|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 2:36:39 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 428
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I've pointed out several times that this simply is not true. The Bible did not come from the RCC. The Bible predates the schisming off of the RCC from the Orthodox church by well over 500 years. The Council of Hippo was presided over by the Bishop of Carthage, not the Bishop of Rome.
Zhi,
Please find one of those theologians or historians you consult and find their support for saying the Catholic Church started at the schism. That is indeed a novel take and has no real bearing on this issue because the Orthodox oppose you as well when it comes to biblical interpritation.
quote:
Protestants don't think that the Bible is freely interpreted by every tom, dick, and harry either... we believe that when we study it, God Himself, in the form of the Holy Spirit, guides us in proper interpretation. This includes a willingness to consult a theologian if we're not sure we're reading things correctly, as well.
You essentially agree with me then but put it in "nicer" terms. Every believer can interprit for themselves saying they are guided by the HS and if you feel like it talk to someone else. Distinctions without a difference.
quote:
I'm really not seeing where you're seeing the continued escalation up some heirarchical chain. It's a 3 step process. Talk it out between yourselves. Get 2 or 3 witnesses, talk it out. Take it to your local congregation, talk it out. It is assumed, in those verses, that at that point, it will be taken care of, for better or for worse.
You must not want to see it---how is it applied across Christian/prot congregations?
quote:
The Bible is the operating manual of the church.
Scripture please? And add along the specific instructions on how a congregation is suppose to worship on Sundays or whatever day you think is sabbath....etc, etc, etc. This is an example of your incorrect and unbiblical approach to scripture.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 2:47:00 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 79
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Zhi,
The pharisees had the OT and Jesus specifically quoted the OT and they did not know who he was. Peter knew of Jesus as the savior because God made it so, not because of the scripture. If scripture was so easy and straight forward then how come the phairsees couldnt understand that Jesus was the savior. Jesus even tells us that they have plenty of knowledge and he doesnt even take away their authority when it came to scripture. He said to do as they say and not as they do. In John 6 when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus he asks him, one of knowledge how is it that he doesnt understand. Nicodemus also understood the scripture and yet still didnt understand.
You take some church foundations for granted. As an example you cant find anywhere in the bible, where it says the Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their gospels. It is a church teaching and not found anywhere. By taking scripure alone you couldnt prove that each one was written by who we say they are. You violate your own belief by accepting them with no biblical reason to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:31:05 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1141
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please find one of those theologians or historians you consult and find their support for saying the Catholic Church started at the schism. That is indeed a novel take and has no real bearing on this issue because the Orthodox oppose you as well when it comes to biblical interpritation.
The Roman Catholic Church, specifically. I assure you that the Orthodox are quite in agreement regarding when your church started. Given that the RCC is basically defined by the idea that the Pope is boss of everybody, it most certainly started when the Pope decided he was boss of everybody, and a good portion of "everybody" said "no you're not". Prior to that, the heirarchical construct was pretty much the same as the Orthodox church.
I should see if I can get my Greek Orthodox priest friend in here. It would be interesting to see a debate over the necessity of the Pope between RCC and EO.
quote:
You essentially agree with me then but put it in "nicer" terms. Every believer can interprit for themselves saying they are guided by the HS and if you feel like it talk to someone else. Distinctions without a difference.
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:13
"These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie , and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:26-27
"O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. " Psalm 119:97-99
quote:
You must not want to see it---how is it applied across Christian/prot congregations?
Precisely as written. In fact, we had a message on it a few months ago...
This is not a set of verses about doctrine. It's a set of verses about when an individual Christian sins against another individual Christian. When there is a sin involved so serious (or a person involved so repentant) that it gets all the way to the church community level, then it is dealt with on a church community level.
quote:
The Bible is the operating manual of the church.
Scripture please? And add along the specific instructions on how a congregation is suppose to worship on Sundays or whatever day you think is sabbath....etc, etc, etc. This is an example of your incorrect and unbiblical approach to scripture.
