[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is the Pope... (Page 1 of 4)
Posted: 3/13/2013 2:27:09 PM EDT
| Really "The Holy Father?" |
|
It's symbolic. You could say that his role is that of the living patriarch of the church. Catholic priests are called father. Does that mean they are your dad? No, it's a title. I swear some of you are way too wrapped up in trying to convince somebody that Catholicism is bad and its offices and rituals are false. If you don't believe in any of it as a Christian, that's perfectly fine. But, who are you trying to convince?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. |
Looks like everyone is happy about the new Pope 
And as far as "Holy Father"? Better than some of the Anglican titles like Right Reverend 
The big question of the day (and this looks like the right thread, instead of the big thread) is can I still use the phrase "Lighten Up Francis"? 
|
|
And asked that Peter tend his sheep and feed his flock. Peter went on to lead the early church and was a decision maker on earlier issues without dispute. There are examples in Acts. When Peter died Linus was elected his successor. And so on and so forth as the Catholic Church maintained this traditional succession.
I know that this is of little consequence to many Christians who have no interest in the role of man or office in matters of salvation, but that's where the tradition comes from. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. LOL. No disrespect intended, but I find Biblical literalists who disregard literal interpretations as fits their philosophy amusing. When Chist said "this is my body" was it really his body or a metaphore? |
|
No
Jesus said it very clearly that the Apostles were all brothers and their head was Christ. To use the word father as a title of religious authority is very specifically and precisely the usage he told them not to use for anyone. The Pope is called the "vicar" of Christ, that is to be in the place of Christ on earth, which is unbiblical and blasphemous. Any such person who attains such an office and accepts those titles has clearly departed from God's Word and as taking an office claiming infallibility he has placed himself above God's Word and in contradiction to it. This made up "sacred tradition" is literally what the Pharisees did as they created an oral tradition alongside the Torah and placed their tradition above the Law of Moses, Jesus couldn't be any more clear how wrong that practice was. There is no office beyond elder/bishop in the Christian church, their is no hierarchy, all are brothers in Christ and we have no head but Christ. I would encourage anyone here to both read the entire Bible for what it says without applying doctrine first and to study the history and evolution of the church and where Catholicism as it is began to form. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ is that rock. So when Christ said it to another, he was actually referring to himself? Bit of a stretch, don't you think? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. How so? Just curious. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." According to the New Testament (because we all live under the New Covenant) Jesus says " no one comes to the Father, but through me" This not only refers to salvation, but also prayer. God cannot look upon sin. Man, by nature is a sinner. Christ mediates to God the Father for us (even in prayer) because His sacrifice (and His alone) is the atonement for all of our iniquities. AFAIC, the Pope is only a man that the Catholic church has chosen to be their leader. Biblically, he holds no "holy" status and is not to be worshiped. YMMV |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actually there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." According to the New Testament (because we all live under the New Covenant) Jesus says " no one comes to the Father, but through me" This not only refers to salvation, but also prayer. God cannot look upon sin. Man, by nature is a sinner. Christ mediates to God the Father for us (even in prayer) because His sacrifice (and His alone) is the atonement for all of our iniquities. AFAIC, the Pope is only a man that the Catholic church has chosen to be their leader. Biblically, he holds no "holy" status and is not to be worshiped. YMMV And I would direct you to Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ clearly sets up a man (Peter) as part of the hierarchy you describe. Biblically the Pope (or Peter) is not worshiped and Catholics do not worship the Pope. However, that a man is an integral part of the church that Christ founded is Biblical. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. LOL. No disrespect intended, but I find Biblical literalists who disregard literal interpretations as fits their philosophy amusing. When Chist said "this is my body" was it really his body or a metaphore? Getting a little rediculous now, aren't we? At the last supper, Christ took the loaf and the cup and passed it around for all to do in remembrance of Him. He didn't pull out a razor and slice open an artery and cut off a hunk of skin. 
|
|
Quoted:
He is the leader of the Catholic church. To reach that point you have to have a true dedictaion to your faith. I am not Catholic, but I respect the Pope very much. Really? You should read up on Papal history, it's pretty sordid. Every bit as sordid as the cover up of the child sex that has been going on. You do realize that Ratzinger's butler stole financial records exposing massive corruption? "The Vatileaks scandal[1][2][3] is a scandal initially involving leaked Vatican documents, allegedly exposing corruption; an internal Vatican investigation purportedly uncovered the blackmailing of homosexual clergy as well.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatileaks_scandal It's well beyond and petty crap like Ratzinger was Hitler Youth. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. LOL. No disrespect intended, but I find Biblical literalists who disregard literal interpretations as fits their philosophy amusing. When Chist said "this is my body" was it really his body or a metaphore? Getting a little rediculous now, aren't we? At the last supper, Christ took the loaf and the cup and passed it around for all to do in remembrance of Him. He didn't pull out a razor and slice open an artery and cut off a hunk of skin.
