A few questions for Protestants

[epostle]

The Trinity is real. It is man's interpretation of three powers working together as one to achieve the Kingdom just as they always worked together as one for other purposes.

The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.

"The emperors of the day also called themselves a trinity"

No, they did not. Which emperors of which day? I think you are confusing the Egyptians with emperors.
The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true either.
The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong.

but their achievement was merely a worldly kingdom/empire.

Yes, according to Seventh Day Adventists and JW's and legions of made-in-America Bible cults. A Catholic worldly kingdom/empire never existed. Produce scholarly documented evidence or stop parroting fairy tales from the 18th century.

Why should I not question ANY institution that sold out the Kingdom to rejoin the world of man and work in its ways along side an emperor?

You are not asking questions, you are making false accusations based on false histories you refuse to verify.

the Roman Empire Catholic Church ruled by emperors is a myth invented by ignorant hostile anti-Catholics who are forced to re-write history to justify their late arrival. Reputable PROTESTANT historians are the enemy of anti-Catholics. That's why you don't support your absurd lies with documentation from any source.

The world of man and the Kingdom are counter-cultures.

Correct. The whole world hates the Catholic Church. Yet we stand a billion+ strong in the face of constant resistance from the world. We don't have the audacity to assume this great feat could be accomplished by mere human effort alone. That's impossible.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

First, conjuring up weapons from Scripture to attack the Church is a form of witchcraft, IMO. The Bible never does that.
Second, you are quoting from a Catholic Book, compiled, preserved, proclaimed by Catholic bishops up to the 4rth century at a time when there were no Protestants.
The bulk of your theology is borrowed wholesale from the Catholic Church, (i.e. the canon of Scripture, Trinity...) so if we are as wrong as you say, then so are you. Your anti-institution animus is self defeating.

 

[timothyu]

No, they did not. Which emperors of which day?

Constantine himself called himself god, the son of god and a Caesar. He even built an arch proclaiming it. Previous Caesars also had multiple god like identities they wanted accepted by the people.

You are not asking questions, you are making false accusations based on false histories you refuse to verify.

The fact a religion sold out the Kingdom and joined forced with the opposing world of man in ALIGNING with an emperor is fact. My scriptures showed the division between the two.

Correct. The whole world hates the Catholic Church.

I said the wold of man and the Kingdom are counter-cultures. How did you derive your statement from that?

First, conjuring up weapons from Scripture to attack the Church is a form of witchcraft, IMO

Those scriptures are not attacking a church. God wrote those scriptures to inform the entire world (a world that man has made in our own image) of His opinion of our ways. Please stop making this about Catholics.

 

[jas3]

Constantine himself called himself god, the son of god and a Caesar. He even built an arch proclaiming it.

The Arch of Constantine calls him Caesar, but not "god" or "son of god."

 

[timothyu]

The Arch of Constantine calls him Caesar, but not "god" or "son of god."

There was another arch nearby that was torn down that was dedicated to what I mentioned which I believed was originally to the sun god.

 

[keepitsimple144]

In these passages, Paul still plans to join Timothy in Ephesus; however, he has confidence that, should he be delayed, Timothy will know what is expected of him as a member of God's household of the Church. In what two ways do you believe Paul defines the Church?

The Glory Cloud carried Jesus into Heaven and presented the Son of God to God the Father in verse 14 of Daniel's vision. Jesus, the Messiah-King, received as a reward, for His victory over sin and death, dominion over the earth and all its creatures. His Kingdom of the Church, both on earth and in Heaven, is an indestructible, everlasting kingdom (prophesied in Dan 2:44), ...​

Thank you KIS144 for your response. However, in these passages you provided, I fail to see where they answer my question:
"For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"
If I missed it, could you please point it out for me?

Speaking the truth in love, we become mature in the body of Christ, who is the head... Eph 4:15
...of the church, of which he is the Savior. Eph 5:23

 

[epostle]

Constantine himself called himself god, the son of god and a Caesar. He even built an arch proclaiming it. Previous Caesars also had multiple god like identities they wanted accepted by the people.

That's no trinity, contrary to your false claim.

The fact a religion sold out the Kingdom and joined forced with the opposing world of man in ALIGNING with an emperor is fact. My scriptures showed the division between the two.

