The Passion of the Christ

I'm too tired to explain Church history to you theja...so here are some legitimate sources for you to read and digest.

Read about the real John Huss here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07584b.htm

Then read about his influence and source of his heresy:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15722a.htm

Then read up on Western Schism:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm

And the Council of Constance:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm

Then read about the legal Pope during his time:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001a.htm

And also on the Antipope at that time:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08434a.htm

To glorify John Huss and the other Deformers for their heresies is looking away from the source of Scriptures and Church History.

You may not know Lorraine Boettner, but many of his works are carried on by modern so called Protestant "theologians".
Boettner's influence on Jack Chick and Co. are so evident. And it does not stop there.
Numerous Protestant authors have read Lorraine Boettner's works on the Church, that the same points tend to be presented in the same way, even in the same words. Professional anti-Catholics today do not even have to mention the words "Catholic" or "Rome", but if you're a student of Christian literature and history,
you'll soon discover what they are really trying to get at.

And the fact remains...
I have yet to read one book from a Protestant author which is honest and infabricated.
Of course there are some really honest Protestant authors out there, but they all point to 2 issues that are against the teachings of the Orthodox and Catholic churches.
The doctrines of Sola Scripture and Sola Fide are totally not found in the Scriptures.
In short, faith in the Bible alone, is unblibical.

Show me where Sola Scriptura is found in the Bible, theja.
You have time and again ignored my questions.
So who is the liar here?

When will you admit the wrongs of these heretics and their cultic teachings?

"Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals"
(Don't let the url fool you)
http://www.pope-john-paul.net/

And read the truth about "False Decretals"
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm


And yes, you have once tried to malign the Church by pasting an article from Chick's website entitled:
Is the Pope The Vicar of Christ?

And for those of you who don't believe what a a-hole Jack Chick really is
(Theja's "reliable" source), i suggest you take a look at his website yourself:

Didn't the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/rc...M=Catholicpage

Can Catholics and Protestants Walk Together?
A Former Catholic says NO!
http://www.chick.com/bc/1995/catholicprotestant.asp

And we all know never to trust a former Catholic who speaks on behalf of the Church!
Would you believe a former Protestant if he had something negative to say about the R(D)eformatists?
I don't think so!

And this is the most hypocritical topic ever!
http://www.chick.com/information/rel...holicism/#hate

Jack Chick has angered so many out there,
that one person decided to create a website just for him:

Not The Biography of Jack Chick
http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/chickbio.html

"

[Edited by _DigitaLVampirE_ on 25th February 2004 at 23:26]

[theja]

The content of the NT was completed by the first century. The early Church did not feel the need of compiling together at first; but in time, as spurious letters begin to circulate some Church leaders felt the need to separate them from the authentic ones. Athanasius compiled the completed list (27 books). Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce 50 Bibles and the 27 books were in it, no more no less.

All those who are in Christ comprises the Church of Christ. So the body of Christ is universal (catholic). The standard for Christianity is enshrined in the Bible. Any deviation from the revealed teachings of the Bible is heretical and unnecessary, or simply cultural. That is Sola Scriptura to me.

[theja]

Emperor Henry III of Germany appointed Clement II as Pope. His motive: "Because no Roman clergymen could be found who was free of the pollution of Simony and Fornication."

I do recognize the Pope as the leader of the RCC. But it is unbiblical and historically proven abusive. Of course some good Popes did exist.

Also the industry of Popes has been the preserve of Europeans, mostly Italians. By the time of the Council of Nicea (AD 325), there absolutely was no mention of Pope. It was a late idea retro-claimed to give it a semblance of legitimacy.

( When Calixtus (218-223) attempted to elevate himself above others by citing Matthew 16:18, Tertullian called him a USURPER).

Not my Pope. I can agree with them in so far as they teach biblically and live exemplary.

But I prefer to meditate on God's Word and give it priority over all else (Psalm 1).

