Doctrines of Devils?

[Phantasman]

Since they elected not to attend Nicaea the 1500 +/- forfeited their right to complain about the results. But as I read the history after all the arguing was finished only two of the 300+/- refused to sign the symbols and were exiled. One was later summoned by Constantine to be reinstated but died enroute.

Have you actually read them? You got the first part wrong and I think you got this part wrong too. What exactly do you think was "physical and fleshly?" If you choose to respond please quote the actual writings from Nicaea not what some dood posted on his website.

Hello old friend. Been years since we used to debate. Hope you are well.

It comes in bits and pieces, and we do have to fill in a few blanks.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three patriarchs: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance, Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as confessors of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar Timothy Barnes in his book Constantine and Eusebius.[29] Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.[26]-

Basically, the council was made up of catholic theologians. The council was to pretty much to agree on Arianism or not. There were voices of both sides, and the argument was really based on Jesus, and Trinity won.

The Constantinople meeting (381AD) took it even further. Heretics were allowed to be judged and put to death.

I do not in any way see the events of the any of the Councils performed through the Gospel message of Christ. They chose the 4 (Gospels) with that let them use the power of the OT to recreate the control of Pharisee's and repaired the veil of Holies for them to occupy.

 

[Monk Brendan]

If we go by Eusebius, that would be the call. Considering that the Valentinians, Montanans, Marcionites and many others rivaled the catholic ideology, I would think (if they were part of the 1500 no shows) that they made the right choice. It was to create a Roman church, one emperors would see beneficial to the empire. The catholics bended their knee as the Apocalypse of Peter had Jesus saying they would.

The Christian Church--the ancient one, that came about on the day of Pentecost, was the same one that convened (at the command of Emperor Constantine) the Nicene Council, this is the same Catholic and Orthodox Churches that are still around today. How many Valentinians, Montanans (it's Montanists) Marcionites, etc. Churches are there around? Not because of Roman Authority, but by the authority of God, who led the Council at Nicea through the Holy Spirit

Oh, and the Montanists, they were stricter than the RC Church. They didn't allow ANYONE to marry! NOT just clergy, but anyone! Sounds like the Shakers, all over again.

 

[amariselle]

The Christian Church--the ancient one, that came about on the day of Pentecost, was the same one that convened (at the command of Emperor Constantine) the Nicene Council, this is the same Catholic and Orthodox Churches that are still around today. How many Valentinians, Montanans (it's Montanists) Marcionites, etc. Churches are there around? Not because of Roman Authority, but by the authority of God, who led the Council at Nicea through the Holy Spirit

Oh, and the Montanists, they were stricter than the RC Church. They didn't allow ANYONE to marry! NOT just clergy, but anyone! Sounds like the Shakers, all over again.

What stands out to me, is that according to Scripture, forbidding marriage for people (whether it's everyone or just clergy) is not of God.

Certainly, from a moral standpoint, when such has been forced on people, regardless of how sacred a duty it may seem, it has led to so much immorality and abuse.

This is why I believe that the decision not to marry should ultimately come from a personal conviction given by God, Who will then grant that person the ability to walk the path He has called them to, and not from demands, regulations and rules imposed on an individual by nature of his or her office or position. The fruit of such imposition has been quite clear.

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

There's no doubt that that these things must be denounced. We just need to be careful though that we don't make works (stopping all sin/keeping the Law) a condition for Salvation. As we know, works don't save us and we can come to Christ even though we may still struggle with sin. Being born again through faith in Him, the Holy Spirit works in us as believers to become more and more like Jesus.

As for admitting such immorality into the Church and celebrating it? I agree that such would be to entertain doctrines of demons, which the Bible warns about. Also, deception usually is a progression, it creeps in gradually, and like leaven, alters everything.

Unfortunately many of the Bible's warnings go unheeded and people are led astray.

the picture of the woman caught in the act of adultery is good in that Jesus said he did not condemn her but told her to go and sin no more. The previous quote that he who is without sin may cast the 1st stone. We are all as guilty as she was and indeed we need to hear the same advise to go and sin no more.

 

[claninja]

It's actually not my right to declare that anyone is "unsaved." In reality there is no such thing as "less saved" either. Salvation is not a gradual thing, but occurs when we turn to Christ and believe.

What's important to remember is that we cannot truly know how God is working in another Christian's life to bring them out of a sinful lifestyle. Discipleship is indeed a lifelong thing as we grow in Christian maturity and we should be encouraging and uplifting each other in that regard.