Well, keep in mind that the church is the body of believers in Christ Jesus. Therefore, there are commands to the individual members, and commands to the church as a congregation.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Acts 20:32 So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Romans 15:4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
1 Timothy 4:13 "Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching."
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." - Heb. 4:12
Joshua 1:8 This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
I don't personally consider it a requirement to worship on Sundays. I am aware of the logic involved in having worship on Sundays and I personally like going to worship on Sundays because it's convenient, but I am not aware of any particular requirement in the NT regarding a specific day on which we must worship, especially in light of Romans 14:5-6 ""One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God." The Bible does contain specific instructions on how leadership roles should be selected (1 Timothy 3), how those in leadership roles are to interact with the congregation (1 Peter 5:1-4), what constitutes a church (Matthew 18:20), what the purpose of church is (Hebrews 10:24-25 among others), and many, many other things.
But, we're kind of getting off-topic here. The question is whether or not we need a Pope. I say no.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:43:16 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1141
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
The pharisees had the OT and Jesus specifically quoted the OT and they did not know who he was. Peter knew of Jesus as the savior because God made it so, not because of the scripture. If scripture was so easy and straight forward then how come the phairsees couldnt understand that Jesus was the savior. Jesus even tells us that they have plenty of knowledge and he doesnt even take away their authority when it came to scripture. He said to do as they say and not as they do. In John 6 when Jesus was talking to Nicodemus he asks him, one of knowledge how is it that he doesnt understand. Nicodemus also understood the scripture and yet still didnt understand.
Well, obviously the pharisees hadn't had it revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, probably because they were so set in their ways and didn't want to accept what Jesus was saying, as it would require a change on their part. In pointing this out you're kind of not making a very good case for your massive and ponderous church heirarchy being the only people who can correctly interpret the scripture, as the pharisees were the massive and ponderous church heirarchy of their day. Again, Protestants don't read the Scriptures all alone, we read it with the expectation that the Holy Spirit will reveal the truth to us through His word, assisting us in interpretation.
quote:
You take some church foundations for granted. As an example you cant find anywhere in the bible, where it says the Mathew, Mark, Luke and John wrote their gospels. It is a church teaching and not found anywhere. By taking scripure alone you couldnt prove that each one was written by who we say they are. You violate your own belief by accepting them with no biblical reason to do so.
*sigh* Again, the early church and the RCC are not the same thing. Not even close.
Furthermore, I'm aware of the questions regarding authorship regarding the Gospels. We call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John based on historical likelihood of authorship and convenience, not because we're absolutely 100% sure that those are the guys who wrote them (as obviously they did not sign them).
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:45:28 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1884
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
The Church was 1st it took years for the bible to be written.
The church, as in the body of all those who are believers in Christ Jesus, was certainly first. This is the Protestant definition of "church".
The Roman Catholic Church, which is usually what you guys mean when you say "Church", was not formed for over 500 years after the Bible was canonized. It was created in 1054, during the Great Schism, when the bishop of the Roman church decided he should be the boss of everyone, and much of the rest of the church vehemently disagreed.
Amen!
Worth reposting. Dear catholic brethren/sistren, you have to remember that we dont see your church as the Church, the Body of Christ,and the Bride . THere are catholics that are members of The Church - those who are true believers. But RC as an organization is not exclusively THE CHURCH
RC is just a denomination, with same rights and priviledges that any other denomination. It is not better, no worse then others.
It would be nice if you were to address your denomination as RC
and The Church established by Jesus as The Church.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:48:25 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1884
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
May i add - just imagine for a second how ridiculous, childish and silly i, or lets say a poster, member of a Baptist church would look if each of us were to address our churches as "The Church", one and only established by Christ.
Trust me - that is the impression you give by your persistant calling your demon ( RC ) The Church. 
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:50:58 PM
|
|
|
Catholicandloveit
Posts: 298
Joined: 1/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
The Church was 1st it took years for the bible to be written.
The church, as in the body of all those who are believers in Christ Jesus, was certainly first. This is the Protestant definition of "church".
The Roman Catholic Church, which is usually what you guys mean when you say "Church", was not formed for over 500 years after the Bible was canonized. It was created in 1054, during the Great Schism, when the bishop of the Roman church decided he should be the boss of everyone, and much of the rest of the church vehemently disagreed.
