Woe to those through whom come stumbling blocks

metis said:

If I can butt in a bit.

That teaching was evident when Ignatius told Clement in a letter dated in the very early 2nd century that the Bishop of Rome had a special designation as Rome was the place for the martrydom of both Paul and Peter.

Essentially the church tried to keep the general format that Jesus and the apostles had going with one spiritual head. However, there was no binding power back then that the Bishop of Rome had outside of his area. However, the title "Pope" was not used until a few centuries later.

The Jesus' statement about guiding the church until the end of time turned out to be false? Also, just a reminder that it was this church that chose the canon that you use.

Anyhow, sorry to butt in as I felt a compulsion to explain a couple of things, so now you can "go back to your regularly scheduled program".

Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments. There are many things to consider. Being non denominational at the moment after many years in a church, I think no church is doing what we would like them to do. If you read chapters 2 &3 in Revelation, the 7 churches, the full number of spiritual churches, all get warnings. This is not speaking to churches as such back two thousand years ago, but to our present state.

If you do what you can to live the Christian life as found outlined in scripture, that is all anyone can ask of each.

2ndpillar said:

In Isaiah 22:15-25, Peter’s doopelganger, Shebna, the “head steward” of the “house of David”, who had the keys of the house, who “when he opens no one could shut”, shamed his “master’s house”, was deposed, and the keys were passed to Eliakim, the doopelganger of the pope, who “in that day” will “fall”, and those “hanging” on to him will be “cut off”. Hanging on to Peter, or the pope, is not a wise decision. As for you understanding what Peter thought is irrelevant. Peter was not chosen because he was a thinker, he was chosen because of his inflated ego, to fulfill the role he was to play. As for the “apostasy that had to come”, per Yeshua in Matthew 26:31, he quoted Zechariah 13:7, and it was with respect to the falling away, which was initiated by Peter (Matthew 26:33).

Click to expand...

Unusual perspective you have. I do not share it. But, then I am doing what I can to serve Christ and God as I see it. If you do what you think is right, both of us shall stand before the seat of judgment. Christ shall hold each responsible. So, we do our best. That is all.

Grandliseur said:

Unusual perspective you have. I do not share it. But, then I am doing what I can to serve Christ and God as I see it. If you do what you think is right, both of us shall stand before the seat of judgment. Christ shall hold each responsible. So, we do our best. That is all.

Click to expand...

The “seat of judgment”, is not about what you have “believed”, as with believing in the false gospel of grace/cross, but on what you have done, such as I was “hungry and you gave me something to eat” (Matthew 25:35). But on the other hand, having the “mark of the beast”, which is being conquered under the sign of the cross, as was the message given to Constantine by his god, the dragon (Revelation 13:4), Sol Invictus, at the battle of Milvian bridge, results in having to drink “the wine of the wrath of God” (Revelation 14:10).

Grandliseur said:

Thank you for your comments. There are many things to consider. Being non denominational at the moment after many years in a church, I think no church is doing what we would like them to do.

Click to expand...

First of all, you're welcome.

Secondly, churches really are of human construct, organized and headed by humans, and humans we well know ain't perfect. Undoubtedly all have missed the mark by varying degrees.

However, none of us is perfect either (I'm close though), so we have to cut them some slack. To me, I think the main thing for both them and us is to head in a moral direction the best we can, and probably most of them and us are trying to do so-- at least most of the time.

With that being said, I do believe it is important to belong and be active in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., largely because there are things we can do to help them and to help others, and sometimes we need help ourselves.

Grandliseur said:

If you read chapters 2 &3 in Revelation, the 7 churches, the full number of spiritual churches, all get warnings. This is not speaking to churches as such back two thousand years ago, but to our present state.

Click to expand...

It was probably more written for the 1st century church that was under intense persecution by the Romans, with Nero being one of them. The symbols and wordings used relate to that time period, not so much ours.

Grandliseur said:

If you do what you can to live the Christian life as found outlined in scripture, that is all anyone can ask of each.

Click to expand...

I'm neither Catholic nor Christian, there's nothing that I personally believe in theologically, but I do admire and mostly adhere to both Jewish and Catholic social teachings. For a brief explanation, maybe check out my faith statement at the bottom of this post.

BTW, I do attend weekly mass at my wife's church even if she can't make it. I feel comfortable being at different churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples, and I do appreciate what most of them are doing.

Take care.

metis said:

Then ya better just throw your Bible away as its canon was chosen by that same element under Constantine's mandate.