I absolutely agree. So what is the purpose of this topic that you brought up? Why not something encouraging instead of starting a topic that gets a bunch of people disagreeing?

 

[amariselle]

I absolutely agree. So what is the purpose of this topic that you brought up? Why not something encouraging instead of starting a topic that gets a bunch of people disagreeing?

My intent was not "to get a bunch of people disagreeing", though that is no doubt often bound to happen.

Nor have I personally attacked anyone here whose beliefs or perspectives may differ from my own.

I started this thread for Christians to share their thoughts on those particular verses. I know they can be controversial, hence my choice to put them in this sub-forum. I do not, however, think we should avoid more difficult or challenging topics. We should be willing to look at the harder things too. (Honestly and respectfully).

Doesn't always work out that way, but that shouldn't discourage us from trying.

 

[claninja]

why do so many Christians accept these restrictions (often commanded and imposed by church leadership) as actually from God Himself?

I think the best answer is the one given by Paul. If you have a friend who is vegan, do not mock them. If you know someone who eats meat, do not judge them, for the kingdom of heaven is not food and drink, but peace and joy and righteousness in the Holy Spirit.

 

[Phantasman]

The Christian Church--the ancient one, that came about on the day of Pentecost, was the same one that convened (at the command of Emperor Constantine) the Nicene Council, this is the same Catholic and Orthodox Churches that are still around today. How many Valentinians, Montanans (it's Montanists) Marcionites, etc. Churches are there around? Not because of Roman Authority, but by the authority of God, who led the Council at Nicea through the Holy Spirit

Oh, and the Montanists, they were stricter than the RC Church. They didn't allow ANYONE to marry! NOT just clergy, but anyone! Sounds like the Shakers, all over again.

If you say so. Orthodoxy believes that that was the day the Holy Spirit was given to man. Another mistake by Orthodoxy. Luke wasn't there. Luke also instills the rich man and Lazarus story. Must have been terrible for the followers of John, Matthew and Mark, since it doesn't show up in their books.

Peter is the father of the catholic belief, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. It would make sense since Peter was the most arrogant of all the 12 and struggled with understanding.

James led the church and instructed the disciples. The books of John and Paul, as well as Lukes Gospel follow perfectly with the non Canon Gospels. Matthews Gospel was used heavily by the converted Jews, as it uses OT truths (the parts that exist) to show them the "real truth".

Two men who gave us the Bible from the Latin to English, died as martyrs for not only allowing man to break the catholic hold, but arguing that the Catholic religion was based on lies.

John Wycliffe: The first to translate.

In the years before his death in 1384 he increasingly argued for Scriptures as the authoritative centre of Christianity, that the claims of the papacy were unhistorical, that monasticism was irredeemably corrupt, and that the moral unworthiness of priests invalidated their office and sacraments.[29]

The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings, effectively both excommunicating him retroactively and making him an early forerunner of Protestantism. The Council decreed that Wycliffe's works should be burned and his remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[23] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

At that point, one can see that the Catholics based their rewards and punishments as through physical ignorance. Really. Digging up a body 30 years later to burn it? Spiritually ignorant.

Then how about William Tyndale? The man who brought the Bible to the English and Germans, at all efforts by the Pope to stop him.

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of some of the words and phrases introduced by Tyndale, such as "overseer", where it would have been understood as "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional Roman Catholic readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek "ekklesia", (literally "called out ones"[50]) as "congregation" rather than "church".[51] It has been asserted this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient—but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural—claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honour to individual worshippers who made up each congregation."[51]

He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and was condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".

Strangled to death. Then burned? If the flesh profits nothing, the Popes don't get it.

I would hate to be associated with a group so powerful with ignorance.

The OP on doctrines of devils is nothing more than ignorance (of God the Father). I seek spiritual truth (what Christ brought), not someone who follows the jealous impatient god of ignorance.

 

[Widlast]

Actually, I called nothing "doctrine of demons", you do realize I quoted Scripture, right?

Perhaps you should read the OP again.

Your intent was obvious, why do you dance around it now?

 

[Widlast]

If you say so. Orthodoxy believes that that was the day the Holy Spirit was given to man. Another mistake by Orthodoxy. Luke wasn't there. Luke also instills the rich man and Lazarus story. Must have been terrible for the followers of John, Matthew and Mark, since it doesn't show up in their books.