Manuscripts of the Bible:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm

Read about Constantine the Great here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

Read about Eusebius of Cæsarea here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm

Again, Emperor Henry III of Germany's reason to appoint Clement II as pope was because of the Antipope:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04017a.htm

Read about The First Council of Nicaea here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Read about Pope St. Sylvester I here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14370a.htm

Read about Pope Callistus I here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03183d.htm

For further reading about the Bishop(s) of Rome:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Read about Tertullian here and his Montanist heresies:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

Also, read about Praxeas:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12344a.htm

Theja, if you're going to study from Protestant "theologians" who obviously have to cover up their behinds for their heresies, do you really think you'll learn anything truthful about Church history?
If you wish to learn the art of Origami for example,
do you go to a Karate dojo to study about Origami?

It's no surprise that Protestant "theologians" have nowadays turned to the Gnostic writings in desperate attempts to defend their religion. It's going downhill and losing credibility rapidly.
33,000 Protestant denominations and growing every year...each claiming to be the "true" church of Christ.
What does that tell you?
Christ already warned, "A House divided will fall", and that's exactly what is happening in Protestanism.

And you still have not provided evidence for Sola Scriptura.
How long are you going to deny the Truth?
If you're not lying to others, you're lying to yourself.

I won't be surprised if she comes back with a rebuttal and more propaganda against the RCC. That's how people like her are - they've been programmed to hate Catholics and will do anything to malign the name of the Church. Frankly, i've met better and well informed Protestants who are sincere in their faith for Christ and have no hatred whatsoever towards Catholics, Moslems, etc, etc.

Having discussions and conversations on religion is normal, but going beyond that by using the Book of Revelations for example, to potray the Church as devil worshippers is way beyond psychiatric help. A Christian condemning another Christian. It's no wonder people such as the Muslims laugh at Christianity. And i've met better Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's who can put any Christian to shame.

[theja]

Dv has elevated himself to the point where as if all his points were correct and he's the one who has a corner in history.

I am fully aware that you're not interested in learning the truth, but parading your pride of knowledge. Instead of offering sites and lame excuses for heathen popes, I would appreciate if you could make a list of all the popes the RCC rejects. Maybe you will find hundreds of years gaps when those popes were dysfunctional. Their history is not very nice. Pity!

I noticed your condescension and presumption to speak for the Holy Spirit in trying to ridicule when I shared of finding God's will through the Holy Spirit. Oh, what pride, presuming to speak for the Holy Spirit! And lies too, as pointed out above with evidence. Also you're now trying to interpret the Revelation and put it in my mouth -- you're getting ahead of me -- are you so smart that you have to say things for others? May be a pope in the making. For a change an Indian pope will put to rest the notion of European pope industry reserved for whites alone.

Calixtus was wrong, and Popery is unbiblical.

On the contrary, it is you who elevates yourself to be "politically correct" in terms of history and biblical interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. You choose bad history over legitimate sources and claim you are guided by the "holy spirit".

You have the entire site to read up and study about the Church history and the Popes. Don't be lazy and depend on short stories by some Protestant "theologian" who made some article on some website and claims that is Church history.

I also find it funny that congregationalists such as yourself feel the need to "convert" Catholics and Orthodox Christians to accept your Gnostic teachings and interpretations of the Bible. No educated Catholic or Orthodox in the right mind would ever think of doing that.

Perhaps you did not believe me when i said even well informed Protestant scholars acknowledge the See of Peter. How about W.F.Albright? Ever heard of him? He's one of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century.
In his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority and Father Roland DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority."

This is a non-Catholic, theja. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims. Albright is very candid in saying, "Look, it's only because we Protestants have over-reacted to the Catholic Church that we are not frank and sincere in admitting the fact that Peter is the Rock. He is the foundation stone upon which Jesus is going to build the Church."

And to bring the issue of race to the papal seat is the most racist remark i've ever heard from you. What makes you think Whites are the only candidates to the papal seat? Some "church history" student you are. If you studied REAL history, you will learn that Pope St Gelasius I was of African origins. Even Pope John Paul II himself is Polish-Slavic -- a non-Italian. There have also been discussions on who will be chosen to be the next pope. Amongst the candidates is Cardinal Francis Arinze, a Vatican official from Nigeria -- well-established in intramural politics and close to the pope. He is clever, capable and possessed of a fine sense of humor.

