Are you familiar with the gospel of Mary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
Printable View
Are you familiar with the gospel of Mary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
Uh.... First of all, where did I attack anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
I don't see this as self-indulgence or anything like that at all. I see it simply as a wish from these women to slightly reform the church to be more like what they thinks God wants it to be. Like so many before them has done, and a few of them to great success. Where's the shame in that?
Wow. Doesn't take long before a fairly simple question devolves into a hundred concerning Faith, the bible, Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. :dizzy2:
1) By right of free association, the Catholic Church has the right to set up its own rules regarding office holders and membership. Regardless of my personal views regarding the ordination of women or homosexuals, the Church itself is the final arbiter on whether or not women should be priests.
2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.
3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.
4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.
5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.
6) Finally, on the off chance that anybody interpreted number (2) to mean that I personally believe in the infallibility of the bible, despite what some denominations hold, the bible itself never claims to be infallible, and no where in it does Jesus confer any special authority upon it. He does however confer special authority upon His church.
In spite of the length of your post, you have provided a simple and correct answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I don't think anyone is argueing the issue under secular law. The question is whether they are making the right decision before God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Fidelity of transcription does not answer the question of the selection of the canon. Though I grant you it is an important point, even so there are errors.Quote:
2) The bible is a lot more accurate than most people would have thought. The Dead Sea Scrolls, beyond giving us some wonderful insights into the grammatical constructs of Aramaic, demonstrated that for the most part, the fidelity of transcriptions through the centuries has been astounding.
Paul's first letter to Timothy specifically prohibits women from being priests and the Old Testemant makes a number of distinction between men and women.Quote:
3) The bible itself does not prohibit women from serving as ministers, and it doesn't say concretely that there were no female disciples, just that there were no female apostles. Bishops, not priests, are the modern descendants of the apostles. Priests are descendants of the disciples.
They are heretics against the Church, under Church law. This is, however, the choice of the Church to excomunicate them.Quote:
4) The thread title is misleading. The women in question are NOT Catholic priests, any more than I am the NFL defensive MVP from last year, even though I just publicly declared that I was and a group of guys at work agreed and recognized me as such.
So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has.Quote:
5) Those of you boo-hooing about tradition... I have news for you, there is no such thing as an organized body of Christianity without some tradition of one sort or another.
Look where that has taken them. Dwidling numbers and a massive international schism between "conservstives" and "liberals". I've read that Roman Catholicism has replaced Anglicanism in Britain as the largest religious Denomination. I'm never happy to hear about the way the Anglican Church was founded on immoral concepts and is failing miserably around the world, but I won't pretend it hasn't led to more Catholics in the long run - which is a positive outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Liberalizing Churches in the modern era generally leads to a fracturing disunity and a massive defection rate. So, all-in-all, nobody else should have Dogma except the Catholic church. :yes:
I didn't mind female alter servers or anything like that - but certain things like not offering wine at communion were bad ideas in my book. Anyway I like the club and the the club itself. Why should we change the club for people who are already leaving? Especially when scripture and tradition ere on our side? Because God wants us to? Don't you think that he would have hinted at it somewhere other than in the philosophies of non-believers?
Hmm, I could be wrong, but I believe the passage relates to women not speaking in church, not from serving as a priest. Some have jested that practically removes the possibility of female priests, but it wouldn't if religious services were conducted with the congregation segregated by gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I see. So every word in the Book of Common Prayer comes directly from scripture? You'll have to show the gospel passage where Jesus instituted Shrove Tuesday, or perhaps it was St. Paul and St. Timothy wandering around Galatia that started it....Quote:
So we should just keep on with traditions just because we have them? Other branches of Christianity, including Anglicanism, do not create Dogma in the way in which the Roman Church has.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 Identify women as the original trnasgressors and forbid them to teach or have authority over men. You can quibble over it but given that a Bishop or a priest is supposed to control his wife as well and all the other sexist elements in the letters I would say Paul would not have allowed women to preach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
As to the BCP the answer is that it can and is rewritten and updated. It can be changed, or not used at all. It may be the basis of the Anglican tradition but it is no Dogma.