Amen!
Worth reposting. Dear catholic brethren/sistren, you have to remember that we dont see your church as the Church, the Body of Christ,and the Bride . THere are catholics that are members of The Church - those who are true believers. But RC as an organization is not exclusively THE CHURCH
RC is just a denomination, with same rights and priviledges that any other denomination. It is not better, no worse then others.
It would be nice if you were to address your denomination as RC
and The Church established by Jesus as The Church.
I said the Church. I posted with a "C" because its what I have always done. So "church" my point stands that it was 1st before there was a written word. Its habit I meant no disrespect.
Pax
_____________________________
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:52:13 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 915
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
I should see if I can get my Greek Orthodox priest friend in here. It would be interesting to see a debate over the necessity of the Pope between RCC and EO. I would participate in this discussion...might even be worth asking Betty Davis to open a special thread for it. Truth, they have one (or a corporate entity that functions as one), and the real riff is not over the Pope anyway.
Lastly - the schism involved the Eastern Church seceding from the West, if my history is correct. The little piece broke away from the bigger one. I am open to correction on this piece of information.
P. S. - your last couple of posts have inspired my new signature...congratulation.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:57:09 PM
|
|
|
Catholicandloveit
Posts: 298
Joined: 1/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
quote:
I should see if I can get my Greek Orthodox priest friend in here. It would be interesting to see a debate over the necessity of the Pope between RCC and EO. I would participate in this discussion...might even be worth asking Betty Davis to open a special thread for it. Truth, they have one (or a corporate entity that functions as one), and the real riff is not over the Pope anyway.
Lastly - the schism involved the Eastern Church seceding from the West, if my history is correct. The little piece broke away from the bigger one. I am open to correction on this piece of information.
P. S. - your last couple of posts have inspired my new signature...congratulation.
That would be an interesting discussion.
_____________________________
Blessed be Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 3:59:01 PM
|
|
|
loco79
Posts: 79
Joined: 6/18/2008
Status: offline
|
Zhi,
In as much that i havent made a case for a cingular church with authority, you havent made one that is for scirpture alone.
As far as the Pope, All of the early writings of those time periods before the council of Carthage were by Catholics. I could bring up all of the early church fathers and show you when and what books that each one accepted, but I dont feel like copying and pasting all that stuff. I know it is hard for you to accept that the Catholic church put the bible together, but they did. Just because it wasnt done in Rome doesnt mean it is not valid. I signed my mortage agreement in a bank, not in my house, does that mean I dont have legal status to the house of course not. The bishops of the the two councils were Catholic, this can also be proven through Catholic history.
I think now we are just going around in circles about scripture, tradtion and authority. I know that your intentions are only positive and thank you for well thought out posts. I was just hoping show how hard scripture can be to interpret, and that foundation of our beliefs are protected and passed on down by the church.
I thank you for your responses and feel like it is time for me to retire from this post (although I wont discount future threads or posts)
And of cource I expect one more response from you Zhi, in regards to this post
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 4:13:13 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1884
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Zhi:
The church, as in the body of all those who are believers in Christ Jesus, was certainly first. This is the Protestant definition of "church".
The Roman Catholic Church, which is usually what you guys mean when you say "Church", was not formed for over 500 years after the Bible was canonized. It was created in 1054, during the Great Schism, when the bishop of the Roman church decided he should be the boss of everyone, and much of the rest of the church vehemently disagreed.
O:
Amen!
Worth reposting. Dear catholic brethren/sistren, you have to remember that we dont see your church as the Church, the Body of Christ,and the Bride . THere are catholics that are members of The Church - those who are true believers. But RC as an organization is not exclusively THE CHURCHRC is just a denomination, with same rights and priviledges that any other denomination. It is not better, no worse then others.
It would be nice if you were to address your denomination as RC
and The Church established by Jesus as The Church.
Mary:
I said the Church. I posted with a "C" because its what I have always done. So "church" my point stands that it was 1st before there was a written word. Its habit I meant no disrespect.