That he is also black excites the notion that the church might strengthen its appeal in the Third World by choosing the first black pope since Gelasius I, who was pope between 492 and 496. Of course, the final word will come from the Pope himself, so we just have to wait and see.

I suggest you read what you type next time. Read, then read again, and then stop typing and delete your posts. Other people are also reading this thread. Imagine the shame, theja. Just imagine...

[lolly]

I'm baptised a catholic, and I don't tell people usually because I find alot of protestants become abusive. My first encounter with people who hated catholics and catholicism was at Uni.

One thing I learnt at school was to educate myself about other religious beliefs. I was taught to learn about other beliefs to understand and accept that everyone makes different choices.

I don't understand why people like Theja seem intent to abuse and be nasty about the church.

I am the first person who will stand up and say that I disagree with alot of the teachings of the church, that the church has been corrupt in its dealings with other religions, but the one thing it has never done, is taught us how to hate people from other religions or belittle them about their beliefs.

I agree with Theja that many Popes were corrupt, however, more Popes are not. I think the Church has too much money, and should give more of it away, but it also does many good things with the money it gives away. It's life, there is always a fight between good and evil, and we need to accept the differences do the best with what we have and make the world a better place, since we all want the same thing.

That said, I am going to see the movie, because I think it's an important movie for me to see.

[theja]

Peter is the rock! Gee, I just realized that. Sure Peter in Greek is 'petros' (masculine), a pebble or a piece of rock. But even FNB can tell you the Church was not built on that pebble.

The Church was built on the Petra (feminine, huge rock, boulder), the revelation Peter just had that "Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God". Paul confirmed it in 1 Cor. 3:11.

Jesus gave Peter the privilege of preaching on Pentecost the Gospel after receiving the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8; 2:38-39, etc).

Beyond that Peter had no authority to forbid others to preach the Gospel as the bogus Pope did and murdered many Christians based on a wrong theology. Proof? When persecution came, all the apostles remained in Jerusalem, while the believers scattered throughout Judea and Samaria and preached the Gospel (Acts 8:1-4).

Acts 8:1-4 reminds me of the Lollards who faithfully, enduring great hardships, went about the country preaching the Gospel; while the supposed succesor of Peter, seating on the supposed chair of Peter, sent his minions to persecute and murder them.

The privilege in Matthew 16:16-21 was extended to Peter alone (meaning there is no such thing as successor to his office), and that no supposed official position was established. The apostles didn't know it, including Peter. Even the first council in Jerusalem never hinted it (Acts 15). Note verse 28 where the Holy Spirit is given prominence: "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us".

Biblically the Church was to be nurtured along Ephesians 4:11-15 --- in which case, Peter was an apostle, preached as an evangelist on Pentecost, and exercised the gift of Pastor (which in Greek is to "feed" the flock), John 21:15-19; 1 Peter 5:1-5.

Oh, thanks for reminding me of the keys given to Peter. They were to be exercised in the context of Church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20). Jesus repeated the same to "ALL" the disciples in John 20:21-23.

When Peter went off track, Jesus rebuked him harshly in Matthew 16:23. In similar style, if Peter were given a chance to come back to earth and appear on CNN, he might ask the RCC to burn the supposed chair and throw it under the sea.

[Edited by theja on 27th February 2004 at 19:27]

[theja]

Concerning the gift of 'evangelist' that Peter exercised on the day of Pentecost and converted 3000 souls (Acts 2:38-41), historically God endowed His servants with the same power (Holy Spirit, Acts 1:8) --- John Wesley, John Whitefield (their revivals saved England from a similar French Revolution bloodbath), D.L. Moody, Billy Graham, Luis Palau (from Argentina), etc.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by theja
Peter is the rock! Gee, I just realized that. Sure Peter in Greek is 'petros' (masculine), a pebble or a piece of rock. The Church was built on the Petra (feminine, huge rock, boulder), the revelation Peter just had that "Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God".