Peter is the father of the catholic belief, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. It would make sense since Peter was the most arrogant of all the 12 and struggled with understanding.

James led the church and instructed the disciples. The books of John and Paul, as well as Lukes Gospel follow perfectly with the non Canon Gospels. Matthews Gospel was used heavily by the converted Jews, as it uses OT truths (the parts that exist) to show them the "real truth".

Two men who gave us the Bible from the Latin to English, died as martyrs for not only allowing man to break the catholic hold, but arguing that the Catholic religion was based on lies.

John Wycliffe: The first to translate.

In the years before his death in 1384 he increasingly argued for Scriptures as the authoritative centre of Christianity, that the claims of the papacy were unhistorical, that monasticism was irredeemably corrupt, and that the moral unworthiness of priests invalidated their office and sacraments.[29]

The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings, effectively both excommunicating him retroactively and making him an early forerunner of Protestantism. The Council decreed that Wycliffe's works should be burned and his remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[23] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

At that point, one can see that the Catholics based their rewards and punishments as through physical ignorance. Really. Digging up a body 30 years later to burn it? Spiritually ignorant.

Then how about William Tyndale? The man who brought the Bible to the English and Germans, at all efforts by the Pope to stop him.

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of some of the words and phrases introduced by Tyndale, such as "overseer", where it would have been understood as "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional Roman Catholic readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek "ekklesia", (literally "called out ones"[50]) as "congregation" rather than "church".[51] It has been asserted this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient—but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural—claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honour to individual worshippers who made up each congregation."[51]

He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and was condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".

Strangled to death. Then burned? If the flesh profits nothing, the Popes don't get it.

I would hate to be associated with a group so powerful with ignorance.

The OP on doctrines of devils is nothing more than ignorance (of God the Father). I seek spiritual truth (what Christ brought), not someone who follows the jealous impatient god of ignorance.

Lots of hate in that post. You are aware that what you have posted is garbage?

 

[amariselle]

Your intent was obvious, why do you dance around it now?

Here, I'll help you out.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained." 1 Timothy 4:1-6

If the Bible says that forbidding to marry and commanding that people "abstain" from meats are "doctrines of devils", why do so many Christians accept these restrictions (often commanded and imposed by church leadership) as actually from God Himself?

Thoughts?

My intent was not "to get a bunch of people disagreeing", though that is no doubt often bound to happen.

Nor have I personally attacked anyone here whose beliefs or perspectives may differ from my own.

I started this thread for Christians to share their thoughts on those particular verses. I know they can be controversial, hence my choice to put them in this sub-forum. I do not, however, think we should avoid more difficult or challenging topics. We should be willing to look at the harder things too. (Honestly and respectfully).

Doesn't always work out that way, but that shouldn't discourage us from trying.

But hey, if you want to believe I had some subversive motives or intentions, be my guest.

 

[Goatee]

If you say so. Orthodoxy believes that that was the day the Holy Spirit was given to man. Another mistake by Orthodoxy. Luke wasn't there. Luke also instills the rich man and Lazarus story. Must have been terrible for the followers of John, Matthew and Mark, since it doesn't show up in their books.

Peter is the father of the catholic belief, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia. It would make sense since Peter was the most arrogant of all the 12 and struggled with understanding.

James led the church and instructed the disciples. The books of John and Paul, as well as Lukes Gospel follow perfectly with the non Canon Gospels. Matthews Gospel was used heavily by the converted Jews, as it uses OT truths (the parts that exist) to show them the "real truth".

Two men who gave us the Bible from the Latin to English, died as martyrs for not only allowing man to break the catholic hold, but arguing that the Catholic religion was based on lies.

John Wycliffe: The first to translate.

In the years before his death in 1384 he increasingly argued for Scriptures as the authoritative centre of Christianity, that the claims of the papacy were unhistorical, that monasticism was irredeemably corrupt, and that the moral unworthiness of priests invalidated their office and sacraments.[29]

The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe a heretic on 4 May 1415, and banned his writings, effectively both excommunicating him retroactively and making him an early forerunner of Protestantism. The Council decreed that Wycliffe's works should be burned and his remains removed from consecrated ground. This order, confirmed by Pope Martin V, was carried out in 1428.[23] Wycliffe's corpse was exhumed and burned and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth.

