Tim, you said that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

You seemed to infer that 'Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are parts of the body of Christ.' I hate to correct you but, Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the most Satanically inspired pseudo-Christian cults I have ever seen. I can't attest to the Satanicness of Mormonism so much detail but they are just as apostate.

Do you have any idea how many ways they deny Christ and embrace the devil in Satanic ritual and doctrine? Do you know where they came from? Do you know the condemnation they officially cast down on ALL Christians and true teachings? I'm not upset by what you said but I hope you realize who these people are and what they do and teach.

Peace Brother

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 14, 2002

Answers

I think the term "satanic" overstates the case (though they do believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers); however, both Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have many doctrinal beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity, even though Jesus Christ is included in some sense in their theology. Therefore they certainly are not Christians, or members of the Body of Christ.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2002.

honestly I don't think it is overstated and here is why. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses claim:

That Revelation 9 reveals them and their "King." They claim that those "Locusts" flying out of the smokey firey abyss are their most senior Leaders who are and have always been responsible for all the teachings and direction of their Church. That is DIRECTLY stated in several of their books. Not only that, they say that the Fallen Angel who opens the Abyss, "Abaddon (the destroyer)" is Jesus. They also say that the White Horseman of the Apocolypse is Jesus.

They also practice an Old Satanic ritual for their "communion." They pass around the Body and Blood of Christ rejecting it. Where does it end up if no one takes it. The body goes to the landfill, the blood goes in the sewer. The landfill and sewer are symbolic of Hell. Of course the typical JW knows nothing of this. However the founder of the "Society" was a confirmed knight's templar freemason.

That is just a sample.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 14, 2002.


Robert,

You are sorely mistaken in regards to the Jehovah's Witnesses. I've attended that paticular ceremony you are refering to, and true, they do pass around the bread and wine, but it is not to reject it. They believe that there are only 144,000 people going to heaven (a number they got from somewhere in Revelations), and that these "chosen ones" are the only ones who should partake of the bread and wine. They do not pass it around to reject it. They also don't believe the bread and wine is Jesus's body and blood, but that it represents Jesus's body and blood. Now I do disagree with their teachings, but I think it is very disrespectful to perpetuate falsehoods with regards to another's religion. They do believe that they have the one true religion, and I think they are mistaken, but I don't think it's right to say they are a Satanically inspired psuedo-Christian cult. That's even harsher than the "condemnation" they put on other Christian religions.

-- Amy (amy20013@hotmail.com), December 14, 2002.


Dear Amy,

I understand that you may have had some contact with Jehovah's Witnesses and understand why they believe certain things. The simple fact of the matter is no one is told to NOT accept the body and blood of Christ. No one in the bible is instructed to pass it around and then throw it away. Satanists have been practicing that ritual for centuries though. I'm not saying that even 2% of Jehovah's Witnesses are bad people or that they have any idea that they are involved in Satanism or the work of the devil. If they are trapping Christians in a false powerless gospel for the devil then they are working for the devil.

They are told NOT to take the body and the blood. They are told that they are NOT born again. They are told that Jesus is the "Fallen" Angel and they are told all this by who they believe are the "Locusts" of Revelation 9.

Jehovah's Witness culture has changed drastically from its earlier forms but lingering Satanic connections still exist. If their teachings are a false gospel as stated in Galations 1:7 I am in no way wrong for pointing out their Satanic connections. All false gospels originate from the devil and are damnable.

Conspiracies do exist. The Anti-Christ is not going to pop out of a box and say he is the anti-christ. He is coming as an angel of light. If we must ignore and not warn people of false light wherever we find it because they say Jesus is a UFO commander of a comet clan who wants you to eat a special pudding and move on to the next level, who will identify the anti-christ?

"Let the one who has wisdom calculate the number of the Beast. It is a man's number."

Peace, robert

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 14, 2002.


> "The body goes to the landfill, the blood goes in the sewer."

You should know better than to say that, as they do not have the authority to consecrate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), December 14, 2002.



For them it is purely symbolic of Christ so it is the equivalent to the extent in which they perceive it. They don't attempt actual transubstantiation. That doesn't discount the fact that it is virtually identaical to a ritual that only Satanists did before they did it. The question is why the cooincidence. They have absolutely no biblical evidence support their claim that most Christians aren't to be born again or accept the body and blood of Christ. So to me it is not just some cooincidental differnce in doctrines that causes them to perform this ritual. They are directed to do it for a reason even if they don't realize it. That is the significance.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 14, 2002.


Help me out, I'm new to my faith, and I don't understand your statement Robert. You said, "The simple fact of the matter is no one is told to NOT accept the body and blood of Christ." What's the difference between the people who just choose not to partake in a communion ceremony because they have a different understanding of it's meaning and a person who chooses not to partake in communion in a Catholic church for whatever reason. Is a divorced and remarried Catholic who attends Mass every Sunday but does not take communion because of their marital status rejecting Christ's body and blood? No, they don't do it because they've been told not to.

I just don't understand. You know, I was baptised Catholic as an infant, but my parents stopped attending before I would have received my first communion. There were times in my life when I felt I should attend church, but I didn't have a church to go to. All my life I've heard unpleasant things about Catholics, and are finding they are mostly untrue. But one thing that I always heard was that Catholics can be judgemental of other religions. Now I know that there are some serious doctrinal disagreements between the Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I do know the following are true: We both believe in one Father, the Almighty. We both believe that Jesus is the Son of God. He was born of Mary, a virgin, and was sent to earth for our salvation, that he was NOT just a good man. We both believe that forgiveness of sins comes through Him. So I would have to say that ANY religion who attests to these truths would be my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Last week at my RCIA class, the director gave out a booklet called "Handbook For Today's Catholic", and one of the heading is called "We Respect Other Religions". I'd like to quote something from it, as it says exactly how I feel about this issue: "Catholics are to respect, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral good found in all religions as well as the values in their society and culture....Be willing to interpret another's faith in its best light, giving it the benefit of a good interpretation. Keep an openess and suspend judgment about the motives of other belief systems. Try to see the value in others' beliefs, focusing on what is held in common rather than what divides." It also quotes Gandhi, who said, "I open my doors and windows allowing all cultures and religions to blow about freely, but I refuse to be swept off my feet."

These words brought me so much comfort, as I had always heard that Catholics thought there was no salvation outside the Church. I could not bring myself to commit to a church that believed that, but I came to a point in my life where I COULD NOT deny that the Lord was leading me here to the Catholic Church. And on my faith journey, I have learned that many of the things I had heard about the Catholic Church simply aren't true. But it hurts me to hear someone call another Christian religion Satanic, and that they are involved in Satanism and just don't know it. It honestly hurts.

Like I said, though, I am new to my faith. I've been attending RCIA since September, and this is the only instruction I've ever had regarding the Catholic Church. It is possible I have some serious misunderstandings, but it just FEELS wrong to say such things about another's religion.