The distinction between petros and petra is a distinction of Attic Greek; it does not exist in Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament. If Matthew had wanted to draw a distinction between Peter and the rock, he would have used lithos.

Moreover, you are failing to deal with the issue of the underlying Aramaic. Aramaic has one word for rock, that being Kepha, and we know from John 1:42 that that is the word Jesus actually used. The only reason Matthew used 2 different words was because it was the only way he could preserve the pun without calling Peter by a femenine name.

It is very clear from the context that Peter is the rock as well. The entire thrust of the passage is directed at Peter.

And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona,

because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

"I also say to you that you are Peter,

and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven,

and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

What makes more sense in this context, "And on this rock [you] I will build My Church," or "And on this rock [not you] I will build my Church"?

Paul confirmed it in 1 Cor. 3:11.

You are mixing metaphors terribly. In the metaphor of Matt 16, Jesus is the builder, and the thing being built is the Church. In the metaphor of 1 Cor 3, the thing being built is a Christian life, the builders are the apostles, and Christ is the foundation. The two chapters are talking about completely different things.

Beyond that Peter had no authority to forbid others to preach the Gospel

But he did have authority to condemn false teachers who misinterpreted Scripture and were leading sheep away from the fold (2 Peter 3:16).

The privilege in Matthew 16:16-21 was extended to Peter alone (meaning there is no such thing as successor to his office), and that no supposed official position was established.

How do you know this? The allusion to Isaiah 22 implies that Jesus intended to establish an office which would have successors.

The apostles didn't know it, including Peter. Even the first council in Jerusalem never hinted it (Acts 15).

Right, that's why James, the leader of the circumcision party, conceded his position immediatel after hearing Peter speak.

Note verse 28 where the Holy Spirit is given prominence: "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us".

Why wouldn't the Holy Spirit be given preeminence? The Holy Spirit has been given preeminence at every Council the Catholic Church has ever called, from Jerusalem to Vatican II.

Oh, thanks for reminding me of the keys given to Peter. They were to be exercised in the context of Church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20). Jesus repeated the same to "ALL" the disciples in John 20:21-23.

St. Cyprian handled this objection fairly well.
"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say 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 also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed my sheep" (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?"

When Peter went off track, Jesus rebuked him harshly in Matthew 16:23.

So did St. Paul. St. Catherine of Sienna also rebuked the Pope of her day. What's your point?

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

David Hill, a Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield:

"It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church ... Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely." (1)

Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman:

"The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (2)

Protestant scholar D.A. Carson:

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean "stone" and "rock" respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses ("you are kepha" and "on this kepha"), since the word was used both for a name and for a "rock." The Pe****ta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ("stone" of almost any size)." (3)

Protestant scholar W.F. Albright:

"This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.)." (4)

1. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 261.

2. Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108.

3. D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

4. W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195.

What did you say again?

You can hate Catholics, twist facts and deny Peter's role in the Church and brand me a liar but at the end of the day, God knows my heart better than you do.

[theja]

In an attempt to justify Peter being the rock one cannot dismiss the written document that clearly dintinguishes petros and petra. The fact that it was written that way itself bears testimony to the eyewitness (Matthew) who wanted it expressed that way exactly.

I find it very spurious to cite James allowing Peter to speak in the council to mean giving in to his pre-eminent position. Can one also say that Paul's rebuke of Peter disqualifies the same position?

[theja]

As a matter of organization and administration, I have no problem in acknowledging the Pope as the head of the RCC. But there is absolutely no precedence in Scripture for a position for Pope and no criteria how such a one is elected. 'Claiming' is one thing, being scriptural is another matter.

Even for the sake of argument, history does not actually support such a position, because it was claimed, retroacted, and imposed upon christendom.

Again, I find it very humorous that the Council of Constance could depose 3 popes, elect another one, and sent a wonderful servant of Christ to his death. Also they condemned John Wycliff and disinterred his decomposed bones. What a joke.

A group of murderers condemning someone who knows scriptures more than all of them combined.