when jesus say im a member of his church. dont touch it. you have satans touch. flee! im told by the 66 book bible not to swim in mans extra traditions that God never authorized.
the church
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
Cruciform
New member
Please provide the literary context for these three out-of-context quotations.
Cruciform
New member
The New Testament writers and the early Christians taught that the Universal (Catholic) Church was and is led by bishops. Please, therefore, tell us the name of your bishop.
Catholic Mis-Translation, the complete Fraud of Roman Baloneyism....
In the New Testament the words "elder," "bishop," or "pastor" are used interchangeably. The three terms refer to the same office which God placed in the local churches. Here is a list of the three words:
(1) Presbyter, or Elder - Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:1. It is translated from the Greek word presbuteros.
(2) Bishop, or Overseer - Acts 20:28; Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:1; Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:2. From the Greek word episkopos.
(3) Pastor, Shepherd, Tend, or Feed - Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Eph. 4:11. From the Greek word poimen..
We mention again that all of the above terms refer to the same office because they are used interchangeably. Some passages use all three terms interchangeably in the same context, e.g., Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3. We call your attention to the fact that the term "priest" (Gr. hiereus) is not among those synonymous terms, nor is it ever applied to the office of bishop or elder. The Catholic Church confuses this matter by saying that a "presbyter" is one official and a "bishop" is another. For example, "The word 'priest' is derived from the Greek presbyter..." (My Catholic Faith, p. 129). This is another example of their twisting of the Scriptures to prove their own doctrine. The Greek word "presbyter" does not mean "priest" and no reputable Greek scholar has ever rendered it as such. The word simply means "an old man, an elder." He had to have "believing children" (Titus 1:6), and, thus, only older men were qualified..
Catholic officials in their translations of Scripture insert the word "priest" into verses where it does not belong. In the Catholic Rheims Version, Acts 14:23 is translated, "And when they had ordained to them priests in every church..." All reputable Versions of the Scriptures, the King James, New King James, American Standard, New American Standard, etc., render this verse, "And when they had ordained elders in every church..." The word used in the verse is "presbuteros," which mean "elders" and not the word "hiereus" which is "priests." When one checks all the Greek texts, he finds that no variations exist; each contain the word "presbuteros." We can only conclude, therefore, that the Catholic Hierarchy inserted the word "priest" when the word "hiereus" wasn't there!
Last edited:
whats your real name and where do you live?
Cruciform
New member
So, then, you in fact have no bishop. So much for your claim to be a member of Christ's one historic Church---the Body of Christ.
if you are correct then*Apostolic Succession would appear to be a tradition of man, rather than a true doctrine of the Church.Therefore, while I do not think it is necessarily sinful to trace the leaders in the Church, I do not see*Apostolic Seccession*as necessary for God's authority to be meaningful and effective.*Apostolic Succession*would not seem to be a powerful argument against Protestantism, but possibly a weakness for the RCC - in that it can allow error into the Church (RCC teaches that the Pope when speaking ex cathedra, as well as the church when met in ecumenical council, can never err and therfore it leaves no room for examination of their words and laws - which is not consistent with the depravity of man which I now see traced in the OT and NT).
*Jesus said, "And I tell you that you are Peter [PETROS], and on this rock [PETRA] I will build my Church." There are two different, but related, Greek words used in this text. According to the Greek Lexicon, PETROS is "a rock or a stone," whereas PETRA is "a rock, cliff, or ledge." They are similar, but not the same. Jesus illustrates the meaning of PETRA elsewhere, as a massive foundational rock saying: "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock [PETRA]" (Matt. 7:24). There is a difference between a pebble [PETROS] and a complete foundation [PETRA].*
Why did Jesus use this play on words? You made it lucid that if the Holy Spirit desired to make it absolutely clear that He was building His church on the son of Jonah, why did He not simply say, "And I tell you that you are Peter [PETROS], and on this rock [PETROS] I will build my Church?" Since this is*not*the words the Holy Spirit choose, this must*not*be what the Holy Spirit means. At the very least, we can say that the rock [PETRA] upon which the Church is built refers to something other than Peter [PETROS], as an individual.
Why did Christ insist on this distinction? You appealed to St. Augustine. With integrity you showed that Augustine once maintained that Peter was "the Rock." However, then you revealed St. Augustine's humility and own confession:
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'*that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,'*and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church*(Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine,*The Retractations, Chapter 20.1).
You then quoted William Webster:
Clearly Augustine is repudiating a previously held position, adopting the view that the rock was Christ and not Peter. This became his consistent position. He does leave the interpretation open for individual readers to decide which was the more probable interpretation but it is clear what he has concluded the interpretation should be and that he believes the view that the rock is Christ is the correct one (The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew*16:18).
