This Youtube video went viral. When Jesus said "IT is finished, he meant it". Religion, that is.

I think mdean and I had a convo about this a while ago.

Question to the rapper, how did he come to know about Jesus?

It's a catchy video...but it contains many scriptural inaccuracies/errors. One being, we know from scripture that "it" doesn't mean "religion".

Thumper, I like the RC response to the video, to a point. My main disagreement is that I believe Jesus Christ is the Rock of Ages, the foundation of His Church, the Chief Cornerstone as prophesied in the OT and confirmed in the NT, including by Peter himself. The Church was also built upon Peter's confession, the foundational truth: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God".

I don't disagree with you, however I believe Jesus appointed Peter leader of his Church on Earth. I know not all agree with this, which is their right.

What exactly do you see in that scripture that leads you to believe Jesus appointed Peter leader of his Church on Earth?

That doesn't really answer my question.

Let's start again with this:

1. What is "the kingdom of heaven"?

2. What are "the keys of the kingdom of heaven"?

Are you questioning the authority of the Pope? I think you may be.

Let's leave the Pope out of it and have a scripture based discussion.

As a Christian, I am asking you, another Christian, direct questions concerning Holy Scripture.

Can you and/or are you willing to answer them?

See, here, you a saying that the Pope authority is not based on scripture. We disagree, I can make my points and you can show yours, but, I doubt we will come together on this point, which is sad, and a sign to me, that there is evil in the world.

But, we do agree on what Jesus said are the two most important commandments.

"37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”"

And that Evil looks back at you in mirror and is present in the woman you converse this Evil with.

Are you feeling helpful?

It appears the dead souls lack confidence to continue discussing their mythology . Perhaps they fear their idiocy will convince other sheep that faith in comic book characters, should they choose, would be more worth the effort then faith in the failed jew god.

C'est la vie, even ceasing the discussion creates an advantageous reversion atmosphere.

Thanks, Dead Souls. Rejoice the waning of your misguided faith.

Worry about you soul.

Placing a period at the end doesn't create, automatically, a complete sentence.

You did understand the message?

I believe that scripture does not confirm your belief.

> Peter referred to himself as a fellow-elder among the other elders...not as "leader of the church". (1Peter 5)

> It was James, not Peter, who presided over the Council of Jerusalem. Others spoke before Peter and after Peter. (Acts 15)

> It was James, not Peter, who decided and pronounced church doctrine at the Council of Jerusalem. (Acts 15)

> The power to "bind" and "to loose" was given to all the Apostles (Matt 18) and we see James "binding" and "loosing" at the Council of Jerusalem. (Acts 15)

> We read of Paul making disciplinary decisions in the church, in fact, Paul called out Peter for being a hypocrite. (Gal 2)

> Paul identified James, Peter, and John equally as "pillars" of the church. (Gal 2)

> Jesus specifically told the Apostles that there was to be no lordship or ruler (kyrieuo) among them as in Gentile kingdoms, that no one among them was to be master (exousiazo) of the body. (Luke 22)

> The first time the resurrected Jesus appeared to eleven of the Twelve, He breathed the Holy Spirit upon them all and gave them all the power to remit sins. (John 20)

> What are the keys of the kingdom?

Firstly, of course the words of the Apostle Paul and the Prophet Silas: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. (Acts 16)

Peter expounds on the keys that will supply an entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2Peter 1):

1. Faith
2. Virtue
3. Knowledge (of God and of Jesus Christ)
4. Self-control
5. Perseverance
6. Godliness
7. Brotherly kindness
8. Love

Thumper, do you really believe that Peter was the only Apostle given these keys to the Kingdom by Jesus? Were not these keys which open the Kingdom of Heaven given by Jesus to the other Apostles? Are they not given in the journey of sanctification by His Spirit to all of God's elect from the foundation of the world?


Thumper, why are RC priests/popes forbidden to marry? Do you know that Holy Scripture condemns this and says it is a doctrine of devils? (1Tim 4) You do know that Peter was married throughout his entire ministry on earth?


Thumper, where in canonized Biblical Scripture does God's Word tell us that Peter's descendants should rule over His church? Nowhere!

What's your point, Thumper?

Hopefully you are not using those verses to justify the RCC's doctrine of forbidding priests to marry, because you conveniently left out verse 28 where the Apostle assures the Church that it is no sin to marry.

