/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>544429

>The Bible

Great read. You should give it a go sometimes.

>>544431

>What is book of Acts

>>544437

Something devoid of popes

>>544457

You do know that every presbyter use title of Pope, right? For Pope means "father". And I suppose that you will not dare to say that there is no presbyters in Acts.

>>544463

>And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

>>544426

The Bible and "Russia and the Universal Church" by Vladimir Solovyev.

All you need to see orthodoxy for what it is.

Two great works by A. Edward Siecienski:

- The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy

- The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate

Avoid like the plague:

Orthodox Info

Catholic Bridge

>>544465

> If your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out

Huh, guess I should interpret this one literally too, eh?

>>544605

Is there any problem with actually interpreting it literally?

>But your body is a temple

Not really contradictory, god can do whatever he wants with his temples and if he told you to cut off the sinful parts you better do it.

Unless you have another bible verse against that, in which case.

>>544605

>Jesus uses a metaphor somewhere else so I can just dismiss everything He says

Catholics are too busy being members of the club that is the literal as in earthly understanding of their 'church' to even begin thinking about becoming members of the conceptual church so they're absolutely the worst. (Even before I get to all the rape in there.) A good (not a bad) mix of protestant and orthodox is the only way but it will take a bit of effort to get there of course.

>>544605

Even if you interpret "call no man your father" figuratively, it means no one on Earth should be an intercessor between you and God. That God should directly be the source of your morality and actions.

Either way it's a direct teaching of Christ against a pope-like office, regardless of whether it's taken in it's literal sense or figurative sense.

>>544658

then why'd he make Peter pope?

then Christ made a mistake?

>>544711

>then why'd he make Peter pope?

Why are you reading medieval mythology into the bible?

>>544718

Since Christ is God, He knew that a 2000 year Church would come about claiming apostolic succession through this act with Peter right? Do you think Christ didn't know?

>>544654

At least I dont need to pay to get my kid baptized.

http://www.stgeorgerosebay.org.au/bookings/fees/

>>544722

What act with Peter? He didn't make Peter pooe

https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298

read this

>>544752

Then what did He make him? An independent fundamentalist preacher? Or was Christ not…God enough to realize he was establishing a Church?

straight answer, plz

Why does it have to be one of those two churches? You can find any number of wicked apostates to tell you why their heretical Church is the "One True Church". Ask God - not man, and be prepared to listen to Him - don't harden your heart to the idea that neither of those two churches are the "One True Church", because there isn't one. There's only a worldwide spiritual community of Bible believers, and we attend many different local churches. This way, one wicked man cannot take down the entire Church, but only one local church.

>>544774

according to the KJV (pbuh), he never uses church plural tho

unless you have a non-KJV quote to prove it? KJV is word of God btw :)

>>544798

With this argument the Catholic Church isn't biblical because every believer in the world doesn't attend the same local church.

>>544806

Well maybe, the kjv (pbuh) isn't taking about a local church, but rather a single institution.

But that couldn't possibly be right, because, you know, reasons

>>544766

Surely, you don't actually expect a straight answer to this shitpost?

>>544426

I recommend reading the Eastern Orthodox Bible. I was dead set on becoming Eastern until I read the apologetics essays and then chose Rome

>>544921

How is that a shit-post?

Let me re-ask my question.

Did Christ err by telling Peter "you are the rock of my Church"? If you think the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon, then it's pretty clear you are either saying Christ was wrong, or didn't know He was wrong, thus denying His divinity.

>>544806

see >>544906

Any church not in communion with Church that Christ established through Peter is NOT the Church He founded. Very pure, very simple.

>>545324

>Did Christ err by telling Peter "you are the rock of my Church"?

And when did He do that, anon?

>Any church not in communion with Church that Christ established through Peter is NOT the Church He founded

The word ekklesia means "the assembly of the called". Thus, to render Christ's words "I will build my Congregation" would be faithful to the original, but "I will build my Institution" would not be. Furthermore, the root of the English "church" is the word kyriakos, which means "belonging to the Lord". So to interpret references to Christ's Church as references to a hierarchal institution like the Roman Catholic Church is to commit a gross anachronism. Christ's Church is simply the sum total of those who believe on Him.