What so many here get twisted around is the issue of "interpretation", namely blindly accepting what they've been taught versus realizing that every single religion and every single denomination bases its theology on how they interpret the scriptures.

IOW, with house values it's "location, location, location", but with theological beliefs it's "interpretation, interpretation, interpretation". Unfortunately, so many have not learned that lesson, thus taking a "my way or the highway" approach.

Click to expand...

Be careful to parse "canon {which books are in} chosen by Rome" from "we can see the best possible extant texts and study their exact meaning and interpretation accurately". One leaves Rome completely out of the study of God's Word--or nearly so.

And yes, no Christian or skeptic should blindly believe.

2ndpillar said:

Well, you have made the point. “If Rome put it forth, it is probably wrong”.

Your present, generally accepted canon was first put forth by Athanasius, the Roman Catholic bishop of Alexandria, in the year 367 A.D. Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture

Your “original text” was a product of the “daughter of Babylon”, the Roman church, of whom Constantine instituted that church at his convened Council of Nicaea, and Athanasius was a member of that Council, and was instrumental in the pagan dogma of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

I understand. But simply because Rome agrees with other scholars that, say, II Peter is scripture, doesn't give you proof that it's not. I'm often seeking proof of beliefs from people with strong beliefs.

BilliardsBall said:

I understand. But simply because Rome agrees with other scholars that, say, II Peter is scripture, doesn't give you proof that it's not. I'm often seeking proof of beliefs from people with strong beliefs.

Click to expand...

2 Peter was probably written after his death by someone else, and there are concerns also about 1 Peter. The fact that Paul was not Peter's friend ( Galatians 2:13), kind puts a damper on 2 Peter 3:15.

Authorship of the Petrine epistles - Wikipedia

BilliardsBall said:

Be careful to parse "canon {which books are in} chosen by Rome" from "we can see the best possible extant texts and study their exact meaning and interpretation accurately".

Click to expand...

That is an avoidance of the point I was making-- two different things entirely.

2ndpillar said:

is not about what you have “believed”,

Click to expand...

That is partially true only. Since the false prophets would mislead people as satan mislead A&E, deliberately teaching false dogma, beliefs, leads to judgment as sure as if had killed someone. A big part of satan's sin is that he misleads the entire earth, this is not done without false teaching.

So, while my murder, theft, immorality stands in the front row of judgment, my lies (if they are lies) about false teachings will also get noticed by the Judge.

metis said:

However, none of us is perfect either (I'm close though), so we have to cut them some slack. To me, I think the main thing for both them and us is to head in a moral direction the best we can, and probably most of them and us are trying to do so-- at least most of the time.

Click to expand...

I cannot accept having dictated to me doctrines I cannot abide for the sake of belonging to a specific denomination. If I find myself in a church, by denomination, not by visit, to be sitting during the time in church and have to agree with things I am totally against feel as if I am sinning. If commenting on this, as may be done in some churches, and always be saying things to the congregation that they get sad or angry at, especially the elders, pastors, etc. - would be counterproductive.

metis said:

With that being said, I do believe it is important to belong and be active in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc., largely because there are things we can do to help them and to help others, and sometimes we need help ourselves.

Click to expand...

That is highly desirable, I agree. But, I don't see how things can be both ways.

metis said:

It was probably more written for the 1st century church that was under intense persecution by the Romans, with Nero being one of them. The symbols and wordings used relate to that time period, not so much ours.

Click to expand...

No.
As seen, John was observing these things 'in the Lord's day, during our present times.

metis said:

nor Christian, there's nothing that I personally believe in theologically

Click to expand...

That is too bad. Have you seen the evidence from the Exodus? Quite compelling if you aren't an absolute fervent atheist.

But, then it doesn't matter if I say I hold that Catholic church responsible for much evil! That doesn't insult you if you aren't Catholic
I saw your simple affirmation of faith in 'God'. That does help being able to communicate with you.

Grandliseur said:

As seen, John was observing these things 'in the Lord's day, during our present times.

Click to expand...

Matthew 12:8," For the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath", and this was with respect to Matthew 12:1, "the Sabbath day". That would be the 7th day of the week. As for one day being like a thousand years to God, the millennium is still behind the door. But on the other hand, all 7 churches at the time of the 6th head of the beast (Revelation 17:10) & Revelation 1, were having problems. As for comparing them with "our present times", with the 7 churches of Revelation 1-3, at least they had some good points to note. Now while there may be children of God within present day churches, who are suffering because of that fact, I can think of no good qualities with respect to the churches themselves.

