have time for many personal comments (just now) but here are some passages:
(The above were about interpreting parables).
(Bold emphasis mine)
(Bold emphasis mine) Note this comes from the book of 1 PETER:
(Bold emphasis mine) -Dennis |
| Posted by: Heimdall Nov 23 2004, 12:08 PM |
| I looked your reference up and my conclusion is as follows: Matt 21:42 is the conclusion of a parable of thieves killing an heir and what the lord' s reaction would be....the verse may mention a stone, but it is not a stone upon which Jesus chruch would be built. Mark 12:10-11 is quoting a Jewish scripture and has no bearing on our subject. Acts 4:11 is about a corner stone, not a foundation stone as is the long quote from Ephes 2-14-22. I can still see nothing that changes the interpretation of Matt 16:15 - 19. It looks like you or your source went thru the NT and grabbed any verse that referred to Jesus and a rock or stone at the same time. Not valid in my opinon - once again, your saviour needs a course in effective communications!  |
| Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 23 2004, 01:15 PM | ||||
I think the Catholic church is primarily using a single passage (to get their idea about Peter as the first 'pope') - so let's not spend time talking about the other passages (that's not needed IMO). I am comfortable just looking at the four most relevant verses from the "long quote from Ephes 2-14-22":
(Bold emphasis mine) I think the above passage is talking about the "household of God" (aka 'Church') - and Peter is not singled out, rather, such words as: "you", "apostles and prophets", and "Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" are used. If Peter were as important as the Orthodox Catholic church has maintained, maybe I should expect to see Peter's name in the phrase "In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit" - rather than Jesus himself? -Dennis |
| Posted by: Heimdall Nov 23 2004, 02:43 PM |
| Problem with Ephesians is that you are quoting an individual who never met Jesus, had noidea of what he said to Peter or the others (especially considering the strained relations between him and the Apostles, I can't see them sharing with him)...Really can't see how that can be used in this context.... |
| Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 24 2004, 02:10 PM |
| The church... Nebuchadnezzar is three times named 'my servant' in Jeremiah. A strange title for someone taking the remnant of Judah into captivity and burning Jerusalem. But, comparing it with the church - god's servant on this earth - 'my servant' seems applicable and revealing. I guess even within a framework thought out by the xian god, the church can be playing a very disgusting role. |