-- Amy (amy20013@hotmail.com), December 14, 2002.


Amy,

I think you misunderstood when I said no one is told not to accept the body and blood of Christ. I didn't clarify that in the bible no one is told to not accept Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses are however told not to accept the body and blood of Christ. If you tell them that they will deny it. They will say "Oh no it is up to the individual to decide." Of course out of about 11,000,000 people attending their annual communion last year only about 8,000 accepted Christs body and blood. The ones that did are at least 75 years old at the youngest.

If a Jehovah's Witness did partake without permission they would more than likely be excommunicated. If they weren't excommunicated they would be rebuked. If it happened again they would be excommunicated.

The Roman Catholic Church offically and historically teaches that unless you have Jesus Christ you will spend eternity in hell. If some Popes or Bishops decide that they will differ on that topic they are according to historical Catholic councils and creeds, heretics.

The Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept your Catholicism one iota, Amy. It earns you zero points to them. Your faith in Christ and love for God mean absolutely nothing to them. Every last one of them believes and is taught that at any moment Jesus Christ, your best freind in the Universe is going to kill you for all eternity because you haven't joined the Watchtower organization. Red flag. One organization only. One group of men govern the entire flock of Christ.

The irony is they are in fact apostates, not you or I. They claim our religions originated and serve the purposes of the devil. Around the clock they spin out millions of magazines that full time servants pedal from door to door criticizing and condemning, not Buddhism, not Hinduism, not Islam, not Judaism, not Indian Shamanism but the focus of their entire campaign is on Christendom. They may pull out a witchcraft magazine or an idolatry magazine here and there but they never scrutinize any group to any degree even approaching that which they use against Christianity.

Their magaznines alter history and leave out the wrintings of early Church Fathers to make it sound like the early Church Father's did not believe Jesus was God. As a matter of fact they don't even believe Jesus is really God's son. They say his is an Angel, a creation. To them he is "Abaddon" the king of the smokey firey abyss in Rev 9. An angel can't save us. An angel didn't die for us. There is a reason that your Roman Catholic Church wrote creeds and quelled heresy. Because heresies like that are what prevent people from knowing Jesus and being saved by him. Accepting and praising false teachings as "good enough" is cooperation with the devil.

It is not wrong to correct people's errors Amy if they are going to Hell because of them. Most of the epistles were written to correct errors in the Churches. Most of these corrections were not even major ones. Do you really think that Paul would say "well they are committing acts of sodomy with other people's husbands in there own homes and sacrificing goats to idols on their own time so I don't need to disrepect them by saying its wrong,"? or, "well those druids are sacrifing humans to demon gods and worshipping animals but that is their religion and I can respect that. I shouldn't make a big deal it might offend one of them,"?

Its not like I am saying Catholic this or Baptist that, Jehovah's Witnesses are on their way to the big frying pan. It is important to point out there errors to anyone who might dismiss them as trivial. You aren't going to convince him his beliefs are wrong either. They are in a cult. There cult has one purpose. Get more poeple into the cult. The prime target is heaven bound uninformed Christians that might fall for their teachings.

The only way to get someone out of a cult is to make them question the leadership. The last thing they are going to do is question one of there two million doctrines that they can't even memorize but know they are all real. They have to get a glimpse of the bigger picture and make them see themselves from the other point of view. If they aren't afraid that they might be "the wrong religion" they aren't going to accept biblical evidence. The most compelling reason they know they are in the right religion is that they know they are in the right religion. It's the cult paradox. When all else fails that will keep them in the faith. That must come down before any progress can possibly be made.

They use that tactic on Christians. They make hundreds of issues that focus an attack on leadership and practices not teachings. Their leadership knows that many Christians have a cult like faith that isn't supported with biblical knowledge. So it is real easy to combine the one to punch and grab them. If nothing else I am raising Christian awareness to the threat. Every Christian that doesn't go in is one less impossible charity case to get out.

I hope that helps you understand my intentions a little better.

Peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 14, 2002.


Hello, Amy.

Welcome to the forum and to the Catholic Church!
I hope that you will come here often. As you may have already determined, you will run into all kinds of folks here. There are some tremendous Catholics at the forum -- people who believe rightly, just as (I hope) you are being taught in RCIA. But there are also some people who think that they are Catholic, but do not believe correctly. Please do not believe all that you read. Be discerning. Determine whom you can trust and rely on them. [I will give you names of many trustworthy people by private e-mail, if you wish. I don't want to slight any good folks by accident by publicly forgetting them here.]

One person not to be trusted is this "robert (4twells@verizon.net)" -- a brand-new kid on the block. He wrote:
"The Roman Catholic Church offically and historically teaches that unless you have Jesus Christ you will spend eternity in hell. If some Popes or Bishops decide that they will differ on that topic they are according to historical Catholic councils and creeds, heretics."
Amy, Robert is wrong. I don't believe that you can trust him. I don't believe that he is a genuine Catholic.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2002.


Hi John,

I'm not a Roman Catholic. It is not my intent to misrepresent Roman teachings though. If I do please by all means correct me. Are you saying that People can be saved without Jesus Christ, or that the Roman Church teaches that?

peace

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 15, 2002.



Dear Robert,

Salvation is only through Jesus Christ. However, Jesus Christ can dispense salvation however and to whomever He wishes. He is not restricted to any human interpretation which tries to define whom He may save and whom He may not save. This is reflected in the teaching of His Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 847, states it this way:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may attain eternal salvation."

This does not represent salvation by any means other than Jesus Christ. It simply represents a broader vision of God's love, mercy, and justice, and of Christ's desire to save all men, than the overly narrow view "be a Christian or go to hell".

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 15, 2002.


I'm at a loss for words.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 15, 2002.

John,

I would appreciate that. However, for some reason, my hotmail account isn't working, so I can't send emails or read the ones I am receiving. I've put in a troublecall to hotmail, and if it's ok with you, when my email is fixed I will email you. Thank you very much!

-- Amy (amy20013@hotmail.com), December 15, 2002.


Amy -

Just be careful who's gossip you listen to about other people. Especially if they have to tell you in secret.

You should be able to discern who is being honest and who is not, whether what they believe is truth or incorrect. Ask the Spirit of God to direct you to the truth - honestly!

I am not picking a side for you to believe, I am just requesting that you let the Holy Spirit direct your life in whatever choices you make - I don't think anyone here could disagree with that.

God Bless!

Tim, the Baptist!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 16, 2002.


Yes, Amy, that would be fine.

Thank you, Robert, for clarifying your status. I wrongly thought that you were posting as a Catholic.

