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.
So you are saying that Jesus built His church on Satan? I don't think so. He knew that Peter was not perfect and a singer like we are, but Peter was also the person that expressed that Jesus was the Son of God. That is why, among other reasons I'm sure, Peter was put in charge.
No, I am saying that he did not build his church on Peter any more than Peter was Satan, and yes Peter did express that solid foundation for Jesus to build his church on and that's why I think that Jesus is still in charge.
Nope, not according to those who we know had God's spirit:
ASV 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
ASV Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope.
ASV 1 Corinthians 10:11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.
NIV 2 Peter 1:19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
ASV Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, And light unto my path.
You test the leading of any spirit against the Bible, not itself.
Do you see any of these as a statement of authority, or are they presented as tools to be used BY the Spirit that was promised as guide? You test the leading of the Spirit by the qualities OF the Spirit as outlined in Galations 5 and 1 Cor 13.
No, I am saying that he did not build his church on Peter any more than Peter was Satan, and yes Peter did express that solid foundation for Jesus to build his church on and that's why I think that Jesus is still in charge.
Ok yes Jesus is still in charge. The Pope is not higher than Jesus. He is Jesus' helper per se. The Pope looks for guidance from Jesus. He still goes to confession and prays and does other things like any other Christian. As Successor to Peter, the Pope is head of the Church on Earth but is under Jesus Christ who is Supreme Ruler of the Church of the entire universe. The Pope is just a tool for Jesus and does what Jesus tells him to do.
Jesus build his Church on Peter why? Because Peter was not perfect, Christ chose him to lead the Church.
No, I am saying that he did not build his church on Peter any more than Peter was Satan, and yes Peter did express that solid foundation for Jesus to build his church on and that's why I think that Jesus is still in charge.
I agree. I don't think that people can separate themselves from other Christians and still consider themselves Christians.
But (without getting into great levels of detail here), a Christian is not a Christian is not a Christian is not a Christian is not a Christian is not a Christian is not a Christian. In other words, there are a multitude of systems-of-thought they basically evolve around the character of Jesus Christ and yet their narratives, their understandings of the stories that they say were passed down, their criterias for what constitutes good belief versus less-than-good or even bad belief, their emphases on what is important and what isn't, their interpretations of Biblical passages, even what content constitutes the very book(s) that they deem to be "The Bible" are rather different from one another. That is, some are complementary to one another, some are divergent on less-critical issues, some of very divergent and even radically divergent, and so on. A Southern Baptist and a Mormon and a Jehovah's Winess and an Amish/Mennonite and a liberal Christian.(e.g., the United Church of Christ or UCC ... in the USA), a New Ager/mysticist-type who simply says that "Jesus is Love" as the whole thrust of their message), a Charismatic, a Roman Catholic (and then a pre-Vatican II vs. post-Vatican II Roman Catholic) are not quite harmonious with one another and some can be rather different creatures from the others (even not viewing the others are "real Christians"):
The Jehovah's Witnesses versus the Mormons versus the Roman Cathoics (or at least the conservative or fundamental-type Catholics) feel they are the only ones that can call themselves "true Christians" and hence the only ones that will be saved (unless I am somewhat misinformed on their views).
There are those denominations that reject the concept of the Trinity (thinking that God and Jesus were distinct and separate entities) and others that the Trinity (God in three persons) is absolutely essential to valid belief.
There are those that believe that "good works" is essential to salvation and others that say that "faith alone" is all that merits salvation. And then they do or may even have somewhat different concepts of what constitutes "good works".
There are those schools-of-thought, even within the same denominations or movements within greater Christendom such as conservative Protestant Christianity, who say that God is all-knowing (omnisicient) and then others who embrace what has been called "open theism" or "process theology" which says essentially that God is not really all-knowing. This schism caused famed conservative Christian apologist Norman Geisler to leave the Evangelical Society in protest (when they accepted the presence of open theists amongst their ranks ... if I remember this all correctly).
