Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually according to scripture the church is the Body with only one Head. Christ.I thought the CC church was the mother? But then maybe not..
Hi Jack,
Yes, in Rev. 17 the word is porneia. Louw-Nida comments on this use of the word, as referring to apostasy, that is, spiritual adultery.
Dave
What is interesting is this particular greek word for Prostitutes/harlots is it is not used in the Gospels.Thanks Dave.
What is interesting is this particular greek word for Prostitutes/harlots is it is not used in the Gospels.
It is however used 2 times in the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation though. Interesting. Thoughts?
1 Corin 5:9 I write to ye in the letter not to be together-mixed to prostitutes/pornoiV <4205>
Textus Rec.) 1 Corinthians 5:9 egraya umin en th epistolh mh sunanamignusqai pornoiV
4205. pornos from pernemi (to sell; akin to the base of 4097); a (male) prostitute (as venal), i.e. (by analogy) a debauchee (libertine):--fornicator, whoremonger. [USED 10 TIMES......all outside of the Gospels]
4204. porne por'-nay feminine of 4205; a strumpet; figuratively, an idolater:--harlot, harlot.
Greetings. I suppose that is why the Lord is telling His people to "seperate" from those of the "Prostitute"?1 Corinthians 5:9 I see it as "immoral" or Christian's doing things contrary to God's law.
Greetings. I suppose that is why the Lord is telling His people to "seperate" from those of the "Prostitute"?
Revelation 17:1 And came one out of the seven messengers of the ones having the seven bowls and he speaks with me saying to me "Hither thou! I shall be showing to thee the judgement of the Prostitute/pornhV <4204>, the great, the one sitting upon the many waters
Reve 18:4 And I hear another voice out of the heaven, saying, "Come forth! the People of Me, out of Her, that no ye may not being together-communioning to the Sins of her, and out of the stripes of her that no ye may be getting". [2 Corin 6:16-18]
Those with little faith...
Those that have not been called by the Father...
Those that place themselves ahead of God...
Those that have lost their way...
Those that have rejected God...
There is more, do you want all of the ones I can think of?
Or wasn't this the answer you expected?
Thoughts about Matthew 16:18
Catholics seem to assume that tracing their denomination to the apostles a) doesn't assume a massive burden of proof and b) somehow makes their specific denomination the "true" one.
The RCC directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for all this, but look at the amount of things that need to be proven:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to "Peter."
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."
d) This office is "perpetual"
e) Peter resided in "Rome"
f) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome
g) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome
h) There was only "one" bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."
j) Peter "ordained" a successor as the Pope in Rome
k) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.
An Eastern Orthodox theologian and apologist wrote the following about this....
Lets review each of these twelve separate steps:I hope that helps.
(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. "We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church's foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42," R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.
(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.
(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.
(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.
(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).
(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, its an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.
(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasnt founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membershipor mixed company.
(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) churchwhich was the NT modelto a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate stepsnone of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.
(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).
(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:
i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.
ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.
iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.
(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.
These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I havent said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.
Thank you!
Pax!
- Josiah
.
That's nothing but a way of saying that the Universal Body of Believers transmits the faith
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
Be specific jack. Those generalities are meaningless. Mormons would give the same answer, so be specific.
By the way, I have a little challenge for you coming up soon, so be on the lookout for it.
Do you think that EO historian would agree with Gregory the Great when he said that any bishop who laid claim to being "universal bishop", "prince of bishops", "supreme bishop", "bishop of bishops" and all the other titles that have been used to lay claim to Roman papal supremacy, is the Antichrist?
Anti-christ..........dead meat......Originally Posted by TraderJackDo you think that EO historian would agree with Gregory the Great when he said that any bishop who laid claim to being "universal bishop", "prince of bishops", "supreme bishop", "bishop of bishops" and all the other titles that have been used to lay claim to Roman papal supremacy, is the Antichrist?
Nor will they admit that the so called list of popes, "liber pontificalis" is a known forgery and spurious document that has been altered and altered and altered by whatever present regime had the self serving agenda to write "history" in their favor.
Forget Calvin.....what about TYNDALE!!!!If Rome has been rewriting history and only the Catholic Church existed before John Calvin and other "Reformers" then please tell me what happened to the "real" Church in all those centuries?
Forget Calvin.....what about TYNDALE!!!!
what happened to the "real" Church in all those centuries?
Hi Jack, Rev. 12 tells us that the woman (a symbol of Christ's church) fled to the wilderness where she was nourished for 1,260 yrs. This was due to the power granted the bishop of Rome to compel compliance, which became effective in 538 A.D. During this time, those who chose to remain faithful to God and His Word had to flee for their lives. They built dwellings in the mountains which may be seen to this day. As for Calvin, he was one of the Reformers. There certainly were others.
Blessings,
Dave
1260 yearsDave,
Does history record a group of Christians leaving for the mountains in 538 ad and having lived there for 1260 years with a different teaching?
Is there archeological evidence of such a group?
Not sure how John Calvin fits into that???
The WaldensesDave,
Does history record a group of Christians leaving for the mountains in 538 ad and having lived there for 1260 years with a different teaching?
Is there archeological evidence of such a group?
Not sure how John Calvin fits into that???
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?