As is his custom, our deacon Paul has explained the Church's teaching beautifully. Robert, the Bible says that God desires all people to come to salvation. That divine "desire" would be ineffectual unless God were to give each person some means by which he/she may be saved. The ordinary means is baptism, with a faith in Christ that is worked out in love. But, as you know, hundreds of millions (Hindus, etc.) never have a chance to learn the gospel and to meet Jesus. Since God desires the salvation of all, we cannot assume that those hundreds of millions must suffer forever in hell. Instead, we assume that God mysteriously provides for their potential salvation, but always through the merits of his divine Son, even though those merits are not known to the pagans.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.



Thanks, Tim, for your hearty endorsement of me (NOT)!

You wrote to Amy, "Just be careful whose gossip you listen to about other people. Especially if they have to tell you in secret."

Why must you twist the facts, Tim? No one said anything about "gossip." What I offered Amy was a list of "names of many trustworthy people" -- and by this I meant, "names of Catholics who would not mislead" Amy. My simple intention was further made clear by my saying that I didn't want to offend anyone by accidentally leaving their names off the list, if I were to do it public. I had no intention of talking about you to Amy. She already knows that you are not Catholic and that you disbelieve various true doctrines.

Tim, you also wrote to Amy: "You should be able to discern who is being honest and who is not, whether what they believe is truth or incorrect. Ask the Spirit of God to direct you to the truth -- honestly!"
Though you spoke of the Spirit of God, Tim, you sounded eerily like the serpent in the garden, tempting Eve (Amy). This pertains not to the question of "who is being honest [or] not." Instead, it pertains to the question of "who are the folks on whom Amy can rely for the truth."

You, for example, seem generally honest, Tim, but very wrong. In other words, you "honestly" believe in your errors. Amy is becoming a Catholic now. She doesn't need to learn errors. She knows that she will learn the truth from the Catholic Church. Tim, she knows that your method (repeated ad nauseam) of relying only on the "Spirit of God" too often leads people to confusion, conflict, and error (e.g., 30,000+ protestant denominations).

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.


30,000+ protestant denominations doesn't even mean that they all have different doctrines and therefore errors. Many, many "denominations", Rome included, have unsubstantiated dogmas. No one can say that every last split hair they teach that isn't found in the bible is somehow uniquley inspired to their theologians.

I just wish Catholic's would get over themselves for at least 5 minutes :-)

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 16, 2002.


But you start from a false premise, Robert:
The Catholic faith isn't a denomination of Christians. She is the original Church founded by Christ on Peter, the apostles and their firt disciples. The fulness of the Gospel arrived on the world in Catholic terms, and even the Holy Bible had it's books from her. You have no basis for saying: ''Many, many *denominations*, Rome included, have unsubstantiated dogmas.'' --The doctrines of the Church (not ''Rome'') are safeguarded from error and corruption by the Holy Spirit; as Christ promised us. There is no unsubstantiated truth. It's always Truth, because God revealed it. If you fail to grasp it, keep trying; and with His grace, you'll come to know it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 16, 2002.

Dear Robert,

There was no such thing as a Christian denomination until the 16th century. The word didn't even exist until then. A denomination, by definition, is a group which separated itself from a pre-existing body, rejecting both the name and the characteristics (in this case, beliefs) which defined the orginal body. That's why they are called denominations (from the Latin "de nomina" - "out of the name", or "away from the name"). The Church Jesus founded is not a denomination, and cannot include any denominations. It did not separate from anything pre-existing. It was directly founded by God, the first Christian Church, and the only Christian Church God ever intended to exist. Jesus clearly stated that there would be one Church, with one set of beliefs, and that all men were to belong to that one Church. That's why that one Church took the name Catholic, meaning universal. Jesus never authorized any other churches to be founded in His name, and certainly not any others which would conflict doctrinally with His own Church, and with one another.

Denominationalism does indeed necessarily mean error, which is precisely why Jesus insisted that all of His followers be ONE - united in belief and in worship. Truth cannot contradict truth. As soon as two beliefs conflict, we immediately know that at least one of them is WRONG (assuming of course that we are speaking about matters of objective truth, not matters of opinion, like the prettiest color). Two conflicting beliefs can both be wrong, but they can never both be right. Therefore, a tradition like Protestantism, which is composed of thousands of conflicting sects, each defining its own beliefs based on its own guesses as to the probable meaning of ancient Catholic writings, cannot possibly represent that fullness of truth which Jesus promised to His Church. Jesus said "I will send you the Holy Spirit, and He will guide you to all truth". He said this to the leaders of the Church He founded - not to anyone else. The fact that each denomination hretains a portion of Catholic truth is good. Otherwise they would have no claim at all to the title "Christian". But, the fact that each denomination teaches many ideas that are objectively false is not good. Which is why the very idea of denominations is in direct opposition to everything Jesus taught about the Church as the Body of Christ. He told us that a body divided against itself cannot stand. This is why churches of the denominational tradition continue to crumble and fragment; and every new division further weakens the whole structure, until at last it must collapse. This is why the Holy Bible refers to the Church Christ founded as "the pillar and foundation of truth". Take the structure off the foundation, remove the pillars, and collapse is inevitable.

I don't know why you insist on insisting on the idea of teaching only from the Bible. 450 years of attempting this seems like a pretty fair trial of a system, and it is now apparent that such an approach simply does not result in truth. If it did, all those who follow that tradition would believe the same. Yet we see that just the opposite has occurred. The more people attempt to follow the unbiblical tradition of sola scriptura, the more denominations and untruths result. Isn't it time to admit that the system just doesn't work?

The one Church Jesus founded for all men has had its share of the trials and persecutions and mistakes and sins and tragedies and scandals which are part of being human, as have all churches. And not surprisingly, a Church which has been around for 2,000 years has had more of them than churches which have been here a few hundred years. But what sets the Catholic Church apart - what is not found in any other church - is 2,000 years of constant, unchanging, solid doctrine - exactly what Jesus said would be the mark of His Own Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 16, 2002.


If the Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ on Peter, the apostles and their firt disciples then Catholics should be able to prove their doctrine through the Word of God which Catholics claim that they gave the world.

The problem with this is that they CANNOT prove most of their doctrine through the Word of God, because some of the Catholic Church doctrines are foreign to the New Testament.

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 16, 2002.


No Paul. Rome was the first to divde itself from Orthodoxy and severed echumenicism in 1054.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 16, 2002.

Dear Paul,

"But what sets the Catholic Church apart - what is not found in any other church - is 2,000 years of constant, unchanging, solid doctrine - exactly what Jesus said would be the mark of His Own Church."

Oh, really? Let's take a quick glance into history:

In 590, Gregory I [although would not take the title of pope] "standardized the liturgy and theology of the burgeoning Roman church."

In 1054, The "Eastern and Western wings of the Roman Catholic Church" - divided into the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.

So what makes Roman Catholic correct OVER Greek Orthodox? Your preference?

Also between the East and West was the canon of Scripture.

"Jews in Palenstine in the early years of Christianity had a canon corresponding to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament. Jesus referred to this list when he spoke of the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms [Luke 24:44]."