In the work entitled,*The Works of Saint Augustine, this is clear:
And I tell you...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4).*So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized.*Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer*(John Rotelle, Ed.,*The Works of Saint Augustine*(New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
Therefore, the pebble is Peter's confession and the Rock is the foundation Jesus Christ! To put it in your words, in the holiest of senses you said, "Peter was a chip off the old block." Peter was a PETROS off the old PETRA (the Ancient of Days Dan. 7:9, 13, 22). In other words, by the Spirit of God, Peter [PETROS] was confessing Christ [PETRA]. Peter was a part of the body of Christ by Spirit confession. Upon this the Lord is building His church. Moreover, in this, Peter is being addressed as a representative of all believers not as an individual Pope. In bears repeating: By the Spirit of God many people confess Christ (Matt. 10:32; John*3:1-8; 6:68-69, 11:27; Rom. 10:9-10; 1 Cor. 12:3; 1 Tim. 6:12; 1 John*2:23; 4:2-3, 15; Rev. 1:9, etc.).*
Moreover, Peter is NOT the only one who has power to forgive. This is established in John*20:22-23 when Jesus breathed upon the disciples and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Moreover, Luke records on Pentecost, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts*1:8). The rest of the apostles received the same authority as Peter. Related to this, the Church itself has this authority. In Matthew*18:18 Jesus says to the Church, "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." In reality, these keys are the delegated power of Christ to His Church (Rev. 3:7) - not just the Pope and Bishops.*
To this, in your last argument, you pointed out that Acts*20:17 and 28 appears to authorize the authority of elders over a local congregation, but no authority over the Church universal. In addition, in 2 Timothy*2:2, you explained that a succession of teachers was the goal and that nothing in this passage supported a known unbreakable succession of leaders whose authority was to be unquestioned (cf. Gal 2:11-21). Furthermore, in Acts*12:1-2, when the apostle James was beheaded, Scripture records no successor appointed to replace him. Moreover, an apostasy was foretold by the apostles (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:1-3; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). Even some from the number the apostles taught some would fall away (Acts*20:29-30) and those who taught differently from the apostles were to be rejected (Gal. 1:6-9). Therefore, appointment by an Apostle did*notnecessarily a guarantee the true teaching of God's Word (Acts*15:24; 1 John*2:19).
this is for those who learned not to be decived by cruciform who can't read the bible alone: http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40203
Last edited:
In the New Testament, no 'bishop' (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches (carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp); rather, that function was reserved for the apostles, which was obviously a foundational office of the Church (Eph. 2:20; 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; 2 Cor. 11:28). But today the office of Apostle is obviously closed.
The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it's own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men. In fact, 'Simony' (that is, the*buying*of the office of 'pope' or 'bishop' for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace when the Church of Rome was at it's peak, which it no longer is. ... appointing a corrupt bishop or pope*just once*would destroy the whole structure and principle of 'apostolic succession' for all time. Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on 'apostolic succession.'
this is for the wise whom are not longer deceived by cruciform: http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/succession.htm
The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it's own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men. In fact, 'Simony' (that is, the*buying*of the office of 'pope' or 'bishop' for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace when the Church of Rome was at it's peak, which it no longer is. ... appointing a corrupt bishop or pope*just once*would destroy the whole structure and principle of 'apostolic succession' for all time. Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on 'apostolic succession.'
this is for the wise whom are not longer deceived by cruciform: http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/succession.htm
yes but not the RRC
dont place all of your bets on Limus while John was alive and the successor
Last edited:
Mother Teresa believed that there is spiritual value in suffering.. She denied pain killers in her clinics BUT when she became ill, she would travel to the finest health care facilities to receive treatment!! Not a Christian!!! a Universalist! leading billions to hell... Tragic..
The holy catholic church is a farce. It is, and has always been, the greatest hindrance to Biblical truth on the planet. Maybe, as much as 5% of their doctrine is Biblical. It is a political and power structure and not a church. IT DID NOT REPLACE ISRAEL - when Israel again becomes God's people, the Romish church and their lies will cease to exist.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
That will be a great day, indeed.
The Apostle John had every opportunity to discredit and destroy the supreme pastorship of the Church, and instead he added to the Gospel account the "feed My sheep" conversation with the Lord, which doesn't appear in the synoptic Gospels.
Apostles creed.
I also have views.
Made up.
She is the Church, not "a church."
Nothing prevents Jewish men from filling the Catholic priesthood, up to and including the archbishop of Rome.
Right Divider
Body part
John was ONE of the TWELVE apostles of Israel. Fully EQUAL to each of the OTHERS.
God uses the term SHEEP.... only in the context of Israel. Paul never refers to believers as sheep or to Jesus as a Shepherd.
Get out of that abomination that you call your "church".
In most ways, yes, and in one way, Peter was the chief of the Apostles, just as Paul was early on known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Paul helped Peter and all the other Apostles to build what is today the Catholic Church, including all those faithful in full communion with her, and also all those imperfectly joined with her.
There is only One Church, so no, I will not get out.
Note that I'm not demanding that you get out.
Right Divider
Body part
Historical fantasy.... created by your "church".
That is some silly twisted story right there. Paul's ministry was NOT to "help Peter". That is a fairy tale that your "church" has developed to deceive those that will not take God's Word seriously.,
TODAY there is ONE church and Paul calls it the body of Christ. It is NOT the same church that had TWELVE tribes.
Not even sure what you mean by that.