Sounds like the lies of Alexander Hislop.

I said the wold of man and the Kingdom are counter-cultures. How did you derive your statement from that?

Because you join the world with its attack on Catholicism. Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men.

Those scriptures are not attacking a church.

No, but that's what you do with them. Also. you flip into different topics by inserting ridiculous flaming zingers with every post, making discussion with you impossible.

God wrote those scriptures to inform the entire world (a world that man has made in our own image) of His opinion of our ways. Please stop making this about Catholics.

Then stop attacking Catholicism with lies, false histories and a distorted privatized view of Scripture.

 

[BBAS 64]

Jesus said, "I will build". It does not mean "I have built". Rock (Peter) was a Jew, not a Gentile.

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates *to the person of Peter*, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:13 – also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to Rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.
Most Christians understand the Church was born at Pentecost, and some see the water and blood that flowed from Jesus' pierced side as a symbolic birth of the Church.

Good day, epostle

I know even here there are some members of the Roman Catholic Church that believe that this is a direct proclamation about Peters Faith.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText (vatican.va)

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9

Then of course there is the third option:

Augustine:


Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where's the rock? Where's the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived.

I will ride with Augustine and let people decide the question for for themself no matter their denominational stripe or what their denomination teaches it's members.

In Him,

Bill

 

[timothyu]

Because you join the world with its attack on Catholicism.

Sorry no. My so called 'attack' is on the world man has made in our own image.

 

[Valletta]

Good day, epostle

I know even here there are some members of the Roman Catholic Church that believe that this is a direct proclamation about Peters Faith.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText (vatican.va)

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9

Then of course there is the third option:

Augustine:


Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where's the rock? Where's the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived.

I will ride with Augustine and let people decide the question for for themself no matter their denominational stripe or what their denomination teaches it's members.

In Him,

Bill

Good for you for reading text from Saint Augustine! Here's an excerpt from Saint Augustine's Letter 53:

2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of mountain men, or Cutzupits, by which they were known.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 53 (St. Augustine)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[epostle]

Good day, epostle

I know even here there are some members of the Roman Catholic Church that believe that this is a direct proclamation about Peters Faith.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText (vatican.va)

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9

There is nothing wrong with Peter's confession as the Rock. The historic Church has no problem with it. The Pope has no problem with it. There is nothing wrong with Peter's personhood as the Rock either. There is no scriptural or logical reason why it can't be BOTH. What's wrong is the denial that Jesus appointed Peter as leader of the Apostles; there are numerous indications of this throughout the NT. Once that is biblically established, Peter's role as leader of the Universal Church is not so difficult.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER - Scripture Catholic

Contents1 Scripture1.1 The Primacy of Peter in Scripture2 Tradition / Church Fathers2.1 I. Peter Built the Church in Rome2.2 II. Primacy of Peter’s Apostolic See2.3 III. Peter’s Successors Claim Authority over the Church Scripture The Primacy of Peter in Scripture Matt. to Rev. – Peter is...

www.scripturecatholic.com

Then of course there is the third option:

Augustine:


Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where's the rock? Where's the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived.

I will ride with Augustine and let people decide the question for for themself no matter their denominational stripe or what their denomination teaches it's members.

In Him,

Bill

Augustine doesn't contradict himself.

“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail”
Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.”
Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.”
Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

“The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today.”
Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

I will ride with Augustine and let people decide the question for for themself no matter their denominational stripe or what their denomination teaches it's members.

 

[epostle]

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To maintain their positions, they were forced to portray it as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock. It remains to be seen whether they will start drawing the necessary inferences from this fact.

Albert Barnes​

Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian​

“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion”
[Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus​

Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist​

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession”
[Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg​

Contemporary Baptist​

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification”
[New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

J. Knox Chamblin​

Contemporary Presbyterian​

“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself”
[“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R. T. France​

Contemporary Anglican​

“The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied”
(Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

Herman Ridderbos​

Contemporary Dutch Reformed​

“It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter”
[Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

Donald Hagner​

Contemporary Evangelical​

“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy”
(Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

 

[Fidelibus]

Speaking the truth in love, we become mature in the body of Christ, who is the head... Eph 4:15
...of the church, of which he is the Savior. Eph 5:23

Thank you again KIS144 for your response. However, once more in these passages you provided, I fail to see where they answer my question:
"For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"

So, to phrase it differently for you, is it your belief "the Bible" is the pillar, the ground of the truth, the upholder, and foundation of the truth? If you were to answer 'yes', could you please show the chapter/verse from the bible where it says this? If you were to answer 'no', could you elaborate on why?