At that point, one can see that the Catholics based their rewards and punishments as through physical ignorance. Really. Digging up a body 30 years later to burn it? Spiritually ignorant.

Then how about William Tyndale? The man who brought the Bible to the English and Germans, at all efforts by the Pope to stop him.

The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of some of the words and phrases introduced by Tyndale, such as "overseer", where it would have been understood as "bishop", "elder" for "priest", and "love" rather than "charity". Tyndale, citing Erasmus, contended that the Greek New Testament did not support the traditional Roman Catholic readings. More controversially, Tyndale translated the Greek "ekklesia", (literally "called out ones"[50]) as "congregation" rather than "church".[51] It has been asserted this translation choice "was a direct threat to the Church's ancient—but so Tyndale here made clear, non-scriptural—claim to be the body of Christ on earth. To change these words was to strip the Church hierarchy of its pretensions to be Christ's terrestrial representative, and to award this honour to individual worshippers who made up each congregation."[51]

He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and was condemned to be burned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".

Strangled to death. Then burned? If the flesh profits nothing, the Popes don't get it.

I would hate to be associated with a group so powerful with ignorance.

The OP on doctrines of devils is nothing more than ignorance (of God the Father). I seek spiritual truth (what Christ brought), not someone who follows the jealous impatient god of ignorance.

History. Just that. Mistakes made. Just that.

Through all turmoil, wars, some very bad decisions, some very bad people the Catholic Church still stands! Surely this points to what Jesus said, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it!

 

[amariselle]

History. Just that. Mistakes made. Just that.

Through all turmoil, wars, some very bad decisions, some very bad people the Catholic Church still stands! Surely this points to what Jesus said, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it!

Now, I've repeatedly tried to clarify that this is not a thread dealing with the Catholic Church, however, I must say something, because I am truly heartbroken in regards to so much of what has occurred in the name of Christ.

The fact that the turmoil, wars, very bad decisions and "very bad people" were actually all too often the Popes themselves and caused by them, who did so in the name of Christ, as His "vicar", is what I find the most heartbreaking and atrocious.

I can only think of the quote, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It is a well documented, historic fact that for hundreds of years Pope after Pope did things that by the very standards of the Church they were head of, should have led to their own excommunication. (And yet, because they were in direct "apostolic succession" to Peter, how could this be so?) Nevermind that the ways in which so many Popes became and remained Pope bears no semblance at all to anything remotely Biblical. (Murder, buying and selling the Papacy etc.) So why do they remain in the official list of those in "apostolic succession" to Peter to this day, with the atrocities they committed in Christ's name as yet unapologized for and even largely unacknowledged?

This history is one of the main reasons I cannot be Catholic. I just cannot understand how so much greed and corruption and murder done in Jesus' name can be so apparently easily excused and almost forgotten. Surely we can do better than that. Surely we can love one another and be truthful, as Christ taught and commanded His followers to be.

But, I do agree with you in this, the "gates of hell" have not prevailed against the Church despite all the horrors done in Christ's name by those who were supposed to be representing Him. (And, by so many "Protestants" as well) There has been so much evil done on both sides.

God has always had a faithful remnant of true believers. The true Church being all who put their trust in Him alone for salvation.

As Jesus taught, His kingdom is not of this world. Worldly wealth and power are not things we are to seek after. Nor are we to elevate ourselves or anyone else above any other, for all who believe in Christ are brothers and sisters, and we should treat each other as such.

I thank God for His faithfulness in all these things. That He has indeed preserved His Church of true believers around the world, even through the worst persecution.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You may note that Peter left his wife in Judea...

So what is your point? My point was that Peter (your so-called first pope) was married and had children as did most of the Apostles.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is the transgression of God's Law (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from living in transgression of God's Law, which means that it necessarily involves being made to live in obedience to it. Our obedience to God's Law is not something that we need to do in order to become saved, but rather it is what our salvation from sin involves being trained to do. As Philippians 2:12 says, we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, which again refers to this training that we are receiving by grace. We will not stop sinning in this life, but He who began a good work in us will be faithful to complete it on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6), so being trained to stop sinning is a work in progress that will continue for the rest of our lives.

To use an analogy, it is kind of like someone paying off your insurmountable student loans and paying your college tuition for the rest of your life at a prestigious university as a free gift. In one sense the gift is yours in that it has been paid for and given to you, but in another sense you need to attend classes for the rest of your life in order to fully receive the gift.

