Has the Catholic Church become the church that Jesus wanted or not?

civilwarbuff said:

Paul was renamed from Saul; Barnabas from Joseph; there are other examples in both OT and NT so the renaming itself I don't see as significant. The meaning and reasoning behind the new name....well, that can cause some discussion.

Click to expand...

God did not rename Barnabas, though...God renamed Simon bar Jonah. Saul was Paul's Jewish name. He wasn't really renamed, per se.

Root of Jesse said:

God did not rename Barnabas, though...God renamed Simon bar Jonah. Saul was Paul's Jewish name. He wasn't really renamed, per se.

Click to expand...

He was also called "satan" and Jesus' "stumbling block".

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Root of Jesse said:

Saul was Paul's Jewish name. He wasn't really renamed, per se.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. So Paul would have been his Roman name?
However, Barnabas was renamed by the apostles; "what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven".....I see them speaking with the authority of Messiah....

bcbsr said:

From it's very beginning the Catholic Church as a "monster", as you as say. It's origin was James and the sect of the Circumcision in the church at Jerusalem. James tinkered with the gospel adding on made-made restrictions in Acts 15, just as Catholicism does through its Canon Law. In his epistle James view salvation as contingent upon works, just as Catholicism does.

For more along this line see
http://bcbsr.com/books/jam_intro.html
http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/catholic.html

Click to expand...

So you doubt the truth of the Bible...what's next? James didn't make the decision, the Holy Spirit inspired it. Peter and the other apostles debated it, but the Holy Spirit led them to the correct decision.

jason_delisle said:

He was also called "satan" and Jesus' "stumbling block".

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That's different from renaming someone. And those were before the Holy Spirit enlightened the apostles, Peter in particular.

civilwarbuff said:

That makes sense. So Paul would have been his Roman name?
However, Barnabas was renamed by the apostles; "what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven".....I see them speaking with the authority of Messiah....

Click to expand...

That's possible. Yes, Paul was Saul's Roman name.

antletems said:

That is one passage that i have thought of for a long time. Quite a long time! This is one passage that makes me think that the CC is not 'Fully' the church that Jesus wanted. It seems to have chosen a path that i think is not Biblical. To actually think that it has to have a 'man' at the helm in place of Jesus! No!! Nobody can replace Jesus!

Click to expand...

You don't believe that Jesus left His church to men? He told them he would! And sent the Holy Spirit to guide them. In all truth.

There have even been a few Popes who have stated that they are 'Jesus / God' on earth! Ok, they are only men and fallible. The Church is bigger than one man but, the CC relies 'Heavily' on the Pope. Everything revolves around that one man.

Click to expand...

Just because someone states something doesn't mean it's true. Whatever they said, they were God's vicar on earth. Everything does not revolve around the pope. In his teaching office, yes. But when he speaks on global warming or the like, he's not authoritative.

Its like my own parish. The Tabernacle was removed from the centre of the church (behind the altar) so that the Bishops chair could reside there instead!!! They took the Tabernacle away! They hid it around the corner so that the Bishop took centre stage!! Not all the clergy were happy about this. I complained to the Bishop. It went ignored!

Click to expand...

This was done some time ago, I'd bet. It was a bastardization of what Vatican II stated. The Church in the US was very liberal through the 70's, 80's and into the 90's, even openly dissenting from the Pope. They made changes that were not specified, in fact, they interpreted documents the wrong way.

antletems said:

Peter mad such a strong statement about Jesus that Jesus changed his name to 'Rock'. Which could very well mean, solid in faith! Unbreakable in faith. Jesus wanted it known that Peter had the right idea when it came to having faith in Jesus.

Feed my sheep which all the Apostles were sent out to do.

Click to expand...

Jesus told Peter personally to feed His sheep, not to the other apostles. Peter was to feed the apostles, and they in turn were to feed the flocks.

antletems said:

He left his church to men yes. But not to one 'man'.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I disagree. To several men, but one who was authoritative over them. There had to be one go-to guy. Peter was that guy, and the apostles (and bishops) are the go-to guy for the diocese.

Everything does revolve around the Pope in the Catholic church! He is the biggest figure in the church and has been throughout the years. He is put on a pedestal!! Some Popes said they believed they were Jesus / God!