Have a Blessed Day

 

[keepitsimple144]

Thank you again KIS144 for your response. However, once more in these passages you provided, I fail to see where they answer my question:
"For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"

The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth. Ps 145:18
In mercy the throne will be established; And One will sit on it in truth; Isa 16:5
Send out Your light and Your truth! Lead me to Your holy hill And to Your tabernacle. Ps 43:3
Lead me in Your truth for You are the God of my salvation; Ps 25:5

So, to phrase it differently for you, is it your belief "the Bible" is the pillar, the ground of the truth, the upholder, and foundation of the truth? If you were to answer 'yes', could you please show the chapter/verse from the bible where it says this? If you were to answer 'no', could you elaborate on why?

The nations shall bless themselves in Him in truth, And in Him they shall glory. Jer 4:2
They shall swear by the God of truth; Because the former troubles are forgotten; Isa 65:16
All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth, To such as keep His covenant and His testimonies. Ps 25:10
For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting, And His truth endures to all generations. Ps 100:5
Taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him! Ps 34:8

For the life that's been reborn His love endures forever

 

[timothyu]

Jesus said while standing at the Gate of Hell asking His Apostles who He was, that truth comes from God and not from man. It has always been the basis of what we have been told since the Garden, hence putting God's will ahead of our own as His will is truth while ours is perverted and self serving. Clearly stated in scripture, rarely practised in Christianity.

 

[keepitsimple144]

Jesus said while standing at the Gate of Hell asking His Apostles who He was, that truth comes from God and not from man. It has always been the basis of what we have been told since the Garden, hence putting God's will ahead of our own as His will is truth while ours is perverted and self serving. Clearly stated in scripture, rarely practised in Christianity.

If the truth isn't practised in Christianity then they are no different than non believing Jews, stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart Acts 7:51
Having a form of godliness (religion) but deny the power thereof 2 Tim 3:5
Who did not enter, and held back those who were entering, having taken away the key to knowledge (gospel truth). Luke 11:52

 

[timothyu]

If the truth isn't practised in Christianity then they are no different than non believing Jews

Of course. Both were/are human led. The Sanhedrin was not much different than Christian authority has been.

 

[keepitsimple144]

Of course. Both were/are human led. The Sanhedrin was not much different than Christian authority has been.

That's why most of the seats on the Sanhedrin, the governing council, were Sadducees, (Sad you see) who say there is no resurrection.

And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then also those who slept in Christ have perished. If your hope in Christ is merely for this temporal life you are of all men the most pitiable. (1 Cor 15:17-19)

 

[epostle]

Thank you again KIS144 for your response. However, once more in these passages you provided, I fail to see where they answer my question:
"For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible?"

The Bible clearly states the household of God, the Church, is the pillar and ground of the truth. Jesus gave no command to anyone to write anything, except Revelation, which was not accepted nor quoted as Scripture for 350 years.

So, to phrase it differently for you, is it your belief "the Bible" is the pillar, the ground of the truth, the upholder, and foundation of the truth? If you were to answer 'yes', could you please show the chapter/verse from the bible where it says this? If you were to answer 'no', could you elaborate on why?

Have a Blessed Day

There is no verse anywhere in the Bible that explicitly states the Bible is the sole rule of faith. "Bible alone" theology is a political invention of one man who was mentally ill and was angry with the pope, and the theory cannot be from God due to the perpetual division it has caused.

 

[timothyu]

That's why most of the seats on the Sanhedrin, the governing council, were Sadducees, (Sad you see) who say there is no resurrection.

Yes, and many bought their positions, whereas the way of many today sell their souls to the highest bidder.

 

[timothyu]

The Bible clearly states the household of God, the Church, is the pillar and ground of the truth.

The church being a movement of the people founded on truth from God alone, neither institutionalised or weaponized