Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Did we all miss the part where I quoted Jesus saying not to call anyone "father" or "teacher" or "leader/Pastor"?
...one of the reasons the protestants gave up the title of "father" for bishop and cardinals and "leaders" in the Church.
I'd love for someone to excu... I mean, explain or re-explain that.
Again I have no personal desire to defend the Catholic Church, but just to provide you with one explanation on an apologetics page: Call No Man "Father"? | Catholic Answers
Again I have no personal desire to defend the Catholic Church, but just to provide you with one explanation on an apologetics page: Call No Man "Father"? | Catholic Answers
Anytime man want's to disobey God he will reason it away so he can justify his sin.
Oh so Jesus was saying, "you are Peter, and on this Jesus I will build my church."
The Catholic version is literal, and therefore fundamentalists should embrace it.
I'm actually playing a bit, because I'm no longer a Catholic - but it irks me when people say that there's no reason for Catholics to believe in Peter as the first pope or leader, because there IS. However you might dispute the interpretation of that passage, as you have.
RESPONSE:
Matthew copied this passage pretty much verbatim from Mark. It's also in Luke. But neither say anything about Jesus founding a church. And he didn't. Read Acts of the Apostles. Jesus maintained he'd return during his followers' lifetime. No time for a new Church. No need for apostolic succession either.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
RESPONSE:
Matthew copied this passage pretty much verbatim from Mark. It's also in Luke. But neither say anything about Jesus founding a church. And he didn't. Read Acts of the Apostles. Jesus maintained he'd return during his followers' lifetime. No time for a new Church. No need for apostolic succession either.
This is just so weird ...... I keep quoting the exact passage where Jesus explicitly said he founded a church, and yet you and Dennis simply ignore it.
This is just so weird ...... I keep quoting the exact passage where Jesus explicitly said he founded a church, and yet you and Dennis simply ignore it.
The only thing I have seen you post was where Jesus said "I will (future tense) build my church". Never have you given one where Jesus founded that church. Nor where He set Peter in charge of that church once founded.
But if your claiming that this is when Jesus founded His church (when He said He would) then is this also when you believe Jesus make Peter the head of that church?
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Of course. I believe the passage is fairly simple and obvious. Jesus wasn't talking to himself, he was talking to Peter. And then later in the passage ending John, Jesus reaffirmed that Peter was to "take care of my sheep".
Well, believe what you want, but it seems purposely obtuse to me when you claim that Catholics have no reason to believe Jesus founded a church, when anyone can see that he did. I mean, you might do some mental gymnastics to try to make it go away, but the Catholics are the ones taking the literal meaning in this case.
Of course. I believe the passage is fairly simple and obvious. Jesus wasn't talking to himself, he was talking to Peter. And then later in the passage ending John, Jesus reaffirmed that Peter was to "take care of my sheep".
Well, believe what you want, but it seems purposely obtuse to me when you claim that Catholics have no reason to believe Jesus founded a church, when anyone can see that he did. I mean, you might do some mental gymnastics to try to make it go away, but the Catholics are the ones taking the literal meaning in this case.
I never said Jesus did not found a church. I was trying to get you to tell me exactly when you believe He founded it. Sorry that is so offensive to you. I will not ask you about your faith anymore.
Okay, Christianity is divided up among a whole bunch of groups and sects, and for some reason this evening I came to wonder why don't the other divisions of Christianity have Popes too? Why can it only be the Catholics who have a Pope? Have they copyrighted the word "Pope?" Somehow I doubt it, but still they are the only ones with a Pope.
If they do have the copyright on the word "Pope" how come the other divisions of Christianity don't have a similar head honcho with an equally grand title? I mean the Presbyterians could call theirs The Prez! And the Southern Baptists might call theirs The Big Bap. Methodists could call their head guy The Method....
....Well, maybe not... that has certain connotations, as does The Big Meth... but you get the idea, and I still think a Pope for each of them might get them better standing in the whole big puddle of Christianity...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
