|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 5:32:06 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 857
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
Of course they're not, but the difference is that Protestant leaders must bow to the authority of Scripture in all things. Who's interpretation or version? Your's? John Hagee's? Richard Robert's?
Again - this is said as if the underlying meaning of Scriptures automatically jumps off the pages and into the heart of the reader. Judging by the results, it doesn't. There is a matter of discernment.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 7:55:21 AM
|
|
|
authorcrat
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Nope, nothing to do with desperation or fear. It's simply a fact this thread is about "why do we need a pope" not Prot. disunity.
I’m sorry, if you seriously think you can discuss pope and have a field day filing false and uninformed accusations all over this thread about Catholicism and refuse a level playing field that gives you honesty from your own Protestant theologian, you must be dreaming.
Get real. Rules of a fair debate allow me to put forward the other side of the story. You got to take it as you dish it out.
Really, you ought read Otto Piper.
When he wrote his observations in 1964, he expressed hope that Protestantism will find its feet again in two to three generations, but it will hurt him deeply to find the kind of attitudes he wrote about displayed by some of its followers in this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 10:46:44 AM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1747
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
kelman ---- Nope, nothing to do with desperation or fear. It's simply a fact this thread is about "why do we need a pope" not Prot. disunity.
Auth -----I’m sorry, if you seriously think you can discuss pope and have a field day filing false and uninformed accusations all over this thread about Catholicism and refuse a level playing field that gives you honesty from your own Protestant theologian, you must be dreaming.
Get real. Rules of a fair debate allow me to put forward the other side of the story. You got to take it as you dish it out.
Really, you ought read Otto Piper.
When he wrote his observations in 1964, he expressed hope that Protestantism will find its feet again in two to three generations, but it will hurt him deeply to find the kind of attitudes he wrote about displayed by some of its followers in this forum.
I shouldn’t be doing my favorite thing – meddling into other people’s business... but In the spirit of love let me tell you: Auth, Kelman really being a brothers keeper in this and very helpful. The way these debates are organized we have to stick to the main point of the Opening Post.
Bashing Protestantism? Modern feel good customer oriented churches? I am first to do that and amen to yours and Otto’s words , yes, it is horrible. But talking about it here wont advance the debate about RC – I learned that principle when I was 5 years old and tried to talk my way out of punishment telling my mom “what about Estelle ( my older sister? ) she is worse….” We are resposible for ourselves. Every Lamb is strung by his own legs.
Shortcomings of Pr-sm aren’t making RC look better and out of respect to RC I wouldn’t recommend brethren to use such practice of comparison.So what that P is also bad, answer fo yourselves, to charges against you not with :" look, who is talking...!" That is politicians trick- negative advertisement so I look better then the opponent.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 11:11:02 AM
|
|
|
kielbasa
Posts: 167
Joined: 6/1/2005
Status: offline
|
I am not "bashing Protestantism"--I was one for almost fifty years.  If it comes across that way, I apologize. I live in the South and most of my family and friends are Protestant. I do not bash them or argue with them, but I do know what most of them believe, and I do know what the churches I was associated with in the past believe.
And it is pertinent to the discussion about the pope, because, to my mind, the differences among Protestants are one of the primary reasons I believe we need a pope..
Zhi, what I meant was that the majority of the former Catholics I know did not leave the Church due to reasons that get discussed in these threads, like the saints or the Eucharist, they left because they do not like someone telling them that birth control is not to be done, or that homosexuality is a sin, or that divorce and remarriage is wrong, or that they are not supposed to have sex with someone they are not married to. (And no, I am not saying that among Catholics there are not those who do the same things. Catholics sin like everyone else--but there are plenty of Protestant churches that refuse to address such sins and call them for what they are. I have been in these churches, and worse, I have seen their commericals on television.)
I notice you said "I do not believe baptism is salvic." That is my point! Go to the Salvation folder and see that there are Protestants who do. Who is right and who is wrong? Both sides claim that they use the Bible alone to formulate their beliefs, yet even in this they are not in agreement.
Praying your husband has a safe trip.
< Message edited by kielbasa -- 5/5/2008 11:17:45 AM >
_____________________________
"This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 11:55:25 AM
|
|
|
authorcrat
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/20/2008
Status: offline
|
Thank you, Odeliya. I accept your points humbly.
I would like to say that there was no intention of turning this into a “Protestant disunity” thread.
Instead, in answering the OP, I quoted Otto to show that without an office like the pope or a teaching authority, there are no safeguards to stop errors from infecting doctrine.