BUt He said, And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:19. He didn't say "this is a symbol." He didn't say "this is a metaphor." He said "this is it." A literalist would take Christ at His word, no? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is the leader of the Catholic church. To reach that point you have to have a true dedictaion to your faith. I am not Catholic, but I respect the Pope very much. Really? You should read up on Papal history, it's pretty sordid. Every bit as sordid as the cover up of the child sex that has been going on. You do realize that Ratzinger's butler stole financial records exposing massive corruption? "The Vatileaks scandal[1][2][3] is a scandal initially involving leaked Vatican documents, allegedly exposing corruption; an internal Vatican investigation purportedly uncovered the blackmailing of homosexual clergy as well.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatileaks_scandal It's well beyond and petty crap like Ratzinger was Hitler Youth.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/TJP6zy5Jq_I/AAAAAAAAPns/9sN6UmEuNkE/s400/pope-benedict-nazi-salute1+sanfranciscosentinel+com.jpg Touche.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He is the leader of the Catholic church. To reach that point you have to have a true dedictaion to your faith. I am not Catholic, but I respect the Pope very much. Really? You should read up on Papal history, it's pretty sordid. Every bit as sordid as the cover up of the child sex that has been going on. You do realize that Ratzinger's butler stole financial records exposing massive corruption? "The Vatileaks scandal[1][2][3] is a scandal initially involving leaked Vatican documents, allegedly exposing corruption; an internal Vatican investigation purportedly uncovered the blackmailing of homosexual clergy as well.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatileaks_scandal It's well beyond and petty crap like Ratzinger was Hitler Youth.http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Jo7lJoQhtjw/TJP6zy5Jq_I/AAAAAAAAPns/9sN6UmEuNkE/s400/pope-benedict-nazi-salute1+sanfranciscosentinel+com.jpg Uhhh, no. DO you realize that everyone was forced to joint the Hitler youth and that at the end of the war that everyone (young and old) was forced to man the anti-aircraft guns and that an extended, open hand was a symbol of benediction a thousand years before the Nazi party? 
Holy shit! Christ was a Nazi!!!!!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. LOL. No disrespect intended, but I find Biblical literalists who disregard literal interpretations as fits their philosophy amusing. When Chist said "this is my body" was it really his body or a metaphore? Getting a little rediculous now, aren't we? At the last supper, Christ took the loaf and the cup and passed it around for all to do in remembrance of Him. He didn't pull out a razor and slice open an artery and cut off a hunk of skin.
BUt He said, And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:19. He didn't say "this is a symbol." He didn't say "this is a metaphor." He said "this is it." A literalist would take Christ at His word, no? So where do you suggest we go to get some tissue from Christ? It don't even make sense, especially when you figure in that Christ told them exactly what he wanted them to do and then showed them literally by passing the loaf and cup. Pretty cut and dried, IMO. |
|
I would encourage you guys to read the Pslams. God, the redeemer, the Savior, the King is also called on numerous times the Rock, I'm not saying this is what Jesus meant but that biblically, their Jewish context and Christ being God and being the "Rock" of the Old testament this is pretty reasonable.