Excellent post! Perfectly explained! Shalom!

 

[Goatee]

Now, I've repeatedly tried to clarify that this is not a thread dealing with the Catholic Church, however, I must say something, because I am truly heartbroken in regards to so much of what has occurred in the name of Christ.

The fact that the turmoil, wars, very bad decisions and "very bad people" were actually all too often the Popes themselves and caused by them, who did so in the name of Christ, as His "vicar", is what I find the most heartbreaking and atrocious.

I can only think of the quote, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

It is a well documented, historic fact that for hundreds of years Pope after Pope did things that by the very standards of the Church they were head of, should have led to their own excommunication. (And yet, because they were in direct "apostolic succession" to Peter, how could this be so?) Nevermind that the ways in which so many Popes became and remained Pope bears no semblance at all to anything remotely Biblical. (Murder, buying and selling the Papacy etc.) So why do they remain in the official list of those in "apostolic succession" to Peter to this day, with the atrocities they committed in Christ's name as yet unapologized for and even largely unacknowledged?

This history is one of the main reasons I cannot be Catholic. I just cannot understand how so much greed and corruption and murder done in Jesus' name can be so apparently easily excused and almost forgotten. Surely we can do better than that. Surely we can love one another and be truthful, as Christ taught and commanded His followers to be.

But, I do agree with you in this, the "gates of hell" have not prevailed against the Church despite all the horrors done in Christ's name by those who were supposed to be representing Him. (And, by so many "Protestants" as well) There has been so much evil done on both sides.

God has always had a faithful remnant of true believers. The true Church being all who put their trust in Him alone for salvation.

As Jesus taught, His kingdom is not of this world. Worldly wealth and power are not things we are to seek after. Nor are we to elevate ourselves or anyone else above any other, for all who believe in Christ are brothers and sisters, and we should treat each other as such.

I thank God for His faithfulness in all these things. That He has indeed preserved His Church of true believers around the world, even through the worst persecution.

Nice reply. I agree to a lot of what you wrote.

It is because the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, and because Jesus is the cornerstone that it is still here today.

Popes are mere men. The Church is bigger than them.

 

[amariselle]

Nice reply. I agree to a lot of what you wrote.

It is because the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, and because Jesus is the cornerstone that it is still here today.

Popes are mere men. The Church is bigger than them.

I agree that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, because Church is all true believers in Christ.

What I reject, for many reasons, (some of which I listed in my previous post), is that the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church.

I believe and am firmly convinced that God has had, has now, and always will have His faithful remnant throughout the world.

 

[Goatee]

I agree that the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, because Church is all true believers in Christ.

What I reject, for many reasons, (some of which I listed in my previous post), is that the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church.

I believe and am firmly convinced that God has had, has now, and always will have His faithful remnant throughout the world.

I agree. And I am a Catholic.

 

[Phantasman]

Lots of hate in that post. You are aware that what you have posted is garbage?

I realize it's garbage to you. Of course, if you have something to debate it's authenticity, then provide it. Just saying you disagree (garbage) means nothing.

Also, I ask you point out the hate rather than just providing an opinion.

 

[Phantasman]

History. Just that. Mistakes made. Just that.

Through all turmoil, wars, some very bad decisions, some very bad people the Catholic Church still stands! Surely this points to what Jesus said, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it!

Of course it is (mistakes). Jesus words are spiritual, not physical. The narrow path is still narrow. So size means nothing.

The reason for the post was that the church is not the theology (religion), but the heart of the individual (Ekklesia). You can follow any religion you want that teaches of Jesus. And you are judged individually by that following (seeking the kingdom). Saying and following the Catholic tenet guarantee's nothing. Same with any other Christian religion.

Matthew (and Luke) says:
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:


I believe God communes individually with each person in the congregation in secrecy (as Jesus taught). Open church dialogue is good for all (as Jesus taught). Being led by a blind "person" leads to your own blindness as well (as Jesus taught). The men who teach others are judged, not judges.

If you seek first the Kingdom of God, come to understand the Truth of the Word and hear the Holy Spirit of Truth (Chrism), you move to show others how to achieve the gift. You don't bring people to the "church". You are the Church.

Matthew uses that word "rock" again. I hear Jesus words in the Canon and non Canon. Many hear Jesus words in the OT (Catholic tenet?). I hear Jesus sayings and do them.