There, fixed that for you. Seriously, I hear what you're saying, St. Paul had some other misogynistic statements as well. But he's hardly issuing a commandment. He could definitely speak more clearly on topics when he chose to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You say toh-mah-toe, I say toe-may-toe. And then I get one of these to the kisser :tomato: All jokes aside, I guess I'm not quite seeing why you're being so derisive of the term 'tradition' as it relates to the Vatican, when in reality, any organization (not just religious ones) have traditions of some form or another.Quote:
As to the BCP the answer is that it can and is rewritten and updated. It can be changed, or not used at all. It may be the basis of the Anglican tradition but it is no Dogma.
And while I'm playing devil's advocate on the matter, one of the best arguments I've ever heard for the notion of tradition is as follows: Reading scripture, do you really think that you're smarter than the sum total (the summa theologica if you will) of all work performed in the past 2000 years? I mean, I'm sure you're familar with the teachings of John Wesley. Do you plug your ears and murmur "John Wesley didn't author an epistle so I won't listen to what he had to say?" I imagine you probably take it for what it is, the intelligent and insightful writings of a man who dedicated his life to understanding his Lord better and getting to know God and worship Him as properly as he possibly could.
So what's so awful about John Wesley? Or Thomas Aquinas for that matter? Oh, I know... John Wesley is okay, but Aquinas, he's one of those deviant Catholics, so we have to forget anything he said. How close am I?
I don't understand how a person can believe they are Catholic with what that entails, then one day decide "sod it - I'm CoE now as I want to get ordained". People who can alter their beliefs in such a way aren't believers in the first place IMO.
All official churches have a great history of destroying information that doesn't agree with their view of the holy word, to the extreme of killing everyone they can lay their hands on who doesn't quite get it. Still there's a mass of information that hasn't been destroyed. But far from this bieng accepted by the church and allow them to adapt it is ignored. Apparently a grouping of men hundreds of years ago have perfect insight into what is the holy truth and what is a load of nonsense. I've read a fair amount of non canonical texts and unsurprisingly the amount of text is greater thant he entire Bible. I fear that the true message has been distorted beyond recognition somewhere down the line.
Then we have the age old fun and games of quoting bits of the bible and extrapolating that this shows... well, whatever it is you are wanting to show today.
~:smoking:
I'm not saying it's a commandment, but frankly I'm surprised that no one against female priests trotted it it out first. You know that you are interpreting the passage ingeniously. The point of Paul's arguement is that women are inferior to men. Paul then goes on to lay the qualifications for a Bishop and Deacon and he explicitely indicates that they would be men, no question. The letters quite clearly assume that priests and up will be men and that women should stay home and spit out babies, something Paul actually says. The fact that he prefaces his dicussion of the qualifications for office in the church with a prohibition against women preaching is implicit, but not, I grant, explicit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I'm not being at all derisive of tradition, but I am not going to keep things as they are just because they have been so for a thousand years. Tradition is a good thing, but it isn't law. The Anglican Church has tradition, as do the Methodists, Paptists etc but the Roman Church has Dogma which the Church proclaims is always right and cannot be changed.Quote:
You say toh-mah-toe, I say toe-may-toe. And then I get one of these to the kisser :tomato: All jokes aside, I guess I'm not quite seeing why you're being so derisive of the term 'tradition' as it relates to the Vatican, when in reality, any organization (not just religious ones) have traditions of some form or another.
Wiki definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Dogma assumes that some guy, who made a point of having a beard or not having a beard depending on the era, was absolutely perfectly right. This is my basic objection because all Dogmatic decisions post-dates Christ.
Miles and miles away, I spent six months with Boethius on my bedside table and I read all his tracts, including those against heresy. Aquinus is on my reading list right after Saint Augustine of Hippo. I read them, I study them, I don't swallow them without looking.Quote:
And while I'm playing devil's advocate on the matter, one of the best arguments I've ever heard for the notion of tradition is as follows: Reading scripture, do you really think that you're smarter than the sum total (the summa theologica if you will) of all work performed in the past 2000 years? I mean, I'm sure you're familar with the teachings of John Wesley. Do you plug your ears and murmur "John Wesley didn't author an epistle so I won't listen to what he had to say?" I imagine you probably take it for what it is, the intelligent and insightful writings of a man who dedicated his life to understanding his Lord better and getting to know God and worship Him as properly as he possibly could.