2ndpillar said:

I can think of no good qualities with respect to the churches themselves.

Click to expand...

I also find little to praise in present day churches. But, as has been pointed out, I am very imperfect myself.

Grandliseur said:

I also find little to praise in present day churches. But, as has been pointed out, I am very imperfect myself.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that you first keep the commandments to "enter into life", and then go out and sell your possessions and give to the poor if you want to become "perfect". (Matthew 19:16-22).

Grandliseur said:

I cannot accept having dictated to me doctrines I cannot abide for the sake of belonging to a specific denomination.

Click to expand...

Except in today's western countries at least, no church today can truly dictate doctrines because any of us can freely walk out.

Churches, regardless of the denomination, have a role to teach what they believe is correct, and I believe that it is better to have too much information, even if much of it is false, versus not having enough to select from. When I taught my comparative religions course, I encouraged my students to come with us to go "church hopping", plus I brought spokespeople in to my class that were Jewish and Muslim.

Grandliseur said:

That is too bad. Have you seen the evidence from the Exodus?

Click to expand...

There really isn't any direct evidence at all, which has been covered over and over again in BAR. OTOH, am I saying it didn't happen? No.

Grandliseur said:

But, then it doesn't matter if I say I hold that Catholic church responsible for much evil! That doesn't insult you if you aren't Catholic

Click to expand...

I see the CC as being a mixed bag, so I would be taking your statement and modifying it to read "I hold that Catholic church responsible for much evil and much good".

Grandliseur said:

I saw your simple affirmation of faith in 'God'. That does help being able to communicate with you.

Click to expand...

Thanks, and ditto.

Have a great weekend.

Grandliseur said:

I cannot accept having dictated to me doctrines I cannot abide for the sake of belonging to a specific denomination.

Click to expand...

Except in today's western countries at least, no church today can truly dictate doctrines because any of us can freely walk out.

Churches, regardless of the denomination, have a role to teach what they believe is correct, and I believe that it is better to have too much information, even if much of it is false, versus not having enough to select from. When I taught my comparative religions course, I encouraged my students to come with us to go "church hopping", plus I brought spokespeople in to my class that were Jewish and Muslim.

Grandliseur said:

That is too bad. Have you seen the evidence from the Exodus?

Click to expand...

There really isn't any direct evidence at all, which has been covered over and over again in BAR. OTOH, am I saying it didn't happen? No.

Grandliseur said:

But, then it doesn't matter if I say I hold that Catholic church responsible for much evil! That doesn't insult you if you aren't Catholic

Click to expand...

I see the CC as being a mixed bag, so I would be taking your statement and modifying it to read "I hold that Catholic church responsible for much evil and much good".

Grandliseur said:

I saw your simple affirmation of faith in 'God'. That does help being able to communicate with you.

Click to expand...

Thanks, and ditto.

Have a great weekend.

Grandliseur said:

I cannot accept having dictated to me doctrines

Click to expand...

But isn't that what Jesus and the Twelve did? It says "Jesus taught with authority", and the apostles did much the same. There was no "Just go out and do your own thing" approach that they took.

Plus the Bible itself is a massive collection of doctrines and not some sort of wishy-washy collection of nice thoughts.

metis said:

There was no "Just go out and do your own thing" approach that they took.

Click to expand...

However, going strictly by their teachings is not 'doing your own thing.' It is observing the faith as first introduced, and when serious discrepancies are found, instead of being confrontational in a church saying this and this is not correct, minding my own faith Sola Scriptura seems the only path.

Grandliseur said:

However, going strictly by their teachings is not 'doing your own thing.'

Click to expand...

But that position actually is the reverse of what you said early in terms that "[you] cannot accept having dictated to me doctrines", whereas the NT is full of "doctrines" that are being "dictated". The churches are merely doing what Jesus and the apostles and their appointees did.

Grandliseur said:

minding my own faith Sola Scriptura seems the only path.

Click to expand...

But once the canon was selected by the CC, plus we see changes taking place within the early church even prior to the death of the apostles. The church, regardless as to how you may want to define that term, cannot be static-- it must be dynamic at least to an extent in order to adjust to new situations, which is exactly what Jesus and the apostles did when they were alive.

The scriptures form a base to start working from, by they certainly cannot answer all questions and problems that might come up.