The thing is, the church was built upon Christ as the chief Cornerstone and the proclamation of the Gospel which is the key to heaven. So the proclamation of Jesus as Christ as Peter did is certainly a reasonable Biblical understanding. But them Peter and the Apostles did lead the proclamation of the Gospel and setup church doctrine, so the church was built upon their foundation., so to say Jesus built the church on the little stone (Peter) might still be applicable and that is ok. The problem is, if you read this, and the rest of the New testament, and you look at the Apostolic Fathers writings and really get aa solid view of Scriptural doctrine and the early church, to take Jesus' statement and take a giant leap into Peter was infallible, the bishop of Rome, setup a hierarchy, and passed on the apostolic office is such a man-made, misconstrued, rejection of history and God's Word it's absurd. It doesn't matter how times you say Jesus made Peter the Pope in that verse if you read it for what it is and the rest of Scripture you cannot come up with a Pope. Again, please read your Bibles every day, just read what it says and understand it for what it says. I want all of us here to better know the truth that sets men free. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actualy there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." Christ was referencing Peter's statement of faith. LOL. No disrespect intended, but I find Biblical literalists who disregard literal interpretations as fits their philosophy amusing. When Chist said "this is my body" was it really his body or a metaphore? Getting a little rediculous now, aren't we? At the last supper, Christ took the loaf and the cup and passed it around for all to do in remembrance of Him. He didn't pull out a razor and slice open an artery and cut off a hunk of skin.
BUt He said, And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luke 22:19. He didn't say "this is a symbol." He didn't say "this is a metaphor." He said "this is it." A literalist would take Christ at His word, no? So where do you suggest we go to get some tissue from Christ? It don't even make sense, especially when you figure in that Christ told them exactly what he wanted them to do and then showed them literally by passing the loaf and cup. Pretty cut and dried, IMO. That's what He said. One could say that it was a spiritual transformation, but that is what He said. If you are going to be a literalist, you have to take Him at His word, no? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actually there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." According to the New Testament (because we all live under the New Covenant) Jesus says " no one comes to the Father, but through me" This not only refers to salvation, but also prayer. God cannot look upon sin. Man, by nature is a sinner. Christ mediates to God the Father for us (even in prayer) because His sacrifice (and His alone) is the atonement for all of our iniquities. AFAIC, the Pope is only a man that the Catholic church has chosen to be their leader. Biblically, he holds no "holy" status and is not to be worshiped. YMMV And I would direct you to Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ clearly sets up a man (Peter) as part of the hierarchy you describe. Biblically the Pope (or Peter) is not worshiped and Catholics do not worship the Pope. However, that a man is an integral part of the church that Christ founded is Biblical. Shortly after that passage Christ yells at Peter and calls him satan. Is He going to build His church on satan? He built his church on faith. |
|
Quoted:
I would encourage you guys to read the Pslams. God, the redeemer, the Savior, the King is also called on numerous times the Rock, I'm not saying this is what Jesus meant but that biblically, their Jewish context and Christ being God and being the "Rock" of the Old testament this is pretty reasonable. The thing is, the church was built upon Christ as the chief Cornerstone and the proclamation of the Gospel which is the key to heaven. So the proclamation of Jesus as Christ as Peter did is certainly a reasonable Biblical understanding. But them Peter and the Apostles did lead the proclamation of the Gospel and setup church doctrine, so the church was built upon their foundation., so to say Jesus built the church on the little stone (Peter) might still be applicable and that is ok. The problem is, if you read this, and the rest of the New testament, and you look at the Apostolic Fathers writings and really get aa solid view of Scriptural doctrine and the early church, to take Jesus' statement and take a giant leap into Peter was infallible, the bishop of Rome, setup a hierarchy, and passed on the apostolic office is such a man-made, misconstrued, rejection of history and God's Word it's absurd. It doesn't matter how times you say Jesus made Peter the Pope in that verse if you read it for what it is and the rest of Scripture you cannot come up with a Pope. Again, please read your Bibles every day, just read what it says and understand it for what it says. I want all of us here to better know the truth that sets men free. I thought we were operating under the New Testament, otherwise I couldn't eat bacon covered lobster. Either He meant what He said, or He was full of shit. Which is it? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's nothing in the Bible to indicate so. Actually, Jesus is our High Priest, our mediator to God. Actually there is Biblical president "Thou are the rock and upon this rock shall I build my church." According to the New Testament (because we all live under the New Covenant) Jesus says " no one comes to the Father, but through me" This not only refers to salvation, but also prayer. God cannot look upon sin. Man, by nature is a sinner. Christ mediates to God the Father for us (even in prayer) because His sacrifice (and His alone) is the atonement for all of our iniquities. AFAIC, the Pope is only a man that the Catholic church has chosen to be their leader. Biblically, he holds no "holy" status and is not to be worshiped. YMMV And I would direct you to Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Christ clearly sets up a man (Peter) as part of the hierarchy you describe. Biblically the Pope (or Peter) is not worshiped and Catholics do not worship the Pope. However, that a man is an integral part of the church that Christ founded is Biblical. Shortly after that passage Christ yells at Peter and calls him satan. Is He going to build His church on satan? He