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.
What's funny is how disciples scattered at Jesus' statement. And you put those thoughts in Jesus mouth.? Riot, that.
Another poster once asked: What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?
I agree. What if John 6 means exactly what it says? What if Matthew 16:18-20 means exactly what it says, and makes Peter the head of the apostles, and thus the entire Church, and his successors the same?
Well, anytime you attribute others' actions to one individual, you're off base, brother. No offense taken. I know what you mean, but it's not the Church's position. I speak for what the Church believes and teaches. Not what some of my fellows do. For instance, Joe Biden is a Catholic but he believes abortion is a right.No, you haven't - but some of your fellow Catholics have said just that on these forums.
Well, Jesus said "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood in order to have eternal life." And his disciples slinked off into the darkness, back to their former lives. So the Church teaches that it is important that Eucharist be taken seriously, that it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of He Himself. Others think it's a memorial service, like what you do when a friend dies. So how is it that church leaders made it something other than what Jesus said it was?No, I said " what if?"
If a church believes they are doing communion the right way, no one else is, and only those who share their beliefs can take communion with them, that is going to cause division.
Though actually I said "church leaders," not just Catholics - arguments are not good.
What you are saying is, "what if these scriptures say what the Papacy wants them to say".Another poster once asked: What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?
I agree. What if John 6 means exactly what it says? What if Matthew 16:18-20 means exactly what it says, and makes Peter the head of the apostles, and thus the entire Church, and his successors the same?
what if not?Another poster once asked: What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?
I agree. What if John 6 means exactly what it says? What if Matthew 16:18-20 means exactly what it says, and makes Peter the head of the apostles, and thus the entire Church, and his successors the same?
And there is this:what if not?
Deuteronomy 32:4
King James Version
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
1 Corinthians 10:4
King James Version
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
If Peter is the rock then he is God
Peter died in Rome, though.Peter was never part of the gentile Roman Catholic Church.
Peter was the apostle to the Jews, wrote Paul - and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles - which is why Paul wrote the book of Romans, and not Peter.
The RCC is full of revisionist history.
No, you said that. A plain reading of the two scriptures, not the papacy, but certainly the fathers of the Church, say exactly that doctrine of the Eucharist. Jesus wouldn't tell us we must do something and not give us a way to do what he said. Likewise, at Caesarea Philippi, the Holy Spirit chose Peter to proclaim the words, and Jesus told him "No flesh and blood has revealed this to you." And made him the head of the Apostles, and thus the Church.What you are saying is, "what if these scriptures say what the Papacy wants them to say".
Calling Peter Rock doesn't mean that Jesus is not Rock.what if not?
Deuteronomy 32:4
King James Version
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
1 Corinthians 10:4
King James Version
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
If Peter is the rock then he is God
Oh, never heard that one before. Making Peter head of the Apostles doesn't make him sinless. Or error-less.And there is this:
Mathew 16:23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men
God’s church are the ones who believe in all of God’s Word, not commandments of man. Jesus tells us this in Mathew 15:8-9. God bless
So is the Protestant Reformation, changing the meaning of words, snipping this and that out of doctrine because it's inconvenient.Peter was never part of the gentile Roman Catholic Church.
Peter was the apostle to the Jews, wrote Paul - and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles - which is why Paul wrote the book of Romans, and not Peter.
The RCC is full of revisionist history.
True, but God's church is built on His Word, not on the apostle Paul, a man.Oh, never heard that one before. Making Peter head of the Apostles doesn't make him sinless. Or error-less.
Scripture alone defines the Church and Church offices. Nothing that formed into the visible institutional churches after the first century can be found in the New Testament.No, you said that. A plain reading of the two scriptures, not the papacy, but certainly the fathers of the Church, say exactly that doctrine of the Eucharist. Jesus wouldn't tell us we must do something and not give us a way to do what he said. Likewise, at Caesarea Philippi, the Holy Spirit chose Peter to proclaim the words, and Jesus told him "No flesh and blood has revealed this to you." And made him the head of the Apostles, and thus the Church.
Another poster once asked: What if Jesus comes tomorrow and it turns out these scriptures mean exactly as they read?
I agree. What if John 6 means exactly what it says? What if Matthew 16:18-20 means exactly what it says, and makes Peter the head of the apostles, and thus the entire Church, and his successors the same?
When did Peter go to Rome ? 1 Peter 5:13 is usually the reference people quote.Peter died in Rome, though.
Don't look now but we agree LOL. I'm sure we agree on a lot more. Good to see you postingScripture alone defines the Church and Church offices. Nothing that formed into the visible institutional churches after the first century can be found in the New Testament.
Jesus used words paralleling Isaiah 22 when he renamed Simon as Rock (Peter) and gave him the keys to the kingdom. In Isaiah, the king gives the keys to the kingdom to his prime minister as a sign of authority. The prime minister has authority over everyone in the kingdom.Peter was never part of the gentile Roman Catholic Church.
Peter was the apostle to the Jews, wrote Paul - and Paul was the apostle to the gentiles - which is why Paul wrote the book of Romans, and not Peter.
The RCC is full of revisionist history.
Really? I didn't know that. And yet the Church is built on God's Word. Jesus. But Jesus put someone he knew to be trustworthy in charge. He told Peter that he should stop thinking in earthly terms and start thinking in terms of eternity. Peter did that, and let the Church in the first generation.True, but God's church is built on His Word, not on the apostle Paul, a man.
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?