Pax
thank you mary, i know you are always respectful. Rather trying to make a point to Loco ad TT.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 4:44:43 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1141
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
In as much that i havent made a case for a cingular church with authority, you havent made one that is for scirpture alone.
As far as the Pope, All of the early writings of those time periods before the council of Carthage were by Catholics. I could bring up all of the early church fathers and show you when and what books that each one accepted, but I dont feel like copying and pasting all that stuff. I know it is hard for you to accept that the Catholic church put the bible together, but they did. Just because it wasnt done in Rome doesnt mean it is not valid. I signed my mortage agreement in a bank, not in my house, does that mean I dont have legal status to the house of course not. The bishops of the the two councils were Catholic, this can also be proven through Catholic history.
I think now we are just going around in circles about scripture, tradtion and authority. I know that your intentions are only positive and thank you for well thought out posts. I was just hoping show how hard scripture can be to interpret, and that foundation of our beliefs are protected and passed on down by the church.
I thank you for your responses and feel like it is time for me to retire from this post (although I wont discount future threads or posts)
And of cource I expect one more response from you Zhi, in regards to this post
*rubs forehead*
Okay. Let's try a recap.
You claim that we should obey the Pope, because he is the direct Apostolic successor to Peter. As such, we should be RCC.
Now, taking that at face value (as I do not agree that the succession is all that solid in the first place), we compare:
1. Someone who claims to be a successor to an Apostle and therefore knows what the Apostles intended
with
2. The actual writings of the Apostles clearly spelling out what the Apostles intended.
When the two conflict, then my suggestion would be that we take #2, the actual writings of the Apostles spelling out what they intended, over #1, the word of some guy who claims that he knows what the Apostles intended.
You can bring up all the early church father documentation you would like, but not a single one of them was Roman Catholic, because until 1054, there was no such thing as Roman Catholic. The crux of the question is whether or not it was valid for some Roman bishop in 1054 to suddenly decide it was his right to be the boss of all Christendom. This was not even an issue when the Scripture was being put together.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/14/2008 10:19:34 PM
|
|
|
gatolover
Posts: 547
Joined: 6/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Zhi wrote:
quote:
The Bible is the operating manual of the church. It was written by the Apostles, who formed the church. It was written for the specific purpose of telling the church what they were supposed to do, according to what Jesus said, and according to what the Apostles said under inspiration of God.
Interestingly enough, I noticed you quoted the book of Hebrews in one of your subsequent posts. I love reading the book of Hebrews, and, in light of your comment that "The Bible is the operating manual of the church," I wonder what you make of Heb. 6:1-3: [I'll post it for you, because I try to be very kind.] :)
Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the FOUNDATION all over again; repentance from dead works and faith in God, instruction about baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.
Exactly where in this "operating manual" are these instructions regarding the "basic teaching" as it relates to "baptisms and laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment?" These very things have created countless opposing doctrines among non-Catholic Christians.
It appears God never intended for Scripture to be an "operating manual" as you suppose. If He did, there wouldn't be so many threads on so many Christian websites discussing all the possibilities regarding the things Scripture names as "basic teaching." Obviously, the Holy Spirit isn't guiding somebody since there are so many disagreements among non-Catholics all claiming inspiration of the Holy Spirit. As always, context is key and Christ's instructions were addressed to the Apostles before the Gospels were even written.
God made His promises to mankind, not a book however Sacred. Scripture is held in very high esteem by devout Catholic Christians, but we don't put words in it's pages that aren't there. That would be a non-Catholic phenomenon.
Pax Christi,
gatolover
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 12:19:53 AM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1141
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
There are many verses about baptism, repentance, faith, resurrection of the dead, laying on of hands, and eternal judgement. None of those, however, are the current discussion. I believe there's one-stop threads for most of those, and I would prefer not to get modded at.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 5:39:32 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3711
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: logo79
why does it not say that the scripture is the pillar of truth?