built his church on faith. So Peter was damned to Hell? Please point out that Bible verse. As for "built on faith:" Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:17 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would encourage you guys to read the Pslams. God, the redeemer, the Savior, the King is also called on numerous times the Rock, I'm not saying this is what Jesus meant but that biblically, their Jewish context and Christ being God and being the "Rock" of the Old testament this is pretty reasonable. The thing is, the church was built upon Christ as the chief Cornerstone and the proclamation of the Gospel which is the key to heaven. So the proclamation of Jesus as Christ as Peter did is certainly a reasonable Biblical understanding. But them Peter and the Apostles did lead the proclamation of the Gospel and setup church doctrine, so the church was built upon their foundation., so to say Jesus built the church on the little stone (Peter) might still be applicable and that is ok. The problem is, if you read this, and the rest of the New testament, and you look at the Apostolic Fathers writings and really get aa solid view of Scriptural doctrine and the early church, to take Jesus' statement and take a giant leap into Peter was infallible, the bishop of Rome, setup a hierarchy, and passed on the apostolic office is such a man-made, misconstrued, rejection of history and God's Word it's absurd. It doesn't matter how times you say Jesus made Peter the Pope in that verse if you read it for what it is and the rest of Scripture you cannot come up with a Pope. Again, please read your Bibles every day, just read what it says and understand it for what it says. I want all of us here to better know the truth that sets men free. I thought we were operating under the New Testament, otherwise I couldn't eat bacon covered lobster. Either He meant what He said, or He was full of shit. Which is it? Did He mean Peter was satan? Or that his statements/actions didn't fit with His plan.....the plan built on faith. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would encourage you guys to read the Pslams. God, the redeemer, the Savior, the King is also called on numerous times the Rock, I'm not saying this is what Jesus meant but that biblically, their Jewish context and Christ being God and being the "Rock" of the Old testament this is pretty reasonable. The thing is, the church was built upon Christ as the chief Cornerstone and the proclamation of the Gospel which is the key to heaven. So the proclamation of Jesus as Christ as Peter did is certainly a reasonable Biblical understanding. But them Peter and the Apostles did lead the proclamation of the Gospel and setup church doctrine, so the church was built upon their foundation., so to say Jesus built the church on the little stone (Peter) might still be applicable and that is ok. The problem is, if you read this, and the rest of the New testament, and you look at the Apostolic Fathers writings and really get aa solid view of Scriptural doctrine and the early church, to take Jesus' statement and take a giant leap into Peter was infallible, the bishop of Rome, setup a hierarchy, and passed on the apostolic office is such a man-made, misconstrued, rejection of history and God's Word it's absurd. It doesn't matter how times you say Jesus made Peter the Pope in that verse if you read it for what it is and the rest of Scripture you cannot come up with a Pope. Again, please read your Bibles every day, just read what it says and understand it for what it says. I want all of us here to better know the truth that sets men free. I thought we were operating under the New Testament, otherwise I couldn't eat bacon covered lobster. Either He meant what He said, or He was full of shit. Which is it? Did He mean Peter was satan? Or that his statements/actions didn't fit with His plan.....the plan built on faith. Or He meant exactly what He specifically said. I'm going by what Christ said, not interpreting what he said. |
|
Quoted:
So Peter was damned to Hell? Please point out that Bible verse. As for "built on faith:" Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:17 Peter’s Confession of Christ
27Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?”28They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”29And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.”30And He warned them to tell no one about Him. 31And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.32And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.33But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” |
| According to God's Word what the Pope receives is worship. Neither Peter nor the angels would accept bowing in aa religious context, the adoration with a the titles amd authority given to the Pope is worship and is idolatrous. The reasons the Catholics give, if you've researched other Christian cults you'll see they have similar twistings of the Bible with elaborate answers as to why clear Biblical passages dont mean what they do and they apply outrageous meanings, as in this case, to passages thst clearly donnt mean what they are trying to claim. There is no hierarchy among men and to claim their is is simply a contradiction to God's Word. The Apostles considered themselves brothers, fellow elders, there is no office of "papa", God is our one and only Father and He is in heaven. |
|
Quoted:
It's symbolic. You could say that his role is that of the living patriarch of the church. Catholic priests are called father. Does that mean they are your dad? No, it's a title. I swear some of you are way too wrapped up in trying to convince somebody that Catholicism is bad and its offices and rituals are false. If you don't believe in any of it as a Christian, that's perfectly fine. But, who are you trying to convince? Wow. A little touchy? It was a simple question and there was no rhetoric involved. If I was trying to convince someone of something it certainly wouldn't be with a seven word question. I have no opinion about Catholicism one way or the other, and if I was interested enough to form one I am perfectly capable of scholarly research and would have no need to form an opinion based on an internet discussion board. I am much relieved that my being a Christian is "fine" with you, in spite of the fact that I am not. Btw, while I am sure there are some on this board who do not know who their father is, I am not one of them. To everyone who gave a heartfelt, straight-forward answer to the best of your ability, I do appreciate it. Thank you!