So what's so awful about John Wesley? Or Thomas Aquinas for that matter? Oh, I know... John Wesley is okay, but Aquinas, he's one of those deviant Catholics, so we have to forget anything he said. How close am I?
As a branch of Christianity I find Roman theology really rather agreeable in a lot of cases but I am the quintesential protestant. I refuse to do something just because the Pope says so, or because a dead Pope said so. Do I think I am smarter than the ancient divines, no, but I don't think I'm necessarily any more stupid either.
what is Aquinus, what is Augustine, John Paul II, Rowan Williams? What distinguishes them from each other or from the rest of us? A man who spent his whole life studying the Bible a thousand years ago is no different from one doing the same thing today. The amount of knowledge never increases, the book never gets any bigger.
Theology never moves fowards, all that happens is sucessive generations produce their own comentaries on the same set of texts.
So as far as the Calvinist argument goes anyone can become a parish.
Hell, if that is the case than I can ordain my minor cousin (7 year old with some biblical knowledge) as parish. To your criteria he would be an ideal candidate. Clean, innocent, God-fearing, and even Jesus said "Bring the children to Me" but the Church only accepts major priests (over 18+) but when the Hell does God make any distinction between minors and grown-ups. Never.
So the fact is simple. Either follow the Orthodox Tradition and Bible and call yourself a Christian or shove them and call yourself Agnostic or any other way but you cannot be a Christian if you don't respect Christian traditian following the New and Old Testaments.
Which orthodox tradition? And lets not forget the dozens of new churches, as well as the ones stamped out by the current "orthodox" faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
To equate "orthodox" as "right" is frankly ridiculous - as though the loudest voice at this moment in time is of course correct.
Agnostics are something completely different in case you were oblivious.
The Bible. Coptic? Orthodox? Protestant? Catholic? Ethiopian? Samaritan? Mormon? Jehova's Witness? Not as simple as some make out is it? All are of course right. All are wildly different and all are Christian.
And let's not get onto the different Bibles available to every denomination...
~:smoking:
Who's the Calvanist? When did we start talking about Calvin? Has the word election even been uttered here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
Are you saying that only Orthodox Christians are Christians?
Further, what on Earth are you talking about 7 year old priests for?
Your post seems to be a major case of baby-and-bath-water.
Maybe I'm not explaining this very well, let me try again.
1. You have the Bible, written down by fallable men, copyed by fallable men, translated by fallable men, none of which was even written while Jesus was alive.
2. You have Church tradition, codified from 1 by another generation of fallable men and then built on by successive generations.
3. You have us.
Explain to me why I should swallow 1 and 2 without any consideration at all? Then expalin to me why my willingness to question tradition makes me an apostate and means I automatically reject the teachings of the Church?
Prime example, Saint Paul says Bishops and Deacons should be married only once. In the fourth century some Bishops decree that Churchmen should be celebate, then at the Council of Nicea 300 Bishops decide that this is wrong and declare that it is right and proper for priests to marry, then in the 13th Century the Pope and the Council of Trent declare that priests should be celebate.
Are you telling me that none of those men EVER questioned tradition?
Tell me where in my posts in this thread I have actually committed aposty
To be honest I'm with Rory on this whole issue, if the Church didn't spend so much time fighting itself it might want to consider some of the non-canonical texts which have surfaced in the last 20 or 30 years. My own Bible contains all the Apophrica of the Olt Testemant, including the bits only recognised by the Orthodox Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You beat me, and you are more sucinct. I'm pretty sure he means Greek Orthodox.
That might have been me. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Also what's your point Cronos? That sounds like the "only my denomination is Christian" talk I tend to hear more from Evangelicals.
I still say tradition means nothing. If like TuffStuff you feel a system works, then keep it because it works, not because it is tradition. I suppose the Orthodox churches hold similar views to the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.
Essentially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
you could be a "Christian", but it would rely more heavily on personal divine revelations... I'm sure everyone condemning Catholicism would have a field day with a bunch of Joseph Smiths running around. Next time you say "I know what God wants" think to yourself; isn't that what the guys who said that "women shouldn't be priests" thought? Who's communication with God trumps all? In the eyes of the Church the church founders opinions on revelation trump yours for the time being.