1 Tim 3:16
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. A church could only be the pillar of truth so long as it preaches the truth. Once it stops preaching the truth - it could no longer be. Besides more than likely, since it agrees with the rest of Scripture, it is the "living God" which is the pillar and ground of truth.... as God says: "let God be true and every man a liar". And God also writes that Jesus Christ is "the Truth"....His Word should be enough "pillar and ground" for anyone.
quote:
2 Tim 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
What are the only scriptures Timothy would have known from his childhood? Only the OT existed in his childhood.
Are you implying the NT is not Scripture? Hope not. God tells us He inspired all Scripture and what it is able to do: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
Very clearly Paul is saying that it is ONLY Scripture which brought Timothy to faith not the church of his day, not the spritual leaders of his day, not a pope, not a magisterium.
quote:
Funny how when we are supposed settle our disputes, the scripture tells us to go the church. Correct, that's what churches do....do you have a point?
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 5:41:08 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3711
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: loco79
Jesus built a church, not a bible, Nope, Jesus built a church but He WROTE a Bible. And, fyi, the church He built is not the RC.
quote:
ast i checked the church was:.....and Jesus is one with the church just as husband is to wife. You should check again. Jesus is not married to any earthly local church or congregation. Why? Because in all churches there are those destined for hell...read the parable of the wheat and tares. No, Jesus is married ONLY to His eternal church - true believers.
quote:
Jesus is not one with the bible just as husband and wife are one.
Huh? He wrote the Bible or as He tells us He "breathed it out".
It is only through the Word of God can man be saved "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God". Nothing anywhere about faith coming by a church, pope, magisterium, pastor or elder.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 5:42:28 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3711
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
If you despise Scripture, then you despise God Himself. If you despise the Scripture, you despise the very apostles that you claim founded the church. I've had this thrown at me multiple times and it is patently unfair and untrue. It is neither unfair or untrue. This disdain is apparent in post after post.
quote:
We honor scripture and from our perspective treat it the way it was meant to be treated. There has been very little "honor" shown Scripture by RC here. And, how very dubious "treat it the way it was meant to be treated". It's apparent how RC treats it.
quote:
It is the word of God, but it is really part of the total deposit of revelation, which includes the Church and her members. The problem with such a view is that it is nothing but the personal view of a church. It has no legitimate scriptural support. How absurd to say that the members of a church and its personal traditions are part of God's revelation to man. God speaks of only one revelation to man - the Bible.
quote:
The bible came from the Church... That's where you guys keep making your mistake. You've got it backwards....the church came from the Bible....the church is a result of the Gospel....the Gospel is the Bible.
quote:
...and so to approach it as a stand-alone "document" to be freely interpreted by every tom, dick and harry, is just, well unscriptural. Tell that to the Tom, Dick and Harry of Berea....lol..oh, but wait a minute that's actually found in the Bible so that wouldn't be of any help.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 5:52:56 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3711
Status: offline
|
quote:
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28) Then why does RC layer command after command, rule after rule, tradition after tradition, dogma after dogma all which fly in the face of God?
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Better seek out a more appropriate "signiture". I could think of a few which would be better suited.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 7:03:55 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 915
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
It would be nice if you were to address your denomination as RC
and The Church established by Jesus as The Church. When you read my post and see "Church", you should think "your Church", "Kelman's Church", "Zhi's Church" to put that in the correct context.
When I am speaking specifically of the Roman Catholic Church, I try to spell it out that way. The only problem is when I use "Church" alone, and yet am talking about 7 sacraments, I believe that these Sacraments are clearly instructed for the Church (your Church, Kelman's Church, Zhi's Church) by the deposit of faith, and I wonder to myself why some Churches have abandoned the Sacraments.
How is marriage not Sacramental? This one absolutely just blows me away. Maybe my marriage is better than most, but c'mon people....
I really dislike "RCC" too, but I guess I am willing to go with it to save folks a few keystrokes...
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 7/15/2008 8:27:43 AM
|
|
|
TheCatholicCrusader
Posts: 203
Joined: 7/10/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin
This topic is neverending. So as to help keep things from constantly being repeated or asked we've decided to create a perpetual discussion on the topic.
The Pope is held in high esteem and is considered by some as the representation of Christ on earth.
Discuss the differences in this doctrine.
Much has been said | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