>>545337

Did Christ have competing groups of apostles running around that I'm unaware of?

>>545342

No.

>>545314

How self deluded do you have to be to think this is why you became Catholic

>>545368

Perfect. So He was speaking to His congregation of Apostles, whom went on to establish the Catholic Church as we know now it.

>>545373

>>545373

>So He was speaking to His congregation of Apostles

He was speaking of the congregation of His elect.

>whom went on to establish the Catholic Church as we know now it

Completely wrong. For one thing, there was no pope until 606 AD. They established local churches which were connected by council. They established one union of churches in the Roman Empire, and another in Persia.

>>545385

>He was speaking of the congregation of His elect.

wait a minute, are you of those Calvinists trying to trick me again?!

>>545388

uhuh

>>545385

>He was speaking of the congregation of His elect.

Wouldn't he be speaking specifically of his Apostles there. After all, it was his church, i.e. the one with Him in it.

>and another in Persia.

Manichaeans were churches?

>>545403

>Wouldn't he be speaking specifically of his Apostles there

No. He is speaking of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, which is founded on the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

>After all, it was his church, i.e. the one with Him in it.

The assembly of the called is His Church, and He is in it, at the head.

>Manichaeans were churches?

Manichaeism did not exist in the 1st century.

>>545407

You already gave the proper definition of church. We are not in the same assembly.

>The assembly of the called is His Church, and He is in it, at the head.

You mean each assembly of the called.

>Manichaeism did not exist in the 1st century.

So you were talking about the literal first century as the starting point of these church unions? Interesting.

>>545408

>You already gave the proper definition of church. We are not in the same assembly.

Well, we're probably not in the same local church, but if you are a Christian then I assure you, we are both in Christ's assembly.

>You mean each assembly of the called.

He is certainly the owner and head of every truly Christian church, but there is a spiritual congregation which is composed of and reflected by local congregations.

I think you're misunderstanding me, so I want to clarify. When I say Church (capital C), I mean nothing other than the entirety of the saints, united by their common confession. I'm talking by the spiritual nation of the people of God, the Israel of God. I don't mean some giant international monstrosity of an organization. Local churches are organizations, they have hierarchy and and a certain order. In Christ's Church the only hierarch is Christ, and the only order is His gospel, and the law written on the hearts of the saints.

>So you were talking about the literal first century as the starting point of these church unions?

Yep. Representatives from the churches the apostles and their disciples founded started meeting together in council to sort things out beginning in Acts 15.

>>545417

>I think you're misunderstanding me, so I want to clarify […]

Yeah, you're right there. The only difference between you and I on this is that I don't wish to misuse the word church. Ephesians 4:4-5.

When we say "the church," it's similar to like when we're talking about "the believer" in the abstract. Not that there's only one of them. But there is only one truth.

>Yep. Representatives from the churches the apostles and their disciples founded started meeting together in council to sort things out beginning in Acts 15.

Ah, but what were you referring to Persia being separate? Were you implying there an equivalent to Rome in Ctesiphon or something? I'm genuinely curious about that.

As far as arranging councils, I don't believe those extended beyond the Apostles' tenure. Neither the signs that followed them. You don't hold to some sort of successionism, right?

>>545420

>The only difference between you and I on this is that I don't wish to misuse the word church.

I don't think I misuse a word by using it in the same way as Christ

>Ah, but what were you referring to Persia being separate?

These meetings stopped at the national level.

>Were you implying there an equivalent to Rome in Ctesiphon or something?

I don't know what you mean by this. You mean a papacy? No, there wasn't a papacy in Ctesiphon, and there wasn't one in Rome either for that matter.

>You don't hold to some sort of successionism, right?

You mean the "apostolic succession" of the Romanists? Of course not.

>>545434

>These meetings stopped at the national level.

Well, the Roman Empire was far from one nation. And I don't think the Apostolic authority was supposed to be limited by the Persian borders either.

>I don't know what you mean by this.

Only whatever you meant by it, since you had mentioned Rome and Persia as two centers. For instance, maybe that there would need to be a council of churches existing for each sovereign capital city or something like that. I wasn't sure what exactly you had in mind to mention it, especially since you aren't talking about manichaeans either.

>You mean the "apostolic succession" of the Romanists? Of course not.