Tradition doesn't mean "nothing". I don't know why you would say that. In that case drop all of your calvinist beliefs that don't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
Anyway, Christianity isn't about "what works" in the temporal field - but what works eternally.
It "works" to give up your faith in Jesus 3 times to save your temporal life. It makes sense - but you are called not to do this even though it clashes with what works.
Is it somehow bad that women want to become priests?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
And Jesus did not have a dog, should excommunications be handed out because you own one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
I was pointing out part of another sides argument, not my own. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
You mean the Catholic Church's argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
And some wonder why we Protestants split :juggle2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
As Being a Protestant, I will ask you this. Does It Matter? I mean, Can't they serve God and be ordained just like Men? Or Are They just some footstool for Catholic Priests since Jesus had men as part of his 12 Dispicles?.......
Um as a Catholic, yes it does matter...Quote:
Originally Posted by |Sith|1|AntiWarmanCake88 Toyosada88
They have gone against the Church, thus divorcing themselves from their faith. They are thus un-faithful. Footstool, yeah that's what I want my damned woman to be.
The concept of accepting Papal authority should not be a hard one to grasp.
Why is that any of your business though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
We have not done anything wrong. Women are humans also I think, unless they look like humans and are something else.
We are not un-faithful. Do you think God cares if Women are Ordained? No offense, but are your Catholics afraid that we doing something logical and still not be anal about all these things? Like someone said eariler here, People Wonder why we broke away from the church :dizzy2:.
My point was that The Greek Orthodox Church, The Coptic Church and the Aethiopian ones allow priest to marry while bishops and theologians must remain or become celibate. Women and children cannot become priests because it is written in the Bible and the Bible is the law if you are a devout believer of your particular confession.
All those people in between who want to reshape the Bible according to their own conviction are no longer Christians in their particular confession but heretics.
Agnostics are all those people who believe in God but don't trust the Revelation or the following events.
It is an excellent term used to describe all rogue preachers and false prophets.
The Church fell after The Council of Niceea because of all those theologians who shaped the Cult to suit their immediate needs.
In the East the Church remained strong and righteous because noone dared in their pride and power to challange the apostolic tradition. Thus there ware no religious wars,no crusade, no Inquisition, no Reformation, no Counter-Reformation and no Jonestown.
Challenging tradition is more dangerous than following it sometimes.
I agree with the priestly celibacy rule. One reason (not the only) It is helpful in keeping priests focused on their parish rather than family and allows for a more regular rotation of clergy that would be much more difficult if whole families were involved. Additionally if rotating clergy wasn't possible and an individual family was deeply rooted, people might tust the family over the church. If there are any ideas deemed to be heretical or unsupported by mainline catholicism people might have more of an allegiance with the Priest than the church itself. We have seen that play out so many times in so many denominations.
Also, if an idea is heretical and is not expunged, the offspring of the heretical priest lives on and may retain the loyalties of the parish. It is a recipe for disaster - let the protestants experiment with it.
Roman Catholic parishes shift priests to give a healthy different angle to parishoners. If one priest is rotten, he will be gone soon enough. If another is excellent, people will remember him and another parish will get to benefit as well. It also connects parishes together without giving out to regionalism that can be deadly for a global community. The RC church does it very well. Ideas are circulated internationally along with cultural knowledge. My church currently has an Irishman, 2 Americans, a Philipino and a Nigerian.
If you want to get married and look like a priest become a Deacon or convert to the Church from Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Orthodoxy.
It's not the Church founders though, it's an ecumunical Council nearly 300 yeards after the Lord's death.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
He believes they are going to hell for their beliefs, and he doesn't want that.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
[quote=Cronos Impera;1974899]My point was that The Greek Orthodox Church, The Coptic Church and the Aethiopian ones allow priest to marry while bishops and theologians must remain or become celibate. Women and children cannot become priests because it is written in the Bible and the Bible is the law if you are a devout believer of your particular confession.
All those people in between who want to reshape the Bible according to their own conviction are no longer Christians in their particular confession but heretics.[quote]
That, sir, is Crusading talk.