|
|
The Pope is regarded as the most relgious man in the Catholic religion who is the spokesman and leader of his followers.
Pope Francis is going to shake up the church being a Jesuit. If he feels the need, he can rally Crusaders around the World. We may just need him. |
|
Quoted:
Looks like everyone is happy about the new Pope
 http://youtu.be/J-gf_bxV00s
And as far as "Holy Father"? Better than some of the Anglican titles like Right Reverend
The big question of the day (and this looks like the right thread, instead of the big thread) is can I still use the phrase "Lighten Up Francis"? To answer your question, the levity is greatly appreciated!
|
|
Quoted:
Looks like everyone is happy about the new Pope
http://youtu.be/J-gf_bxV00s
And as far as "Holy Father"? Better than some of the Anglican titles like Right Reverend
The big question of the day (and this looks like the right thread, instead of the big thread) is can I still use the phrase "Lighten Up Francis"? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So Peter was damned to Hell? Please point out that Bible verse. As for "built on faith:" Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:17 Peter’s Confession of Christ
27Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?”28They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.”29And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.”30And He warned them to tell no one about Him. 31And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.32And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.33But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” None of which contradicts," Thou are Peter, the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." perhaps He thought it important to build His church upon a fallible human being to give us all an example of the importance of redemption. Obviously, if Christ literally though Peter was Satan , He wouldn't let him hang around would He? |
|
I was speaking to a general audience of people who like to lecture Catholics on the impropriety of their beliefs. I did answer your question, clearly, with my opening sentences. You choose not to acknowledge that because it isn't what you wanted to address.
ETA: Touchy? Yes, today's threads regarding the Pope and various facets of the church have been filled with ignorance and insults. To not acknowledge that, as if I come out of the blue with my observations, is a little disingenuous don't you think? Quoted:
Wow. A little touchy? It was a simple question and there was no rhetoric involved. If I was trying to convince someone of something it certainly wouldn't be with a seven word question. I have no opinion about Catholicism one way or the other, and if I was interested enough to form one I am perfectly capable of scholarly research and would have no need to form an opinion based on an internet discussion board. I am much relieved that my being a Christian is "fine" with you, in spite of the fact that I am not. Btw, while I am sure there are some on this board who do not know who their father is, I am not one of them. To everyone who gave a heartfelt, straight-forward answer to the best of your ability, I do appreciate it. Thank you!
|
|
Quoted:
According to God's Word what the Pope receives is worship. Neither Peter nor the angels would accept bowing in aa religious context, the adoration with a the titles amd authority given to the Pope is worship and is idolatrous. The reasons the Catholics give, if you've researched other Christian cults you'll see they have similar twistings of the Bible with elaborate answers as to why clear Biblical passages dont mean what they do and they apply outrageous meanings, as in this case, to passages thst clearly donnt mean what they are trying to claim. There is no hierarchy among men and to claim their is is simply a contradiction to God's Word. The Apostles considered themselves brothers, fellow elders, there is no office of "papa", God is our one and only Father and He is in heaven. Nope. Nowhere near Catholic theology. Hang out with Jack Chick much? |
| To understand the new testament fully is to understand the old testament, no those in Christ are no longer under the Law of Moses, all food has been made clean, though things like drinking blood is still wrong because it is the life of the animal. All of the Bible is God's Word and is important to know and understand, Jesus and the Apostles were all Jews, their teaching flows out of the Old Testament, it's all relevant. |