Alright, so then should churches which are of equal standing be entangling themselves in each others' affairs? I am of the strong belief that such activity is ultimately harmful. Trying to rebuke one another and speaking the truth in love is great, but for one to be violating the order of a church of which one is not part I solemnly regard as highly subversive of God's purpose, and it always leads to corruption trickling down in every case. The true Lord of the church is always present.

>>545438

>And I don't think the Apostolic authority was supposed to be limited by the Persian borders either

Neither do I.

>Only whatever you meant by it, since you had mentioned Rome and Persia as two centers

I mentioned the Roman Empire and Persia, which were two large and powerful states.

>Alright, so then should churches which are of equal standing be entangling themselves in each others' affairs?

No. But they shouldn't be alien to one another. For example, if one church excommunicates someone, and that person tries to get around it by going to some other church, that other church should honor that excommunication.

Matthew 10:2-4

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Notice that Simon, who is called Peter (literally: Rock), is referred to as "the first," despite him not actually being the first Apostle to get up and follow Jesus. We know from John 1:40 that there were at least two other Apostles who entered into Jesus' service before Peter, one of whom was his brother Andrew, but the other was not named. Therefore, since Peter was not first in order (even when listed alongside Andrew, due to the unnamed disciple who left John the Baptist's service), we must assume that Peter is first in station. This is strengthened by the fact that Peter is always listed before the other Apostles and that Judas Iscariot is always listed last and is verifiable the lowest in station.

Furthermore, Peter (as well as James and John) held privileged positions among the twelve, being a part of Jesus' inner court – invited to the Transfiguration and being set apart at Gethsemane in the Garden during the Agony of Our Lord.

Matthew 16:18-19

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peter is the masculine form of "rock" (which is a feminine word) in Greek, and Cephas is "rock" in Aramaic. Peter is the rock on which Jesus built His Church. He also gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. While he gave all of the Apostles the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, Peter was the first to receive this authority, and the other Apostles were never given the Keys.

John 21:15

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

Jesus commissioned Peter to "feed My lambs" three times in front of the other Apostles. He gave no one else this commission.

Acts 2

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

When the Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost, it was Peter who delivered the first address to the infant Church, and it gained 3,000 initiates after his homily.

Acts 15:7

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

There was disputing, Peter made a declaration, and the disputing ceased. Peter had the final word. Afterwards, Barnabas, Paul, and James affirm his decision.

>>545443

>and that person tries to get around it by going to some other church, that other church should honor that excommunication.

Yeah, as long as it's for the right reason, that is entirely appropriate.

And vice versa, I wouldn't consider some churches to be performing their duty to excommunicate fornicators, for example. I think, somewhere along the line, the "high councils" of these denominations must have decided that just wasn't expedient. And it's why I'm glad we aren't bound to those decisions, but are still able to consider them.

>>545563

>Notice that Simon, who is called Peter (literally: Rock), is referred to as "the first," despite him not actually being the first Apostle to get up and follow Jesus

You might notice he's the first one on the list

>Peter is the rock on which Jesus built His Church

So why does He say "upon this rock" instead of "you the rock"? Why do the pronouns shift? Did He start speaking to someone else? It is "upon this rock" because it is referring to Peter's confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". Now, it is important to keep in mind, in lists like the the one you posted, Peter is always named first. Whenever Jesus asks something of all twelve, it is Peter who answers for them. Peter was like the spokesman of the disciples, their representative, who came to be regarded as the twelve in his person. When Christ says "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter", He does not give Peter this name, He already did (John 1:42), what He did now was explain it. He asks the apostles who the people said He was, and Peter tells Him. Then He asks, "But whom say ye that I am", to which Peter responds "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God". So when He says "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church", He explains Peter's name, as meaning that he the first rock built on the Rock that he has confessed, as being the twelve he is the first of many living stones.

>While he gave all of the Apostles the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 18:18, Peter was the first to receive this authority

They all receive the keys at the same time. You might notice it is future tense in 16:19.

>and the other Apostles were never given the Keys

What do keys do? Can they bind and loose things? The power to bind and loose is inseparable from the keys, it is the power to bind or loose the consciences of men. It is given in Matthew 18 and John 20:21-23

>Jesus commissioned Peter to "feed My lambs" three times in front of the other Apostles. He gave no one else this commission.