There are those that believe in eternal suffering of non-believers and then those who believe that either everyone will be saved or that there will be temporal suffering and then extinction or temporal suffering and then salvation.
There are those who think that divine revelations have ended with the ending of the Bible story and then those (e.g., Mormons, among others) who think that dviine revelations have continued even after Biblical times and are still forthcoming (if I understand and have stated it correctly).
There are those that have removed books and passages from the Bible that other Christians accept as valid and necessary parts of the canon and then have added other books and passages that others don't view as valid or canonical. And vice versa. And some have written whole "Bibles" of their own.
There are those that believe that being homosexual or bisexual is acceptable in the eyes of God and others who are vehemently opposed.
There are those that think that abortion or even any type of birth control are basically up to the woman and others who are vehemently opposed.
There are those who feel that women should, at best, play a subordinate role in church life and Christian life and others who feel quite different.
The Catholics feel that all authority comes through the church hierachy with the Vatican (The Pope) as the head and others (non-Catholics) who do not accept this view.
... and so on and so on with so many other examples and variations as to make one dizzy. The point is: You said that "I don't think that people can separate themselves from other Christians and still consider themselves Christians." Do you really, really think that all these very divergent views can be ironed over and merged into one unified whole called "Christianity"? That's like expecting everyone on planet Earth to share the exact same political, social, cultural, and economic views and outlooks at all times (now and for all time to come) or to have the same tastes in music or food or entertainment or aesthetics. It is wholly unrealistic.
As well, there are splits and schisms within Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the other major and less-than-major religions of the world. And even among non-believers of any type, you have strong atheism versus weak atheism versus agnosticism versus agnostic atheists versus apatheists and so on. And you have atheists/agnostics who are rather conservative politicaly and socially and then those who are moderates and then those who are liberals or radiclibs or even just plain radicals. Even in science, they are often competing schools-of-thought about what is correct or valid science versus what is not.
Harmony of human thought is an illusory hope even outside the realms of religious belief and thought.
Not saying the following here in this Christianity Forum in any type of proselytizing manner but I even wondered the following point myself at times when I was a Christian believer for enough years. That is, that one can reasonably wonder: "Why doesn't God Himself clear up the disagreements, confusions, misunderstandings, et al instead of leaving everyone in the dark to, in essence, guess at what is correct and what isn't (especially when their very salvation depends upon getting the narrative or story lline correct)?" In other words, that it may not be enough for you to simply say that you "believe" but rather that one must "believe rightly" (i.e., correctly ... getting the story lines and God-originated expectations of us correct). I'm not here to preach one way or the other (that isn't my intent and I know it isn't allowed anyway in a religion-specific sub-forum) and I don't know the answer anyway. This is something for you who deem yourselves as Christians to work out amongst yourselves.
Do you see any of these as a statement of authority, or are they presented as tools to be used BY the Spirit that was promised as guide? You test the leading of the Spirit by the qualities OF the Spirit as outlined in Galations 5 and 1 Cor 13.
[*]The Jehovah's Witnesses versus the Mormons versus the Roman Catholics (or at least the conservative or fundamental-type Catholics) feel they are the only ones that can call themselves "true Christians" and hence the only ones that will be saved (unless I am somewhat misinformed on their views).
One minor correction in an otherwise very good post: Mormons do not believe that there are the only "true Christians" and the only ones that can be saved. As a matter of fact, we probably believe in the biggest heaven and the smallest hell of any Christian denomination in the world.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,277,684 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
One minor correction in an otherwise very good post: Mormons do not believe that there are the only "true Christians" and the only ones that can be saved. As a matter of fact, we probably believe in the biggest heaven and the smallest hell of any Christian denomination in the world.
LDS Mormons Christians do maintain..... they are the only TRUE CHURCH. Because of their claim, only they have a restored Priesthood. That is what I learned in discussions.
As for sizes of a hell? We should leave all details to God and his timings. To debate we as mere man know? Is merely traditions of man. Our call is to overcome Satan and the sin in the world. God we leave all details to of the afterlife to come.
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.