No, Agnostics are those who believe it is impossible to know the truth of such things. Going back to Tuff's post, to claim an absolute knowledge would be to claim personnal revelation.Quote:
Agnostics are all those people who believe in God but don't trust the Revelation or the following events.
It is an excellent term used to describe all rogue preachers and false prophets.
The Church in the East schismed just as it did in the West, at the start of your post you mentioned three denominations.Quote:
The Church fell after The Council of Niceea because of all those theologians who shaped the Cult to suit their immediate needs.
In the East the Church remained strong and righteous because noone dared in their pride and power to challange the apostolic tradition. Thus there ware no religious wars,no crusade, no Inquisition, no Reformation, no Counter-Reformation and no Jonestown.
Challenging tradition is more dangerous than following it sometimes.
Ah, now here is a coherent arguement, and one that works. On the other hand it is I believe a relatively modern thing in the Catholic Church where priests would remain in place for decades in the past. In any case it is something that the Anglican Church does now as well, move people around.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
You do know that an Agnlican priest or Bishop can convert and keep his wife though, don't you? I assume the same is true for Orthodox priests.
That's what I said! Convert to the Church FROM Anglicanism, Lutheranism or Orthodoxy. I should have put in "priests can convert..." sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It is also not an automatic thing - it takes a serious consideration and dispensation from the Church.
*grabs another bag of popcorn*
this is great guys...keep it going! :2thumbsup:
I hadn't thought about it from that angle yet. Just as a random aside, the Mormon response to that problem is to have a lay clergy. Instead of rotating priests/bishops from area to area, we rotate out local leaders and replace them with other local members. Of course it doesn't foster the kind of international perspective you also mention, but then the missionary program goes at least some way towards making that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Ajax
That's what I thought, but you seemed to be implying such mean were not priests when your Pope says they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I thought the Catholic Church rotated clergy to...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As entertaining as this thread is, it reinforces my belief that organized religion is a plague upon mankind. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
yes... its been interesting to read some well constructed arguments :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
They're unfaithful because they went against the Catholic Church due to a sexist policy? Very medieval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Glad you admit you believe women as nothing more than property.Quote:
Footstool, yeah that's what I want my damned woman to be.
Why does one man need to be the voice of the Church?Quote:
The concept of accepting Papal authority should not be a hard one to grasp
Argee on all 3 counts. Can't say it better myself :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Besides, Does God Talk To The Pope Himself? :juggle2:
I just made it up after the fact. I think it is a good idea in general, so I came up with a reason that people might like. It may be the modern rationale for all I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
I like Mormons. They remind me of Catholics in a number of ways. In some ways better, in other worse. Better includes tighter knit societies and family groups, abstinence from alcohol, drugs among many others. The idea that you get your own planet if you were good in life is a bit bizarre to me, though.
Have you ever red Byzantine (the leaders of the Orthodox church) history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera
for starters you can read about:
Arianism
Monophysitism
Iconoclasm
Monothelitism
I find it very easy to understand, just impossible to justify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Who first declared the Pope the monarchial head of the Church?
The Pope.
Tuff has said that it is dangerous to rely on personal revelation and direct authority claimed from God, but that's exactly what the first Pope did.
I guess you deny the Catholic claim to Peter as the first Pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I suspect from reading your posts that you have read a great deal about the topic of Christianity.
Probably more so than I, but I must ask; what are your thoughts about religion directed by revelation?
And on the topic in a more serious way than my earlier flippant comment.
Catholics breaking away from the mainstream and doing their own thing is just one more incident of a long disease that has troubled the church since the original Apostles were murdered. Individuals within the church tries to change tradition or teachings in the church and gain supporters. This will end like it did with the Donatists, Pelagians, Arians and many other groups. The orthodoxy of the church will prevail yet again.
"The Rock upon which I will build my church" - what does that mean, he established him as a literal rock, or the writer made that line up? Jesus didn't really elaborate on the specifics, but it seems that he made Peter the head of his church and in Rome no less. I understand where issues may have arisen with it in its present form, but it is pretty clear that the New Testament establishes Peter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The first Pope was Peter, and he was appointed I believe.Quote:
Tuff has said that it is dangerous to rely on personal revelation and direct authority claimed from God, but that's exactly what the first Pope did.