Click to expand...

When it comes to our faith, we are to follow our leader. But when the pope says he believes that man is causing the earth to warm, I'm not required to agree with him. When he tells me I have to be a good steward of the earth, then I am supposed to listen to him. Some popes may have believed they were Jesus, but that doesn't say that they told us we had to believe they were Jesus.

antletems said:

But, The Holy Spirit filled all the Apostles in the upper room. They knew what they had to do, what to say. They were all equal.

Click to expand...

That's true, but then they all went fishing. After directing his "children" to cast the net on the other side, they came in and recognized Jesus.

Remember, Peter had denied Jesus 3 times earlier! I think Jesus was asking Peter 3 times if he loved him. He was comforting Peter. I think he wanted Peter to know what love meant to him. That he knew how much Peter really loved him.

Click to expand...

I agree, Jesus asked Peter three times (Peter alone, not all the apostles) because Peter denied him three times...but Jesus was directing Peter to feed the other apostles. I also look at the dialog this way: Jesus is telling Peter "Peter, if you love me more than these, then feed them." (that's one way I look at it)

I may be wrong! This is what i think.

Click to expand...

Not saying you're wrong, just that it's not the only way to see it.

antletems said:

Where in the Gospel does it say that Peter was the leader of the Apostles?

Click to expand...

It doesn't, specifically. But when you take several pieces of evidence together, they make the case. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

If he was in charge why did Paul rebuke him in Galatians?

Click to expand...

Because he needed rebuking. I'm not in charge at work, but if my boss is wrong, I'm going to tell him.

If he was in charge why would he say this when Jesus told him to feed my sheep? They all were to feed Gods sheep:

1 Peter 5:1-2
5 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. 2 Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly,

Click to expand...

Peter wrote this long after the scene on the Sea of Galilee. This is the first papal encyclical, Peter was telling all the elders (bishops he had ordained and leaders of the local Churches). It wasn't Peter's only job to lead the apostles.

antletems said:

Peter made such a strong statement about Jesus that Jesus changed his name to 'Rock'. Which could very well mean, solid in faith! Unbreakable in faith. Jesus wanted it known that Peter had the right idea when it came to having faith in Jesus.

Click to expand...

Exactly. But he could have done that as he commended the centurian, or the woman at the well, or many others whose name he did not change. I think it is what you say and yet more. Compare Peter and the other apostles based on what the New Testament says and you see something. Go ahead and make a list of each mention of an apostle in the NT. It is a very interesting study. Most people will never do that.

Feed my sheep which all the Apostles were sent out to do.

Click to expand...

And yet that was the specific request to Peter at the end of the Gospel of John. It is for all pastors but Peter got the triple dose.

antletems said:

I know the CC hold that passage very highly to state that the church was built upon Peter but i just dont see that anymore! I may be wrong! More digging needed but looking at that passage and how Peter was and what Jesus meant by 'Church' i think he was on about 'Faith'. His church being built on 'Strong Faith'. Just like Peter when he told Jesus he was the Son of the Living God.
The whole Pope thing rests on that one passage!!!!!! One man to sit in the place of Jesus!! Just doesn't make sense!!

Click to expand...

Jesus never meant that he was going to build his church on Peter, Jesus referred to his confession as what Jesus was going to build his church on. Please see the following; https://bible.org/question/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-“upon-rock-i-will-build-my-church”

antletems said:

But, in Aramaic, Cephas is 'stone' or 'rock'? Jesus spoke in Aramaic not Greek. There is no male or feminine in Aramaic for this as Cephas is used in both terms.

Click to expand...

Aramaic point of order: There is masculine and feminine in Aramaic. There is no neuter.

This pericope is likely a pun upon כיפה /kifa/ ("stone,rock"), אבן /'əven/ ("stone, rock"), and בני /bəne/ ("to build").

i.e. 'You are כיפה /kifa/ ("stone/rock") and upon this אבנה /'əvna/ ("stone/rock" or "I will build" – homograph) אבנה /'əvne/ ("I will build" or "stone/rock" – homograph) my church.'

It's a progressive wordplay.

Placing theological significance about certain nuances of words that are synonyms here – in any direction – is ill-advised.