Where is the evidence that Christ or the Apostles quoted or used the Apocrypha?

"The Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint was especially influential in making known certain books of the Apocrypha because it included these books along with the Old Testament books accepted in Palestine."

"Believers in the EASTERN portion of the Roman Empire, nearest Palestine, tended to agree with the Jews in that area. In the WEST, however, Christians under the influence of Augustine, the well-known bishop of Hippo, usually received the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture."

From 1378-1417, "Attempts to end this intolerable situation ["under the dominance of France, the Avignon papacy was nicknamed the "Babylonian Captivity of the Church"] produced two duly-elected popes, one in Avignon and one in Rome, in what was called the Great Schism."

Also during this time, the Catholic Church sold indulgences ** [paying for forgiveness]. Isn't that why Luther posted the 95 Theses?

"[Luther] preached fervently against indulgences, and on October 31, 1517, he nailed Ninety-Five Theses for debate on the Castle Church door at Wittenburg."

And here we are at the Council of Trent [1545-1563], with pope Paul III [which "recognized the Jesuits as a legal church order in 1540"]...

1] "they [Catholic Church] promoted Thomas Aquinas, making him the dominant Catholic theologian."

2] they abolished indulgence sellers **

3] they listed and defined clergy obligations

4] they regulated the use of relics

5] they ordered the restructuring of bishops within the church.

6] they rejected faith alone

7] "promoted the necessity of meritorious works as necessary in the dynamic of salvation.

[Romans 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.]

8] declared the Latin Vulgate ALONE acceptable for church use and maintained that church tradition was EQUAL in authority with Scripture.

Basically they made sure they believed opposite of the professing Protestant Christians.

That is all for now, but we see that the Roman Catholic Church, as they claim, is not telling the ENTIRE truth. Have they been 100% faithful to the Apostles "so-called" writings and the Scripture for 2,000 years? [1] it is counting on which catholic you are - east or west, and [2] they have changed!

How can you claim that the Catholic Church recieves teaching from God progressively - THEN claim you have writings from the Apostles teaching it?

I don't want to anger anyone here, but facts are facts. And I know I will be hit with "you are reading an anti-Catholic book" - I don't really know what the aurther is, and as long as the facts are correct, does it matter if they are Catholic or Protestant.

God Bless you all, just don't try to pull the wool over our eyes. :)

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 17, 2002.


I also love how the waited until years after Luther posted his 95 theses to canonize uninspired writings.

Man they could not have done a better job either. Four Words: Bel and the Dragon. What was Luther thinking with that kind of evidence against him?

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 17, 2002.


I just wanted to say I didn't mean to spark a debate! I am a brand new Catholic, enrolled in RCIA to learn the faith that was given to me as an infant, a faith which I have now chosen to make MY OWN. I would appreciate knowing who here is Catholic and who is not, because I don't know the difference yet between Protestant and Catholic beliefs, and it can get confusing. I'm not saying I wouldn't be interested in what a Protestant had to say, because it is obvious that you guys, both Catholic and Protestant, have a lot more knowledge than I do, and I can learn from you all. There are areas where your beliefs overlap, right? And I do understand why John would offer me a list of people in a private email, because if he posted a list here, and he missed someone, can you imagine the hurt feelings it would cause? Or they might assume John was saying they aren't a reliable source of info. I wouldn't want to be responsible for that kind of situation.

-- Amy (amy20013@hotmail.com), December 17, 2002.

Amy, I'm not a Catholic so beware! :-)

Catholics and Protestants both contend for the original essential beliefs that comprise the saiving faith in Christ. These include the full divinity and full humanity of the God-Man Jesus Christ. That he alone made the atonement for man's iniquity. We both believe that God is a Tri-Union of the persons of the Father, The Son +, and the Holy Spirit. We both believe in One Holy and Apostolic Church, although we define it differently. We both believe in one Baptism although some protestants agree with the Catholic definition and others don't. We both believe in the infallibilty of Scripture, although the Catholic bible includes seven more Old testament books and some heretical 'protestant' Churches don't believe in the infallibilty of Scripture. Confused yet? Lutherans and Anglicans Believe in the Eucharist like Catholics but most protestants don't. The Anglican Church is also not protestant it is the Third "Catholic" Church.

Almost all "protestant" Churches teach the essential tenets for saving faith. The ones that don't are recognized by ecumenical authorities as Cults. This list inlcudes Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Church of Christ (boston), Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, Shepard's Chapel, Christadelphians, Oness Pentecostals and some others. All of these Churches deny one or most of the essential doctrines of salvation. They all deny the Trinity. Almost all deny the divinity of Christ. Most deny man's immortal soul. Many deny the Physical resurrection of Christ. Almost all claim to be God'd only real Church and that salvation is dependant on membership. Some Catholics may fear that Protestants are not saved because they lack membership but that is not what Rome officially teaches. Protestants by name, not necassarily by any concern, protest the Papal authority. Protestants believe that Salvation is by faith alone and that works earn no merit towards salvation. Works can only be rewarded after Salvation by Fatih alone. Most protestants contend that works are necassary for maintaining saving faith. Protestants don't believe in the traditions of the Roman Church although many still perform infant baptism and baptism without immersion.

Catholic claims of authority and tradition for the most part is what separates the two. Protestants have a much more loosely ecumenical confederation somewhat like the Catholic Church did prior to the events that led up to 1054.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 17, 2002.


Amy

My name is Tim and I am a Baptist. I will try to start adding it to my post, so NO ONE feels like I am misleading them.

When someone says Protestant, it is almost like saying "anyone but Catholic", but that is a broad choice of words, but I use it myself too - so.

Although we might agree with some teachings, we disagree with some key doctrines also [I think both would agree].

As I stated before, we should all be searching for the truth and putting 100% faith in God [I'm sure we both claim that]. By this, I mean that we [all of us] should read what is posted here, listen to what we are taught, but check it with the Book [Scripture]. I realize some here may disagree, but God has given us it to read so that we can know Him.

A Catholic should not just agree because another Catholic writes it, just as a Protestant should not just agree because another Protestant writes it. That is just taking sides, and not taking God's side. Regardless of who writes the Truth, we should accept it because it is Truth, not because they are in the same "group" we are.

So, when you read things here and study, PLEASE check everything with the Word of God, and don't just believe it because somebody said it [whether me or anyone else]. Test it with Scripture and let the Holy Spirit show you.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 17, 2002.


For the tenth time, Tim--
Testing by scripture is pointless for those who rely on sola scriptura. Scripture has diverse meanings to the multitudes who call themselves Bible Christians. They can find no final authority to support the true meanings of scripture; only private opinions. You yourself, a Baptist, will disagree with a Methodist, and even with some other Baptists. Leave out how you'll judge the Catholic faith. To the churches separated from the chair of Peter, all the faith means is a watered-down, ''personal savior'', lip-service adherence to any faith except Catholicism. Practically the single thing all ''denominational'' Christians agree on is ''Catholics bow to idols''. Or some other such BS.

-- You can't have a Bible which PROVES anything without the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit was sent to the Church only. Not into the world.

Jesus said, "If you (the Church) were of the world, the world would love what is its own. But because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:19). And same chapter, v. 26, --"But when the Advocate has come, whom I will send you (the Church) from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will bear witness concerning me. And you also bear witness, because from the beginning you are with me."

He wanted the Gospel preached inerrantly by the power of the Holy Spirit, by His Church alone! Not in sects scattered outside His Holy Church. When you say, ''Check everything by the Word of God,'' you turn it completely over to the wisdom of men. They are unable to truly learn from the Word with no Holy Spirit. But the Church has the Spirit, and cannot err in the knowledge of God's Word.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.


Dear Eugene,

Let me use a verse out of context, but very much appropriate:

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

You have slaugthered the meaning of John 15, by your [interpretation] of it.

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and [every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.]

I believe the verse says EVERY BRANCH, which would mean individuals, not THE BRANCH, which could mean what you wish to consider the church. And you can't claim that the Catholic Church is made of individuals, because here there is no way that you could consider the Catholic Church the vine and the branches the memebers. No, Christ is the vine and the Beleivers are the branches.

Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Wow, we are "clean through the word which I have spoken unto you" - and what words are those - the Scripture!

Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

It gets even better - Christs abides in us! That's the power of God at work - Christ says, "Abide in me, and I in you."

Now, you can take this verse to the bank - THAT GOD CHOOSES US, AND WE DO NOT CHOOSE GOD!

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

And the rest of the chapter? Nope - no mention of a church, just individual Believers - which is the Church, the Body of Christ - not the religion The Roman Catholic Church. Although a church maybe - not The Church, for The Church is made of EVERY BELIEVER THAT EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE!

Get out that eraser Eugene and try again.

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 17, 2002.


Hi Tim,

Seeing as how you are my true brother united in the Church of Christ, I just thought I would take this opportunity to wish you a Merry Christmas!

-- robert (4rwells@verizon.net), December 17, 2002.


Thanks, and a Merry Christmas to you too!

And whether some would like to admit it or not, I believe they will have to put of with me in Heaven. :) It isn't like I don't believe that some Catholics are saved. I do.

So Merry Christmas to everyone here too!

And God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 17, 2002.


Thanks, Tim.
There's more where that came from. The scriptures are truly loved and respected by all Catholics. We need no Baptist commentators; but flail away. By dismissing our interpretations of the Bible you make apparent to all how badly your denomination lacks discernment under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

It was already well-known to Catholics that the offshoots of the ''reformation'' must necessarily fall into error. That's regrettable. But there are many thousands of other people who didn't have that same intuition; especially sincere non-Catholics who are today searching for the truth.

And by comparing your notes and ours (mine, I admit humbly), these people can see it themselves, if they're lurking around these threads-- See what? Unwillingness and obstinacy in the face of proof-texts, coming from a Baptist in full view of unbiased witnesses.

By self-destructing here, you will certainly open many other good protestants' eyes.

Not fellows like ''robert'', perhaps. He eats out of the same bowl as you. But everybody can't be utterly blind to the Holy Bible. Many good protestants will see the truth, as Gail once saw it. She is a convert to catholicism. Just so now they've had a chance to dig for the truth. Hallelujah! May God grant them grace and the assistance of the Holy Spirit today! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.


Tim,

Please scroll up about ten messages to your first message of December 17. Glance at it briefly and then return to my message. (I'll wait for you ...)


Are you back now? Good.
Tim, we Catholics don't appreciate that kind of message here at our forum (our home away from home). It is highly improper and unfair. I request that you contact the Moderator and ask him to delete it from this thread. Why?

In response to what Paul wrote to Robert (not to you), you lashed out from all directions, tossing about 25 separate anti-Catholic charges at poor Paul. You are able to let fly with one wrong charge per sentence. But it may take Paul a few sentences or even paragraphs to lay each of your "bad boys" to rest. That is why the "scattershot" tactic from fundamentalists is not welcome here.

Tim, I sincerely hope that you have enough fairness in you to realize that I am right about this. Having gotten the Moderator to delete your message, please follow the recommended method -- namely, starting a new thread with your first (and only your first) and "best" objection to Paul's message. [This current thread is supposed to be about JWs and Mormons, not your laundry list of Catholic peccadillos.] Allow your first objection, on its new thread, to be laid to rest. Then start a second thread with your second objection. Allow that to be handled. Then start a third thread, and so on. This is the only fair and sensible way to do things.

God bless you.
John
PS: Thanks, Amy, for defending my suggestion.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.


J. F. Gecik,

Let's be fair here. How can you say, "It is highly improper and unfair." to what I posted? All of that information I got from books, concerning church history:

] Exploring Church History, James P. Eckman

] Church History in Plain English, Bruce L. Shelley

I didn't just pull them out of the air or make them up. How do you consider history anti-Catholic? Is it that you don't agree with these facts or is it that they truly show that Paul's comment was not correctly expressed? I'm asking?

Although this post was geared to me from Robert, it has taken many turns within it. What about all the history posted for me to read, anti-Protestant? We all have the choice to believe it or denie it.

I realize this is a Catholic forum, I do. But, when we begin to debate, am I suppose sit by while you tell your side and I just listen?

Honestly, give me a good reason why you can justly say that it was wrong for me to defend my views to what Paul said. It doesn't matter who it was directed at, it if includes me. Isn't that what this forum does. When someone post something, everyone seems to put in their two cents. That is how we learn from each other. Nobody knows everything.

No one has commented on it and it will probably be forgotten. Be honest with me. Why do you really want me to get it deleted? Do you believe that the facts [and the writers] are wrong or is it that you just don't want to believe it? I won't comment either way.

If I believe your answer is honest, I will see about asking the moderator to delete the post. I am not here to bash Catholics or make them hate me, but let's make sure we get to see ALL of the facts, and not just one side.

When I posted the history, it was merely to show that Catholics have not been 100% the same for 2,000 years as Paul tried to say, but honestly, I didn't expect for anyone to debate the issues here.

Once I get your answer to this, I will ask the Moderator to delete the post. As you wish. What is their email address?

Thanks and God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 18, 2002.


Dear Christian:

You claim: The problem with this is that they CANNOT prove most of their doctrine through the Word of God, because some of the Catholic Church doctrines are foreign to the New Testament.

A: The Catholic Church, and no-one else, decided which New Testament writings would go into the Bible, and which would not (They only accepted 27 out of about 200 possibilities). The ONLY way the Bible could possibly contain anything that conflicts with Catholic teaching is if the Catholic Church intentionally put into the book it was compiling writings that contradicted its own teaching. Now really, how likely is that? The problem here is not that the Catholic Church cannot prove its beliefs from scripture, but rather that Protestant denominations all think they CAN prove their beliefs from scripture, even though their beliefs conflict and contradict at every turn. So much for Biblical proof from personal interpretation!