That is what happened to the whole body of Protestantism, and in my argument, with the Pope and Magisterium, not the Catholic Church, despite members within it opposing its teachings from time to time like the “We are Church” group.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 12:48:23 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1747
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
Auth - Appreciate the post about the Doctrines/theol. opinions/traditions. It was hard to navigate the catholic encycl-a, thanks for the short explanation.
****
quote:
DH:My answer to your question back there is that "Pope" is an office, as well as the person occupying it. It is why Popes change their name when they become Pope - they are no longer Joseph Ratzinger, but Pope Benedict XVI. …………..So what I tell people who question the moral authority of the people running the show is - you're right; its difficult to accept teachings from teachers who can't follow their own teaching. But that flaw of the teacher in engaging their personal will does not corrupt the message that is being presented.
Doghouse - thanks. In my heart I am tempted to say that morality of a leader and teacher should be of a decisive factor if he should or not get my time and attention, but I agree with you too .. … for currently i am presenting the gospel message to a few friends and do realize that an image of a teacher in this case leaves much to be desired…..now I hope they are less critical of me then I am of Pope… :))))
So we are together on this- someone can be having a lot of faults and yet be able to present the true teaching and the salvation message of the Gospel. Even its better if the moral image of a presenter is there, too, for the msg not to appear hypocritical.
Now the question number next – how so we know that teachings of a particular Church, like RC’s,are right ? What is the criteria, what do we use to judge that What is a measuring stick ? Catholic know it’s right , because … why ? dearest Auth, you are welcome to share thoughts on this, as usual.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 12:53:01 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 1747
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
And it is pertinent to the discussion about the pope, because, to my mind, the differences among Protestants are one of the primary reasons I believe we need a pope..
Kielbasa, its hard for me not to love you dearly, brother, especially as the lunchtime approaches .. what a lovely, lovely name you got , sweetheart, umm.. and I can eath a middle size horse right about now :)
So go ahead, elaborate a bit here, for I feel a bit confused about this idea- Pope eliminates the multiple opinions and gives uniformity of , --if not beliefs, for I see many Catholics having many beliefs, - but at least Church teaching. Probably good from discipline point of view, but what about thruthfllness? How do we know he gives the truth not just substitutes 100 wrong views for 1 wrong view?
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 1:40:26 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7548
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
CropDuster,
An email has been sent to your account. If you did not receive it please contact community@salemwebnetwork.com
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://christianfriend.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 3:12:32 PM
|
|
|
authorcrat
Posts: 54
Joined: 4/20/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
Now the question number next – how so we know that teachings of a particular Church, like RC’s,are right ? What is the criteria, what do we use to judge that What is a measuring stick ? Catholic know it’s right , because … why ? dearest Auth, you are welcome to share thoughts on this, as usual.
That is a very good question, Odeliya. I will do my best to answer it. I have to do it systematically from what is inside all over my head, but I will be travelling for a week from tomorrow because of work, so please forgive if I don't do it before then. I will certainly answer and will try to do so in between work. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 4:58:23 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3430
Status: offline
|
quote:
Instead, in answering the OP, I quoted Otto to show that without an office like the pope or a teaching authority, there are no safeguards to stop errors from infecting doctrine.
You are not in any superior position since the totalitarian attics and lack of scriptural "safeguards" have so totally infected your church's doctrines so as to make it unrecognizable from apostolic teaching.
quote:
I’m sorry, if you seriously think you can discuss pope and have a field day filing false and uninformed accusations all over this thread about Catholicism.. Present your evidence for "false and uninformed accusations". False you will not find and "uninformed" is simply your personal judgment.
quote:
...and refuse a level playing field that gives you honesty from your own Protestant theologian, you must be dreaming. Since you are claiming to be "awake" discuss Protestant theology to your heart's content. I prefer to do so, and actually do so, in the appropriate threads.
quote:
Get real. Rules of a fair debate allow me to put forward the other side of the story. Put forward whatever you please. And I will respond to why a papacy is not only dangerous but unbiblical, as can readily be seen from its not only unscriptural but sinful doctrines.
You labor under a severe misperception - that there is available to man "perfect" interpretation of all Scripture and, of course, some sort of human "infallibility". Interpretative "utopia" is found neither in Sola Scriptura churches or Scripture plus churches.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 5:03:10 PM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3430
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
The way these debates are organized we have to stick to the main point of the Opening Post. Apparently, there does seem to be exceptions to what is, or at least was, a very strict rule on RC threads. I've often had my typing fingers rapped when straying from the "topic"...lol
In any event, we all know the best defense is a good offense - at least in sports. Here the object, as I always understood it, was to defend your position with regard to the "topic". Now, though, the acceptable object appears to be change the topic so as to divert attention from what can readily be seen as an obviously indefensible position.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 5:55:29 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 552
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CropDuster
I mean no disrespect. Forgive my sarcasm. I simply don't believe in sectarianism. We are all challenged to interpret Jesus, and in the end, our interpretations are just that -- our interpretations.
CropDuster,
This comment certainly doesn't sound very Roman Catholic. I think the Magesterium would differ with you.
Not that I don't understand the point you're trying to make. It just isn't the way a traditional Roman Catholic would understand interpretation. Seems you lean toward being a more moderate to liberal RC. Am I right?
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 6:12:31 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 552
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
some people have this view of the Pope as an monarch.
DH, I think you must be able to understand why this is so, yes? History shows that many popes thought very highly of themselves and used their power in despotic ways to wrongly manipulate the laity as well as bully those who would not submit to the RCC.
quote:
While it is a singular voice that speaks, the Pope does not work unilaterally - he has hundreds supporting him and what is ultimately said by the Church, and how it is said, when it comes to faith, instruction and practice. While he has the final say as to what is "official" (he is a Bishop - the office responsible for teaching and instruction), he does not do this as an independent rogue.
Again, I think you speak of the more recent popes. When one looks into the history of the First Vatican Council, it is evident that there were a good many bishops who opposed the pope on declaring the dogma of Papal Infallibility excathedra. For much of the RCC's history (excluding the greater part of the 20th Century), it can be seen that it was a risky business, even to the point of death, for a person to oppose the Roman Pontiff.
Today, the landscape of the RCC along with the office of the pope have gone through some major renovations.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 6:48:27 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 552
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: Zhi
quote:
The idea that the Pope was the supreme power in the Catholic Church didn't fully coagulate until the split between the RCC and Eastern Orthodox in 1054, when the Pope at the time excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, who returned the favor. The major cause of the schism was the fact that a single Patriarch (Rome) told the other four Patriarchs (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandira, and Antioch) that he should have supreme power over all of them, which was never the original intent (first among equals), and that tendency toward being power-hungry has created the majority of Papal issues throughout the ages.
Excellent points, Zhi, although history shows that various things led up to the schism, such as the change in the Nicene Creed (filioque) and iconoclasm.
quote:
So, is the Bible the product of the Church? Yes, in the idea that all those who wrote it, and those who compiled it, were believers in Jesus Christ. It cannot be claimed to be a product of the Roman Catholic Church, though, since the initial canonization happened at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, making it just as much a product of the bishop line of the Eastern Orthodox church as it is a product of the bishop and later papal line of the RCC.
Again, very good points. God uses these earthen vessels for His glory.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 7:15:39 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 552
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Catholicandlovinit:quote:
"Why do you think this practice went unchallenged for 1600 years or so? "
Zhi: "Because the people were illiterate and the church told them to. Like so many things with the RCC, it was a power thing. That's why they strangled and burned William Tyndale for translating it once people finally started to be literate. These folks couldn't even understand the Mass, they were just supposed to go to church on Sunday so they did."
Zhi, in this case I would have to disagree with you. The power play came with selling indulgences, from which the Roman hierarchy benefitted financially. Those who were struggling financially were oppressed and misled by the Roman hierarchy. These gullible folks thought they could keep their loved ones from suffering in Purgatory or keep them out of it altogether, for a hefty sum that is. For those who had money, this was not a problem. They could buy indulgences for all their loved ones in Purgatory and be assured that their soul would be released from suffering. Purgatory back then up until recently, had an entirely different meaning. People thought they would be suffering and experiencing pain and torment until they were released.
Recently I was watching EWTN, and I heard a very old priest (one from the "old school") say that he thought he would have to suffer in the fires of Purgatory for the wrongs he had done and the good he had failed to do. I was surprised to hear this, since the modern teaching on Purgatory is quite different.
The teaching on Purgatory and indulgences were two of the major reasons (among a few others) that prevented me from crossing the Tiber.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 7:50:27 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 552
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
Some has said that the Catholic Church has changed Her teaching on salvation outside the Catholic Church. That is false, the teaching has not changed at all.
Kelman: "Actually, what is false is the above statement. What is true are the following declarations."
"There is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215 A. D.
"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, "
"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 A.D.
"We declare, say, and define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." ( Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302 A.D.
And, now one need not believe that Jesus Christ is even God to enjoy eternal salvation - with this "prophet".
While studying and going for counseling to become Roman Catholic, I thought it would be beneficial and necessary to become familiar with papal encyclicals and bulls. In discovering what pope after pope had to say regarding the Catholic faith, I came to the realization that the post Vatican II popes had rescinded what previous popes declared. This convinced me that the dogma of Papal Infallibility was indeed fallible.
I could not submit to the Roman Catholic Church after being convinced against this dogma, since this is the foundation upon which the RCC stands. This discovery was very heart wrenching for me at first, since I had fully intended to become joined to the RCC.
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 8:02:21 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 552
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse:
"Jesus deposited the definition and instruction of faith in the Apostles, not every Tom, Dick and Harry that crossed His path. The thousands that heard the Sermon on the mount were not automatically deputized as authoritative teachers - if you recall, the way the tale is told, the twelve were..."
... so boneheaded that in only a few hours they completely forgot the entirety of the lessons taught during that sermon and lost anything resembling the faith that one would assume an Apostle would have...
OOPS... was I not supposed to bring that up??/
Papa,
Not sure what you're implying here. ?? Are you calling the Apostles "boneheaded?" If so, I think you need to do some self-examination. The Apostles were quite radical about the Christian faith and preached the gospel to the point of shedding their blood and dying for the faith. Are we as radical about the Christian faith? Jesus entrusted these "earthen vessels" to preach the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and through their preaching, the Church flourished.
Whenever I am tempted to insult the Apostles, all I need to do is look in the mirror. Jesus Christ has not seen fit to entrust me with such a unique ministry. I am more suited for "waiting on tables."
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 8:12:39 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 2847
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
The fantastic unity of the Catholic Church is a myth: I am not sure someone practicing faith outside her is in a position to judge...
Given the lack of judgment of the Roman Catholic Church I am sure nobody there is any position to judge much of anything, and certainly not itself... Your church has known pedophiles roaming its rank simply in an attempt to save the good name of the church... Some are and were purposely hid from the proper authorities… My guess is because they would point the finger even higher… That millstone is still around the neck of the RCC no matter what they think and how much money they pay in plain veiw and or behind closed doors...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 9:40:44 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 410
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
When one looks into the history of the First Vatican Council, it is evident that there were a good many bishops who opposed the pope on declaring the dogma of Papal Infallibility excathedra.
Heavendweller,
Yes they opposed the declaration, but not the fact that the Pope is infallible in faith and morals. Most though put their opposition to rest once the Pope declared it.
quote:
For much of the RCC's history (excluding the greater part of the 20th Century), it can be seen that it was a risky business, even to the point of death, for a person to oppose the Roman Pontiff.
Another unsubstantiated rant.
quote:
Excellent points, Zhi, although history shows that various things led up to the schism
Acutally, its a very bogus point, but at least the names of the partriarchs correct. But thats about it. Do the names Photius and Caerularius ring a bell? They were the ones on the power grab.
quote:
Again, very good points. God uses these earthen vessels for His glory.
Again, another EOC "version" of things completely ignoring facts of history. "The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris."LINK
quote:
They could buy indulgences for all their loved ones in Purgatory and be assured that their soul would be released from suffering. Purgatory back then up until recently, had an entirely different meaning.
Wrong again. From the CE: To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.
quote:
I came to the realization that the post Vatican II popes had rescinded what previous popes declared.
Well that would be an incorrect realization because no such thing has happened. Now I'm starting to really see why they asked you to leave RCIA.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 9:58:39 PM
|
|
|
JesKlu
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well that would be an incorrect realization because no such thing has happened. Now I'm starting to really see why they asked you to leave RCIA.
Otis
I don't believe Heavendweller was asked to leave because of anything she didn't accept. I believe she was asked to leave in the same way that Diotrephes asked John to leave, and forbidding the other saints from coming in the church by telling the Truth.
3 John 1:9-10
9I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. 10So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.
The RCIA class that Heavendweller was in must've been doing what Diotrephes did. For myself, Heavendweller is my friend and my sister in Christ. Why do you, Otis, speak to Heavendweller like this?
Jessica
_____________________________
And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 10:25:29 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1107
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
Papa,
Not sure what you're implying here. ?? Are you calling the Apostles "boneheaded?" If so, I think you need to do some self-examination. The Apostles were quite radical about the Christian faith and preached the gospel to the point of shedding their blood and dying for the faith. Are we as radical about the Christian faith? Jesus entrusted these "earthen vessels" to preach the truth of the Holy Scriptures, and through their preaching, the Church flourished.
Whenever I am tempted to insult the Apostles, all I need to do is look in the mirror. Jesus Christ has not seen fit to entrust me with such a unique ministry. I am more suited for "waiting on tables."
Heavendweller
Well, they did lose every bit of their faith on the voyage home from one of the feasts of thousands... They were constantly needing to be reminded of basic principles that Jesus had just finished teaching them. Even the one the RCC holds up as their first pope clearly denied Jesus three times before multiple witnesses. The gospels are shot through with examples of their (for lack of a better term) boneheadedness. Christ knows what I mean when I write this, and so do those who have an intimate knowledge of scripture. He made mention of it a few times Himself, though He used different words to describe them... I use the descriptions I do to help eliminate anyones false impression that these guys were like the ones you see represented in all of those ancient paintings. Too many people act like they were all super serious all the time... Do you think these guys didn't have a good belly laugh over the description of a camel going through the eye of a needle? Or did they all look sternly at one another and say "Verily, verily, I tell thee so..." I doubt it. Anyone want to wager as to whether or not they laughed about each others' flatulence as they traveled together? Or did these guys not have that issue? Cannot do that under a grandiose gold-hemmed robe? No... the robes weren't very grandiose, and the normal diet then and there had plenty of nitrogen in it...
I'd imagine you might find a few people around here who would agree that I am a little bit 'radical' about the Christian faith myself, and yes, I would willingly die for it without question or hesitation... These men were trusted by Him to do some amazing things, and they did them. No-one is questioning that. I will not even attempt to try to take anything away from them that wasn't already included in scripture. However, like any of us, they had their air-head moments. If you don't think they did, I suggest a thorough re-reading of the synoptic gospels with this in mind. That re-read, if you are open to the whole truth of those gospels, will show you this fact... several times over.
I am not attempting to insult the apostles. I am pointing out a scripturally verifiable fact about them. This is done with the full knowledge that I, nor any others of us, are really any different. We have all had many 'duh' moments in our lives.
I will also beg to differ with you on one fact: You and I have been given the same Great Commission as they were given. They were called to get the ball rolling, and they did. I have been called to keep it rolling, and I do just that. (I also wait on tables every once in a while!)
I will not candy coat the truth. Nothing I have said is contrary to scripture in any way. Does it offend some people's sensibilities? I hope so! Jesus offended a sensibility or two in His time as well... He, and I, are trying to awaken people out of the rote-religious fog that they are trudging along in... All these happy little paintings and envisionings people have where they were all super reverent and walking around in gloriously fine robes and having people fall to the ground to kiss their rings, are dead wrong! Jesus was not some pretty blue-eyed, hair combed clean-cut man on the cross... He was beaten beyond recognition as a man! People walking by did not ask "Who is that up there?". They asked, "What is that hanging on that cross?"
The worst thing that could have ever happened to the real image and truth about Jesus and His apostles was the Catholic Church. (This time, I'm including the EOC, as well.) They somehow changed the truth into this cookie cutter garbage where nothing is real anymore. These men, in reality, walked around for months at a time without a change of clothes. Those clothes were rough and plain cloth garments that were useful not because they looked good, but because these fabrics were durable. Think canvas, denim, and sack-cloth. Do you realize they went weeks between baths? That even an hour after a bath their lower legs looked like the 'summer vacation' face of a five year old? (Meaning quite dirty.) On those occasions when they actually laundered their clothing, it was really just a rinse and wring most of the time.
Don't try to hand me Rosselli's "Last Supper" and try to tell me that is what things looked like. None of his contemporaries came any closer to truth either: They sat on the floor, and they were probably quite disheveled, because appearance wasn't really all that important back then. Their feet and hands were rinsed in water, if they were lucky enough to get that... Usually, they'd just wipe off the loose dirt from their hands and hope for the best...
Yet, most importantly, these very real people had been chosen by Christ to begin the work that could transform the entire world. Probably would have worked better if these 'old' churches hadn't changed the true images into these lies that are pictured everywhere. Yet, even so, the most damaging thing has been the office of the pope. Even one bad one taints the whole line... an armada is only as fast as it's slowest ship. Once the first 'bad seed' was pope, none of the rest could be trusted...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 5/5/2008 10:43:20 PM
|
|
| | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