I find it hard to grasp that I need an elected man to tell me that he is the voice of God.
you know...you may be on to something...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
*goes back to his popcorn*
In what sense directed? If a man says he has had a revelation I would find that difficult to accept straight off. I believe revelation is possible, given my own circumstances I suppose I must have had a revelation at some point, but I'm very wary of affirming any revelation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
As regards Peter as the first Pope, I deny that he was an absolute monarch. That does not mean he was not head of the Church.
More troubling is the Catholic propensity to excomunicate, which to a Christian is horrific and damning. It could be said that Papal Bulls of excomunication have caused the most schisms because they place dissidents outside the Church.Quote:
And on the topic in a more serious way than my earlier flippant comment.
Catholics breaking away from the mainstream and doing their own thing is just one more incident of a long disease that has troubled the church since the original Apostles were murdered. Individuals within the church tries to change tradition or teachings in the church and gain supporters. This will end like it did with the Donatists, Pelagians, Arians and many other groups. The orthodoxy of the church will prevail yet again.
He made him the head of the Church in Judea, then Peter traveled to Rome. In any case Peter was annointed, since then Popes have been elected. So how can later Popes have Peter's power, namely the power of excomunication.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Do you question the physics of angel flight? He said that Peter was the Rock, not Judea. I understand people ridiculing the bible for believed absurdities in logic, but I have never been able to understand people who; believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and literally ascended into heaven and is seated next to god and will come again to judge the living and the dead; and simultaneously condemn other Christians for believing fanciful things when they are written in the same text as the fanciful beliefs of the ridiculer.
I just don't get that.
Isn't there an issue with the translations where it appears to mean more a smaller rock and so Jesus probably literally meant the single church that was being built there?
Directed as in changing its traditions or even doctrine based on revelations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Take Peter as an example.
Christ gave Peter charge to lead the church, and it was not the rock statement.
On the beach after the resurrection Christ made a small meal for some of his apostles. Peter got the chance to exonerate himself after having denied Him three times. Three times Christ asks if Peter loves him and three times Peter answers yes. But three times Christ admonishes Peter to lead his flock by the statements; feed my sheep and feed my lambs. It would be Peter’s responsibility to direct the Disciples of Christ.
A while after Christ’s ascension, Peter receives a vision about unlawful beasts on a sheet. The Lord commands him to eat things that the Jews are not allowed to. Christ had earlier forbidden the apostles to preach to the gentiles, but the interpretation of this vision was that now was the time to spread the gospel to non Jews or so called Gentiles.
So a direct revelation from the Lord changed an established rule or doctrine about not preaching to the gentiles and it became a commandment to do so.
This is what I mean about revelation directing the church. In Old Testament times the prophets were guided by the Lord by revelation and in New Testament times the leader of the Christian sect was guided by the Lord by revelation too.
The church (as the body or flock of Christ) sorely needs guidance and what we have discussed here only adds to this need.
I think this particular verse is interpreted out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caledonian Rhyfelwyr
If you put it in context with the previous verse you will quickly see that it is not Peter the church will be built upon but something entiredly different. I am not saying that Jesus didn't appoint Peter as the head of the church, just that this is not where He did so.
Let's take a quick look:And Jesus came into the region of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples: who do people say that the Son of man is?It is what was revealed to Peter, that Jesus is the Son of the living God, that is the rock which upon the church will be built i.e. Revelation from the Father who is in heaven.
But they said: Some John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Jesus said to them: But who do you say I am?
Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed are you, Simon son of Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
And he does continue with apointing Peter with the keys of heaven and the binding and the loosening of things.
However, either the church died with Peter and no one whatsoever has these keys and authorities today, or Peter could pass them on to the next apostle and him to the next etc. and the power to bind on earth and in heaven and receive guidance on behalf of the kirk is still in function.
well the Greek is actually Petra, he calls Peter "rock" litterally. So Peter was, as you say, made the cornerstone of the Church. We are now moving into the realm of exegisis (yay!) but that is going to require hitting the books pretty hard for me. I'm going to take 24 hours or so to consult my Bibles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane