Readers,

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

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

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

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

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

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

Good Morning. Here are some questions:

1. If you believe that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority , where in the Bible does that come from?

2. When and by whom was the New Testament Canon decided on? How was it decided?

3. Lasty, before the Canon was decided on, how were the teachings of Jesus passed on? How was the Apostolic authority passed on? Gwen

-- gwen (gwen@panam.edu), September 25, 2003

Answers

4. Is everything God will show us confined to the Bible?

5. What should I make of life in relation to God's meanings and teachings?

I've asked these questions before. And, I find that some answers are amazing.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 25, 2003.

Thanks for the additional questions, rod. Maybe no one's taking a crack at my questions because they've been rehashed on this board many times? I'm most interested in answers for the first one...

-- gwen (gwen@panam.edu), September 26, 2003.

There is ONLY ONE (1) standard of Authority, and that is the word of God.

The original apostles received ALL the truth we need to guide us to eternal life, and they wrote this down in the Scriptures (John 16:13; 2 Pet. 1:3; Acts 20:20,27; Matt. 28:20; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Tim. 3:16,17).

The teachings of these inspired writers CAN be understood by the common people. We do NOT need official interpreters (the Catholic Church) to understand the word, but we should use the word to check out the teachers! (Mark 7:14; 2 Tim. 3:16,17; John 20:30,31; Acts 17:11; Psa. 119:105)

We displease God when we follow tradition (the Catholic Church) or church laws or any human standard as the source of authority for the church (Matt. 15:1-14; Col. 2:8; Gal. 1:6-9; Prov. 14:12; 2 John 9-11; Jer. 10:23).

Catholicism teaches that the Pope is the earthly head of the church.

But the Bible teaches:

Jesus is the Head, foundation, and chief shepherd of the church NOT the pope. (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18; Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:10,11; 1 Pet. 2:3-8; John 10:11,14; 1 Pet. 5:4; Heb. 13:20). For the church to have two heads (Jesus and the Pope) would be spiritual adultery, like a woman having two husbands (cf. Eph. 5:22-24 to Rom. 7:2,3).

Note on Matt. 16:18 - The "rock" on which Jesus built His church is NOT Peter, but it is the truth that Jesus is the Son of God (v13-17). In this context, Jesus is not confessing and exalting Peter; rather, Peter is confessing and exalting Jesus! The "rock" on which the church is built (Greek PETRA) is a solid ledge of stone. It is NOT the same as Peter (Greek PETROS, a stone), but is contrasted to Him. This agrees with 1 Cor. 3:11 and other verses listed above, which show Jesus is the foundation of the church. There are NO other passages which Catholics can run to try try to prove that Peter is the head of the Church. How people can be FOOLED by this organization is just amazing!!!

Peter had NO greater authority than the other apostles (2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11,12). ALL had power to bind and loose by preaching the gospel guided by the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 16:19 to 18:18; John 20:22f; and Mark 16:15,16; John 16:13; Gal. 1:11,12). Peter had the "keys" to be the first one to preach this gospel and open the door to both Jews and Gentiles to enter the church (Acts 2 and Acts 10), but others preached as much and as effectively as he did (I Cor. 15:10).

Peter did NOT fit the pattern of modern Popes. He was married (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5). He refused to allow men to bow to honor him religiously (Acts 10:25,26). He wore no exalted title such as "Father" (Matt. 23:9).

NO ONE today can be a successor to Peter or to any other apostle. Apostles had to be EYEWITNESSES of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21,22; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Acts 2:32; 3:15; etc.). Apostles CONFIRMED their apostleship by doing miracles (2 Cor. 12:12; Mark 16:20; Acts 3:1-10; 9:32-42; etc.). Those who received this miraculous power from the apostles, could NOT in turn pass it on to others (Acts 8:5-18).

Marriage is honorable for all, including apostles and bishops (Heb. 13:4; Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:2,4; Tit. 1:5-7).

It is a CLEAR sign of apostacy to forbid people to marry and the Catholic Church has made this prophecy come true. (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), September 27, 2003.

Thanks for responding to my questions , Kevin.

Many of the scriptures you use to prove your points, I am not sure how they pertain to the questions at hand or your points.

You cite 2 Timothy 316: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17   That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. I agree!!! I am not sure why you use this to try to prove that we don't need a visible church but can rely on our own interpretations. It says that all Scripture is God-breathed. So why is your Bible thinner than mine, again?

Matt. 15:1-14 Christ talks to the Pharisees about tradition. This passage cannot be used to claim that the Christian church doesn't need tradition. Christ is the founder of our traditions as Christians. Traditions are natural to humans. If ours are founded in Christ, we are united with Him. If they are founded in men, we are lost. The Catholic Church is founded on Christ.

Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. Again the tradition of the Church is from Christ, not man.

As for the "Rock" issue,

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

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

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

I have heard the arguement about petra/petros, but it doesn't hold up and here's why: the word used by our Lord was Aramaic, "Cephas" (Bar-Jona was also a name of Aramaic derivative). Later on in the writings of Paul, Paul refers to Peter as "Cephas", for the Lord gave him that name.:

1 Corinthians 1:12

What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."

1 Corinthians 3:22

whether Paul or Apol'los or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours;

1 Corinthians 9:5

Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 15:5

and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. There are more instances but you can find them just as well as I can.

Wasn't it symbolic and meaningful when the Lord changed your name, back in the Old Testament times as well? Wait, though - didn't our Lord give Peter that name earlier on?

John 1:40-42 One of the two who heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.  He first found his brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ).  He brought him ot Jesus.  Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John?  You shall be called Cephas" . Imagine how Peter felt on being renamed by the Lord... So with this in mind, for Protestants to say that Christ was referring to anything other than Peter is a bit twisty logic. Also, many of your Protestant brethren aren't in agreement with you and accept the Catholic position of Peter as the "Rock". For the sake of brevity I will respond to the rest of your statements in another post.

-- gwen (gwen@panam.edu), September 28, 2003.

By the way, Catholics don't deny that Peter was married. Nor does the Church deny that there were married priests and Bishops in the first few centuries...though there were probably many who chose to remain unmarried, it wasn't until The Second Lateran Council in 1139 that there was a law set down about celibacy. Does this prove that the Church is false? As for forbidding people to marry, I think you misunderstand the nature of vocation - a choice. No one is forbidden to marry. When a priest chooses to take the vows of his vocation, rather than choosing the vocation of father and husband, believe me he's certainly thought it through. Even if they choose, after taking vows to leave their order, the Church doesn't abandon them and they can remain Catholics.

-- gwen (gwen@panam.edu), September 28, 2003.

Wow, I did not know we had so many Greek and Aramic scholars here. Which Greek are we talking about here?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

Refute the claims, David. Or is this all Greek to you?

rod..

..

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.

rod,

I do not know how to refute these claims because I am not a Greek scholar. This is when topics gets silly; "This word means this in Latin/Greek/Spanish..." Well, none of us are Greek scholars so I can't get into these debates about words.

Keep in mind, these are still words your talking about, not the whole phrase and certainly not in context. That's like someone from say Germany trying to argue the point of "bear or bear, or they're, their or there."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

But David, the Scriptures themselves are words. People have killed and been killed over phrases and bits and pieces and words and meanings and attributed meanings and context and languages!

In our time, it is enjoyable (to me anyway) to respectfully debate. We have that priviledge because of the people who defended and maintained those words throughout the centuries..

-- Gwen (gwen@panam.edu), September 28, 2003.

rod and gwen,

Christ is the head of the Church, "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:23 KJV)

Christ is the foundation of the Church, " For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. " (1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV)

Christ is the only Rock, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8 KJV).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

Christ is the head of the Church, "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." (Ephesians 5:23 KJV) I agree!

Christ is the foundation of the Church, " For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. " (1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV) I agree.

Christ is the only Rock, "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8 KJV).

I agree, there is no other God. I think one difference between our faiths is that I see the Church spoken of in the Bible as being both a spiritual body of believers AND a visible Church that still exists today. You ( I think) see it as the body of believers.

-- gwen (Gwen@panam.edu), September 28, 2003.

Christ did not establish a visible church, if he did he would have told us it was Roman and that we had to follow

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

You have to remember the many sects during this time period and the heresies and blashpemous doctrines/theologies. They had to be crushed or Christianity didn't have a chance. Enters the Catholic Church. If you still don't see God's work in this historical evidence, than how do you explain the existence of this "true" Gospel we hold on to with dear life?

rod..

..<

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2003.

rod writes,"They had to be crushed or Christianity didn't have a chance."

Now why would you write such a thing like that? We still have that many (plus more) sects, but Christianity is still here.

rod writes,"If you still don't see God's work in this historical evidence, than how do you explain the existence of this "true" Gospel we hold on to with dear life?"

The Roman church does not have the true gospel. It only lasted this long because it tortured people into converting and their children grew up with pride and refused to change beliefs. The Roman church only lasted this long because it is the Devils church.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 28, 2003.

That's a heck of a conversation stopper.

-- gwen (gwen@panam.edu), September 29, 2003.

... and Christianity still has to fight those evil forces/false doctrines, but it can't be done through violence, unless we consider the Iraqi situation.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

I have noticed that whenever hard evidence or logic is presented to some anti-Catholics, they get extemely paranoid and irrational. They start pulling Satan out of the hat. This is amazing.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

If we are making references to the Catholic Church and their Holy Crusades, think again, people. The Protestants had their day of burning the heretics. Let's not play the "Who us?" card.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

What evidence? I have yet to read any. And those were not Protestants that had there "crusades". They were oppressed people who wanted freedom from the Romanists and did about anything they could to get it.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), September 29, 2003.

ˇHay, David! I should get you a library card or something.

Have you forgotten the battles between France and England, the Anglican Church and the fleeing of the oppressed "pilgrims", the Puritans and their ascetic ways, and the Witch Hunts (for land, not theology)?

If you would take the time to enjoy some history books instead of "bashing", you could perhaps find some decent evidence to support your lop-sided view of Christianity.

I never condoned any mascre done by Protestants or Catholics, but those were do or die kind of times with great causes disguised as "Save the Faith" campaigns or crusades. El Cid was crowned protector of the faith along with Charlemagne during the early history of the Church. These men killed thousands of pagan-heretics; some were prisoners with bound hands as they were decapitated. Too bad they were pagans who would not deny their faith for Christianity, they preferred death than to become Christians/Catholics. There is much recorded history/evidence to make your claims water soluable. You might want to review Luther and Calvin (to name a couple) to make some kind of understanding for today's Christianity in contrast to Catholicism. Maybe, just maybe, you'll begin to view the Catholic Church in a new light.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 29, 2003.

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." Christ is the only Head of the Church and the only Mediator between God and Man. Apostolic sucession cannot be supported from scripture and the sole authority issue runs throughout the whole beloved Book; 'trust and obey' is the theme of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.

"And he (Jesus) said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him (Jesus), Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.But he said, Yea RATHER, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and KEEP it."

The N.T. was established by about 100 A.D., as the writings of the early church fathers show in quoting almost every verse of N.T. scripture between them. God promised in Ps. 12 to preserve His pure Word and either we believe Him or we 'know better'.

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 05, 2004.