Dear Robert,

You claim: Rome was the first to divde itself from Orthodoxy and severed echumenicism in 1054.

A: This is a peculiar view of history, considering that there is absolutely NO historical mention of an "Orthodox Church" before 1054. Since the record shows that there was no Church but the Catholic Church before that date, it is apparent that the NEW entity which appeared at that time must have separated from "Rome", not the other way around. Your claim is equivalent to saying that England broke off from the united States in 1776.

Dear Tim,

You claim: In 1054, The "Eastern and Western wings of the Roman Catholic Church" - divided into the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church.

A: The Eastern and Western (Latin) Rites of the Catholic Church are still alive and well, both under the headship of the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome. The schismatic Orthodox tradition did not exist as a separate entity until 1054. No Church that separates itself from the authority of the Vicar of Christ is within the Catholic Church.

You ask: Where is the evidence that Christ or the Apostles quoted or used the Apocrypha?

A: Christ did quote from the Old Testament books which Luther threw out to bolster his novel doctrines. However, Christ and the Apostles did NOT use the New Testament! Do you accept the New Testament? If you do, by whose authority? The Catholic Church defined the canon of scripture. It is only by the infallible word of the Catholic Church that you know which writings are canonical and which are not. If you say the Church was in error on seven of the books it selected, then it is likely they were also in error on others, and you therefore have no way of knowing for certain that ANY part of the bible is actually the Word of God. It's all or nothing. Either the Church infallibly defined the 73 books of the canon of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit, or it didn't. You can't pick and choose.

You say: Christians under the influence of Augustine, the well-known bishop of Hippo, usually received the Apocrypha as part of the canon of Scripture.

A: No - not "usually". The "Christians" you refer to - who just happened to be the bishops of the universal Church, gathered at the Council of Hippo in 394 AD, and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD - accepted once and for all time the 73 books of inspired scripture. And yes, the great Augustine was indeed an influential force of the Holy Spirit during that important work.

You claim: produced two duly-elected popes, one in Avignon and one in Rome, in what was called the Great Schism.

A: The Church has never had more than one Pope, for the simple reason that that is categorically impossible. There have been a few times when there were two claimants to the position (even three at one point!), but that does not give the Church "two duly elected Popes". If I got a million or so people together and "elected" another President for the country, would the country thereby have two Presidents? Look up the term "Antipope".

You claim: Also during this time, the Catholic Church sold indulgences ** [paying for forgiveness]. Isn't that why Luther posted the 95 Theses?

A: Indulgences are not forgiveness, strictly speaking, and they were not sold, strictly speaking. Still, the abuses and excesses in the administration of indulgences are a matter of historical record, and yes, a couple of Luther's theses did address this issue. It's too bad he didn't stick around long enough to participate in the reform of the Church which followed, instead of separating Himself from God's Church and founding a manmade tradition which has brought nothing but conflict, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos to Christianity for 450 years.

You claim: Basically they made sure they believed opposite of the professing Protestant Christians.

Oh come on now! :-) Talk about putting the cart before the horse! Why do you think they were called PROTESTants? The doctrines defined at Trent were the very roots of Christianity, and the only reason they had to be formally defined at that particular point in history were the many heresies which were beginning to develop as the inevitable and predictable result of the separation of manmade sects from the God-given authority of the Pillar and Foundation of truth!

Peace! Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 18, 2002.


Paul says, "The Catholic Church, and no-one else, decided which New Testament writings would go into the Bible, and which would not (They only accepted 27 out of about 200 possibilities)." No, the Catholic Church DID NOT decide what was written in the Bible, NOR did they circulate those books. The apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27).

The Scriptures do not owe their existence to the Catholic Church, but to the power and providence of God for He declared that His word would abide forever. (1 Pet. 1:23 25).

-- A Christian (--@---.net), December 18, 2002.


Tim, it appears that, as soon as you saw that my message to you had a negative tone, you stopped absorbing the content of my message. As a result, in replying to me, you complained about things that didn't make sense.

You wrote: "Be honest with me. Why do you really want me to get it deleted? Do you believe that the facts [and the writers] are wrong or is it that you just don't want to believe it? I won't comment either way."

If you would go back to my post now and read it calmly and carefully, you would find your question answered. You jumped to the conclusion that I was trying to hide from public view the objections you had raised. Never did I suggest that! Now that you have reread my post, you saw two things: (1) that I objected to having so many things piled on Paul all at once, and (2) that I asked you to post your same objections, one per thread, on new threads in the days to come

I hope you see that I was trying to be fair, and that your comments didn't really fit my message.
Well, I suppose that you could contact the Moderator for that deletion (either by leaving a note for him here or by e-mailing him at Catholic_Moderator@hotmail.com) -- or you could simply tell Paul right now to disregard that earlier, complex message because you will be introducing your material in new threads. As you wish.

Thank you. John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.


To Kevin (aka "A Christian"):

You told Paul, "No, the Catholic Church DID NOT decide what was written in the Bible ..."
Your objection is inappropriate, because Paul did not make that claim. As you yourself quoted Paul (but did not read carefully enough), he wrote: "The Catholic Church, and no-one else, decided which New Testament writings would go into the Bible ...".
Clearly Paul was saying that the Catholic bishops and pope developed the "canon" (official list of contents) of each of the Testaments. Prior to this "canonization," books of scripture were available in a non-standard, separated way, without a uniform agreement, in all places as to what was inspired by God. It was the Catholic Church that made the determination (as Paul told you), which 27 books of the many Christian-era books could be put together, under one cover, as the New Testament. And it was the Catholic Church that decided which 46 pre-Christian-era books could be put together, under one cover, as the Old Testament.

Without our Catholic Church, Kevin, you wouldn't even have the Bible that you have been looking at today. Besides the Catholic canonization process (after the end of the Roman persecutions), it was Catholics who preserved the Bible by painstakingly hand-copying it -- and who protected the Bible copies from being obliterated by barbarians. It was Catholics, in later centuries, who added the chapter and verse numbers, which were not placed there by the ancient authors. How ironic that anti-Catholics love to try to impress each other by babbling off book/chapter/verse against the true Church, which was the very Church that wrote the New Testament books, gave protestants a list of the right books to read, the chapter numbers, and the verse numbers! You bigots are really a mess!

God bless you anyway!
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 19, 2002.


Very True, John,
''a'' aka Kevin or --somebody; The inspired books of the New Testament were in fact ALL WRITTEN by Catholics. God was their inspiration, no doubt; so He is the ''author'', it's completely HIS intellectual property. Peter and James and John can never claim, *I helped write the Bible*; even though their writings form great bulks of the scriptures. God was their author and they gave themselves to the task of accomplishing the work. That's why we Catholics kiss the Holy Book after closing it and say reverently, ''The Word of God.'' Do you ever?

Be that as it may; Matthew was a Catholic apostle and Mark was a follower of Saint Peter, the first Pope of the Catholic Church. Saint John the evangelist is a Catholic saint. Luke wasn't an apostle, but he was a Catholic, as was every other disciple of Jesus Christ. At least at the very start, when no heresy was yet apparent. All the Bible, therefore, came from the Catholic Church. God wrote it, but Catholics produced it and selected its canon; and preserved it, translated it and still keep it. We have DIBS, ''a''-- on the Holy Bible! Without the Church, you wouldn't have seen it at all.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 19, 2002.


Paul,

The Roman Pope sent his minions to the east to formerly sever from the east. The east did not write a "declaration of independence." It was not the desire of the east to separate in contrast to the American Colonies.

-- robert (4twells@verizon.net), December 20, 2002.


FOLDEROL, roberto. ''Minions''--!!! It's clear to see where you've been taking your ''spiritual'' instruction. Hahaha!

Looking back over this thread, I see you saying, ''We both believe in One Holy and Apostolic Church, although we ___define it___ differently. (???????) We both believe in one Baptism although some protestants agree with (the "Pope of Rome" ? ! ! ? !) the Catholic definition and others don't. We both believe in the infallibilty of Scripture, although the Catholic bible includes seven more Old testament books and, bla bla bla;''and, -- ''Confused are you???''Damn right you're confused. You have your head punched loose!

''30,000+ protestant denominations doesn't even mean that they all have different doctrines and therefore errors.'' (robert's learned concept of ''understanding'' the scriptures.) He even confesses to being one of 30,000 separate lost tribes!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.


''30,000+ protestant denominations doesn't even mean that they all have different doctrines and therefore errors.'' (robert's learned concept of ''understanding'' the scriptures.) He even confesses to being one of 30,000 separate lost tribes!

I have hedged on replying to this thread, but your post, Eugene, made me get off my butt. With regard to this "robertian" pronouncement, I ask...

If 30,000 Protestant denominations exist, then why do they if not *because* of differing doctrines? If they have the same foundations of faith in approaching Christianity, then why create a new denomination?

-- Melissa Wilson (meanolemelissa@hotmail.com), December 21, 2002.


There's a good point. Yes, Melissa; Our Lord prayed His people would be One Fold, under One Shepherd.

A ''Bible Christian'' is sure to strike back; One Shepherd means Jesus only, the Good Shepherd, who knows His sheep; they know Him.''

In a strict sense, yes. He is our Lord, the Good Shepherd. He guides the Church from His eternal throne at the right hand of the Father. He sends us the Advocate; and He cares for every one of us, His sheep.

However, His Church on earth is the sheepfold; where they have free will. His grace is given to the Church for their perseverance in the faith. Without it, they become lost sheep in a wilderness. Our Shepherd for the period we have here on earth is Peter; as any biblical scan shows us. He is called in the last chapter of John to be the caretaker of the flock. Not FLOCKS; One flock!

''Feed my lambs; Feed my lambs, Feed my sheep'', said Christ to Peter. --NOw, supposing Jesus had said, ''Peter, this is YOUR flock now. Feed it and someday I'll return.''--? Then we would be a Church where Christ doesn't own us. We'd be Peter's sheep. That's what non- Catholics want to imply!

No-- Jesus said to Peter --''Feed MY lambs.'' Peter is chosen as His Shepherd during our lifetimes. Christ is confident in His Pastor since He assured Himself three times of Peter's undying love and faith in Him. He asked Peter, ''Do you love me?'' three times. Because, when Peter denied Him three times on Holy Thursday, it had cast a pall over Peter. We're told he ''went out, and he wept bitterly.''

Jesus restored Peter to complete faith asking the three questions. And then, satisfied He had his man, He made Him our Shepherd on earth.

Bible Christians cannot truly argue. The words of Our Lord are definite: ''Feed my lambs.'' We, the Church are His lambs and Peter keeps us safe for His glorious Lord and Saviour. It's all CLEARLY in the Scripture; Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.


eugene c. chavez,

Why do you TRY to claim Peter as a pope and our Shepherd by: "Jesus restored Peter to complete faith asking the three questions. And then, satisfied He had his man, He made Him our Shepherd on earth. Bible Christians cannot truly argue. The words of Our Lord are definite: ''Feed my lambs.''"???

Was Peter the only one "chosen" to feed the sheep of Christ?

2sa 5:2 Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and [the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel], and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.

Jer 3:15 And [I will give you pastors] according to mine heart, [which shall feed you] with knowledge and understanding.

Jer 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD. Jer 23:2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the [pastors that feed my people]; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.

Jer 23:4 And [I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them]: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD.

--- So, apparently there have been other earthly shepherds; therefore other popes before Peter?

Think about it!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 21, 2002.


Dear Tim:
You seem to admit Peter is our Shepherd in Christ. All you can muster is verses from the Old Testament; and none of them stop Christ from assigning the post of Shepherd to his chosen apostle. If the OT verses contradict the Catholic Church, then necessarily they also contradict Jesus when He says ''I am the Good Shepherd''.

This is pointless, because Christ's sheep are here clearly His followers; the new Church. Peter is called to ''feed'' the sheep; and not by Jeremiah-- By Jesus Christ! Your question, ''Was Peter the only one chosen to feed the sheep of Christ?'' --He is the one called in John 21:15-- Why would you dispute with Jesus?

Feed means bring up, keep alive and healthy. All the apostles had the mission of carrying the Holy Gospel to all nations; but not necessarily of caring for the Church at large. That was Peter's calling. It's why he was entrusted with the keys of the kingdom, or, the highest authority.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 21, 2002.


Hi, Gene.

Tim the Baptist should notice how the first "Vicar of the Chief Shepherd" directs the "junior" shepherds who help to tend God's flock in their respective churches (dioceses):

1 Peter 5:1-4
"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd is manifested you will obtain the unfading crown of glory."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.


"You seem to admit Peter is our Shepherd in Christ." - How do you get that out of my post, Eugene? Perhaps you have miss read it, by referring to my statement of "So, apparently there have been other earthly shepherds; therefore other popes before Peter?". This was just to show that to claim Peter is the Shepherd of all the Christians because Christ told him to "feed my sheep", doesn't really fit the rest of the Scripture, now does it - to try to use it to mean that God made Him the first pope by simply saying "feed my sheep"?

Who do you think called the other "shepherds" [ie. pastors - wow, no mention of A pope, but plural pastors - that means more than one]? I believe God did, wouldn't you say the same?

Jer 23:4 And [I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them]: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, [saith the LORD].

Let's take at look at your verse Eugene,

Joh 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, [Feed my lambs.]

It is so obvious why the Lord is telling Peter this, yet you refuse the obvious and build an off the wall belief out of it!