BTW, Jesus said he would build his "church", which you well know means "community", thus if a person is "doing his/her own thing" without being in such a community, they are actually defying what Jesus taught. My recommendation is to try and find a "community" that you more tend to agree with, while realizing that none will likely be 100% satisfactory to you-- but that's OK. Many good things happen within these churches, and even with some of the bad there's maybe things you could do to help correct them.

Grandliseur said:

However, going strictly by their teachings is not 'doing your own thing.' It is observing the faith as first introduced, and when serious discrepancies are found, instead of being confrontational in a church saying this and this is not correct, minding my own faith Sola Scriptura seems the only path.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but your “Sola Scriptura”/NT, is the product of the Roman Catholic church, first tabulated by Athanasius, the Roman Catholic bishop of Alexandria, in the year 367 A.D., on the occasion of the pagan feast of Astarte/Easter, which date was set at Constantine's convened council of Nicaea.

In general, no one is “confrontational in a church”. No one is allowed to speak except the preacher or priest. Now, if you want to read from the Roman “Sola Scripture”, that is allowed in the Catholic church, at prescribed moments, but it must be read word for word, with no comment.

metis said:

But that position actually is the reverse of what you said early in terms that "[you] cannot accept having dictated to me doctrines", whereas the NT is full of "doctrines" that are being "dictated". The churches are merely doing what Jesus and the apostles and their appointees did.

But once the canon was selected by the CC, plus we see changes taking place within the early church even prior to the death of the apostles. The church, regardless as to how you may want to define that term, cannot be static-- it must be dynamic at least to an extent in order to adjust to new situations, which is exactly what Jesus and the apostles did when they were alive.

The scriptures form a base to start working from, by they certainly cannot answer all questions and problems that might come up.


BTW, Jesus said he would build his "church", which you well know means "community", thus if a person is "doing his/her own thing" without being in such a community, they are actually defying what Jesus taught. My recommendation is to try and find a "community" that you more tend to agree with, while realizing that none will likely be 100% satisfactory to you-- but that's OK. Many good things happen within these churches, and even with some of the bad there's maybe things you could do to help correct them.

Click to expand...

There are two major lines of opinion throughout your “communities” with regards to the foundation of that “church”, and both are wrong. The Catholics think Peter is the rock the church is built on, and the Protestants think that “thou are the Christ, the son of the living God”, is the rock. In point of fact, it is “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”, which is the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy (Revelation 19:10), which is the cephas/rock, that the church is built on (Isaiah 28:16).

2ndpillar said:

Sorry, but your “Sola Scriptura”/NT, is the product of the Roman Catholic church, first tabulated by Athanasius, the Roman Catholic bishop of Alexandria, in the year 367 A.D., on the occasion of the pagan feast of Astarte/Easter, which date was set at Constantine's convened council of Nicaea.

Click to expand...

Absolutely false as the church has never ever taken that position, supplementing the scriptures with early and on-going church tradition.

2ndpillar said:

In general, no one is “confrontational in a church”. No one is allowed to speak except the preacher or priest. Now, if you want to read from the Roman “Sola Scripture”, that is allowed in the Catholic church, at prescribed moments, but it must be read word for word, with no comment.

Click to expand...

It's obvious you've never been to a mass, including listening to a "homily" (a sermon) that occurs right after the gospel is read. You actually might enlighten yourself by going some day.

2ndpillar said:

There are two major lines of opinion throughout your “communities” with regards to the foundation of that “church”, and both are wrong. The Catholics think Peter is the rock the church is built on, and the Protestants think that “thou are the Christ, the son of the living God”, is the rock. In point of fact, it is “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven”, which is the Spirit of Revelation/prophecy (Revelation 19:10), which is the cephas/rock, that the church is built on (Isaiah 28:16).

Click to expand...

There's a play on words going on there which is less clear in the Koine Greek than it was in the Aramaic.

Jesus renamed Simon "Cephas" (or "Kephas"), which was from the Aramaic and it means "rock" or "stone". However, when translating this from the Aramaic to the Greek, the translators ran across a problem because Greek is gender-sensitive. Therefore, "Petros", which is masculine, was used as Peter's new name because he was a man.

And this should stand to common sense because it's quite obvious that Jesus changed Peter's name for some reason, and names in Hebrew not only are names but are also descriptors.

Peter has a special designation in the NT, such as when told by Jesus to "feed my sheep..."). When the apostles are listed, Peter's name is almost always first, sometimes just saying "Peter and the others". Paul confronts Peter, not the others, over the issue of the circumcision of gentiles. It is Peter through his vision that ends the kosher Laws for those who convert. Etc.