No one other than Peter also gave a thrice denial of Him. He is simply reinstating Peter.

>When the Spirit descended on the Apostles at Pentecost, it was Peter who delivered the first address to the infant Church, and it gained 3,000 initiates after his homily

Completely irrelevant to the concept of the papacy. If anything, it reinforces the fact that Peter is the first rock built on Christ.

>There was disputing, Peter made a declaration, and the disputing ceased. Peter had the final word

That's funny, because the text says that Paul and Barnabas spoke after this

>Afterwards, Barnabas, Paul, and James affirm his decision.

There is no mention of Barnabas or Paul "affirming Peter's decision". And James says "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood". As if this wasn't enough proof James, not Peter, was presiding, the letter they send to the churches says "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality". It was James who made the decision, not Peter.

>>545653

I hate to join in any kind of "disciple rat race" to figure out who was pre-eminent among them, but since they already started it must be mentioned that although James and John were supposedly privileged, being the other two that witnessed the transfiguration, and also John being "the disciple whom Jesus loved," whom Peter had to beckon in John 13:24, yet Andrew was listed before James and John in this supposed definitive list. That overturns their logic here.

>That's funny, because the text says that Paul and Barnabas spoke after this

Isn't it funny how they do this? And forget about the Galatians 2:11 incident? We need to understand the unity of all is built upon the rock Christ himself.

Ephesians 2:19-20

<Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

<And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

read up on it, as much as you like. But remember that there are extremely intelligent people on both sides who have spent their life researching it and believes they are right. will you figure "it" out in your spare time? I recommend instead, looking at the signs of the time, the miracles and the fruits and an earnest desire for the truth, no matter where it might lead you. 90% of Christians are from Catholics ( might not be Catholic today but were formerly Catholics), there are three times more people protesting the Catholic Church than there are people in the Orthodox churches. The Orthodox churches are 12% of Christians. The Orthodox churches, since this schism, have evangelized Alaska and Japan. the Orthodox Churches allow divorce. the Catholic Church has many saints and many miracles, a lot of which are extremely documented. Like for instance St. Padre Pio and the Fatima miracle, while Orthodox Saints and miracles are very sketchy. Even the ones that happen every year to this present day.

If you start researching history you will realize that the Russians are a lot like the Arabs and their history is all skewed and cannot be trusted. One Muslim told me that Mohammed made war to make peace. I have encountered similar things on this board, when talking to Orthodox posters. You hear from them a lot about the fourth Crusade and Constantinople, you never hear about how they sold Catholics to Muslims as slaves and butchered many thousands a few years before or how they worked in secret with the Sultan to trap crusaders going through their lands to go fight in the holy lands

>>545898

>the fruits

You mean like a leadership that refuses to cast out child abuser, but instead decides to downplay it and deny it, pretend it never happened and keep them covered? How can you possibly expect anyone to defend that.

>muh miracles

Alright, let's assume they're all real. The Bible tells us satan will do lying signs and wonders, to deceive. Meanwhile, Jesus says to believe in his work and his word, and not to require a sign or put your faith in all signs and wonders. His word being true is most important. So there you go. The existence of God's word eternal is the most impressive fact of this world, so why not read it for once (and live) instead of being deceived by the devil and led every which way by all new signs and wonders. If you believe Scripture, some of those are meant by Satan to deceive.

Otherwise, I guess the latest magic prophet and his teachings is where you'll be at.

>>545910

Are you brazilian?

>>545493

>reading the sodomite bible

haha nice one

>>545898

>fruits

>protestants

>we split the church into a million more pieces than the Orthodox Church members

lol wut

Are you seriously trying to present the Reformation as a good fruit?

>>544431

/thread

Did Peter ever overule the other apostles after being declared the rock?

>>553295

>Receives private vision that overruled the old testament teaching about unclean foods

>No other apostle argued against him

>>545314

great pasta, thanks for posting

fun fact: Peter didn't even go to Rome.

>>544431

case closed

>>553858

…and? Our Lord Jesus Christ never went that far when He was in the flesh.

>>553383

is this supposed to be bad for Catholicism, when most of the higher-ups in Orthodoxy are former KGB agents?