Christ called him and the others away from being fishermen to being fisher of men. Do you recall that? When Christ dies, what does Peter do? He goes back to fishing!

John 21:3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

So, it only makes since that when Christ returns, he wants to know why Peter is fishing and not preaching the Word of God. So, it would make since to ask Peter, "do you love me? Then do what I have asked you to do. Feed my sheep. Preach the Word of God to them!"

But what does Christ tell them [yes all 11, not just Peter]?

Mr 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. Mr 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Is this not feeding the sheep? And He didn't say check in with Peter. He gave them ALL the same calling!

Your definition : "Feed means bring up, keep alive and healthy."

And that is the job of a pope?

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

That's funny that I don't see the "office" of pope mentioned in Scripture for that job. And please don't say he is an apostle.

As for Paul, and his ""Vicar of the Chief Shepherd" directs the "junior" shepherds who help to tend God's flock in their respective churches (dioceses):".

Where do you find this in Scripture? There is NO SUCH THING as a Vicar [substitute] of the Chief Shepherd".

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So, is there also a SUBSTITUTE way, truth, and life? I don't think so - no one could substitute Christ!

Christ alone is the Chief Shepherd as Paul quoted in 1 Peter 5:1-4.

But, I don't understand why you quote it Paul? It actually goes against what you and Eugene are trying to say.

1pe 5:1 The [elders which are among you I exhort], [who am also an elder], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Peter is equal to the other elders, not a pope over them.

1pe 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Peter just passing the teaches and command of Christ along to the other shepherds [elders, which he is one].

1pe 5:3 [Neither as being lords over God's heritage], but being ensamples to the flock.

Maybe we should change the word [lords] to [popes]? What do you think? Isn't that what the pope is doing? Lording over the flock?

1pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

The Chief Shepherd will appear and give the crown of glory to who? Peter? Yes. Peter alone? No.

Christ will give a crown of glory to every elder that feeds the sheep!

This was a poor choice of Scripture to prove a point that doesn't exist.

Sorry, try again...

God Bless!

-- Tim, the Baptist (tlw97@cox.net), December 22, 2002.


Simon Peter ALONE holds the keys to the kingdom, the universal symbol of AUTHORITY, entrusted to him, and him ALONE, on the same occasion when Jesus changed his name, and his name ALONE, from Simon to Rock, and indicated Peter's foundational role, and his role ALONE, in the building of His Church. There is simply no way to reasonably and honestly misinterpret one's way out of these obvious and direct actions on the part of Jesus, which involved no-one but Jesus and Simon. To try to deny that Jesus singled out Simon the Apostle for a unique and supreme role in the leadership of his Church simply demonstrates a lack of regard for the plain truth. Why else would the Word of God refer to the Apostles as "Peter and his companions"? Why not "John and his companions"? The ridiculous interpretational contortions Protestants go through in a desperate effort to avoid the clear meaning of these passages is pitiful. How can you claim to respect the Word of God when you are willing to stretch any passage to the breaking point if its obvious meaning conflicts with your manmade traditions?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 23, 2002.

Yes, Paul--
Tim and his brethren are so bereft of grace they DARE to actually gainsay all the plain words of Jesus Christ!

Because Peter was fishing, instead of preaching the gospel!!!

If it weren't such an ODD idea it would be blasphemous. For this Pecksniffian comedy to take precedence over what Jesus Christ said so solemnly; --pick it to pieces and convert it into a fish story !!!

Over these many months it's saddened my heart repeatedly to see carloads of ostensibly faithful Bible Christians come to our forum; how they presume some banal CRAP like this to have come from the very mouth of the Son of God!!!

These phony, pocket-sized pharisees have no scruples about spinning the word of God to suit their vanities. It's hard not to throw up!

Tim-- do yourself a favor. Not me-- not the rest of this forum; yourself.

Go on a trip far away. Crunch your computer keyboard and get yourself a checkerboard.

WHY? What for???

To save your immortal soul. God will not put up very long with this. Take the advice of someone who hates to see you in darkness. Poor unhappy soul!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 23, 2002.


I'm new to this forum. I don't usually post anything, I usually just scroll through and read the wisdom that Eugene, Paul, and Bill impart on mouthy mislead "Bible Christians". But everwhere these "Bible Christians" go, there seems to be an argument not far behind. So I invite Tim and Robert and A. Christian to look at threads under "Apologetics" and "Catholic and Other Christian beliefs" where your objections to Catholicism and many others have been put down like a lame horse, many times.

I'm a Catholic.

Peace to all, Cameron

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), November 13, 2004.


I'm new to this forum. I don't usually post anything, I usually just scroll through and read the wisdom that Eugene, Paul, and Bill impart on mouthy mislead "Bible Christians".

{You mean like me?}-Zarove

But everwhere these "Bible Christians" go, there seems to be an argument not far behind.

{Ive nto been to bad, have I? One cn also not osme Catholcis who attmept to make confontation ... This is less to do with their theology nd more to do with the lack of ability to fllow proper decorum and civility, and rationally explain positions. Its nto to do with the actual beelifs but how one examiens and defends them.

I think you will see "Bible Christains" arent so bad if you get to know a few that arent soley about attacks.

I post here as its a safe place with intellegent conversaiton, and I can learn form other christains. I came origionally to learn og Catholisism.}-Zarove

So I invite Tim and Robert and A. Christian to look at threads under "Apologetics" and "Catholic and Other Christian beliefs" where your objections to Catholicism and many others have been put down like a lame horse, many times.

{The trohble is, you froget to look at hte date stamp, they likely dont even look at htese forums any longer...}-Zarove

I'm a Catholic.

{And Im not, but mst here are! }-Zarove

Peace to all, Cameron

{Peace comes form both sids not aggressing. Be careful to show due restraint and ocnsideration before cstegorising an entire group.}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 13, 2004.


Cameron, welcome and God bless. Glad to have you posting here...

zarove, you're hardly new here. However, don't jump on cameron so fast. we are called by Christ to love all people, especially our enemies. Therefore we SHOULD desire peace for all (as cameron did)... without delivering peace to those who don't deserve it (such as terrorists). For the man who called for us to pray for arafat, i would think that this would be your first thought.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 14, 2004.


I wasnt jumpign on him, merley tryign to avoid the unnessisary confrontationalism thta I saw coming. I mean, I don think any of us need the same arguments against protestantism that some of the overzelous young have seized upon to bolster themselves.

I merley ant him to think befoe he steps on toes that arent use to beign stepped on, and finds himself in a dire situaiton as a result.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.


Makign generalisations and confusing the issue of Protestantism as a theological topic and what most protestants do and how they act however is a seriosu error on his part. Again, Im not tyign to attakc him, only reprove the error before it leads to unfortunate cercumstances.

Knowledge lead to wisdom, and faith to strength, but to be rash leads to ruin.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 14, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