Let's further hold that particular RCC doctrine forbidding priests to marry up to Holy Scripture. Again, the Apostle Paul writes:

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

1Ti 4:2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

1Ti 4:3 forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving;

1Ti 4:5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

1Ti 4:6 If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed.


So holding RCC doctrine of forbidding priests to marry up to the light of God's Word, we see that it's:

1. Apostasy (a departure from the faith)

2. Giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons (heresy)

3. A lie

4. A searing branding of their conscience with its hypocrisy

Look at verse 6, Thumper. The RCC has NOT been a good minister of Jesus Christ because the RCC has NOT instructed the brethren in these words of faith and doctrine.

The man the RCC regards as their first pope, Peter, was married. And the Apostle Paul wrote that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. (1Tim 3:2) There is not scripture forbidding priests to marry. In fact, scripture gives every opposite indication.

The RCC doctrine forbidding priests to marry is anti-biblical.

You must ask yourself which other RCC doctrines are anti-biblical...and search God's Word to find the answer.

Don't put your faith in RCC doctrine, Thumper.
It will let you down.

Don't put your faith in man, Thumper,
even the pope, who is just a man.
Man will fail and betray you.

Put your faith in Jesus Christ and God's Word.
They will not fail nor forsake you.

The grass withers and the flower fades,
but the Word of our God shall stand forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

Thumper, PRIESTS cannot marry in the RCC.
The RCC Canon Law forbids it, and even those who LEAVE the priesthood and "loses the clerical state", cannot marry unless your pontiff gives them special permission. Canon 291.

I know there are married priests. But they were married BEFORE they became RCC priests.

I didn't assert that it's mandatory that bishops be married, did I? But nowhere does it forbid it or put a celibate restriction upon those who will become elders/bishops/overseers.

The Apostle encouraged celibacy for everyone unmarried as advice, not law, not commandment from God...to make it easier for them in their ministry because they would not have to also care for their spouses, especially their wife and children. But no Apostle (including Peter), nor God, forbid the marriage of elders or those who would become elders.

So to this point is your jesus winning or is thumpers jesus winning?

To be objective in your debate shouldn't you get the perspective of a mormons jesus as well as seven day advantists jesus. Oh yeah, don't forget to get the baptists jesus view on this. And not to be bigoted don't forget to get the opinion of the JW's jesus.

The more versions of jesus you can get might make for a more interesting debate.

And when your done, will jesus have lost and won at the same time or just lost?

You err because you know neither Holy Scripture, nor Jesus Christ, nor does He know you.

Jesus always was and is the winner from before the foundation of the world.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

It has become quite apparent that you are incapable of having a board discussion concerning Holy Scripture and religious doctrine.

I have absolutely no interest in attempting to have online conversation with a religious encyclopedic website, nor any other entity that is incapable of thought and reasoning.

It's pointless and therefore a waste of my time.

I'm done.

Yes, you heard her right, folks. She's quit talking to herself.

I told you this earlier.

Funny, Geezer.
Talking to myself is much more satisfying than my attempt to try to talk with Thumper in this thread.

YOU didn't make your points.

I don't need YOU to be the middle man between me and an RC encyclopedia. I've read the entire RC Code of Canon Law...more than once...and have compared it to scripture.

A childhood friend who was raised in the RCC for over 50 years thought she and I would never agree about many RCC canon codes and practices either. She is now what she terms a "recovering RC" and has found the faith and doctrine delivered once to the Apostles without all of the anti-biblical rituals and doctrines. She and I are now in total agreement about the teachings of the RCC.

If Christ's chosen Apostles didn't practice or preach it, Christians have no theological business practicing or preaching it. Why don't you ask the Holy Spirit to talk to you about that, because I've lost interest in doing so. See where HE leads you when you respond to Him by parroting RC doctrine.

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-22/local/me-960_1_parish

BTW, that chapter of Timothy addresses public/corporate worship. This message board isn't a corporate worship setting.

This doesn't sound like he means public worship.

Are you saying that I shouldn't follow the example of the RCC in letting a woman speak?

Besides, I'm explaining, not teaching (obviously)...just like Priscilla, whom Paul commended.



See? Priscilla wasn't silent.

You should try knowing scripture half as well as you think you know the RCC.

I'm thinking Bible Lady vs. wannabe Santorum acolyte squaring off in the GHT Holy Smackdown.

You thinking of being the promoter or the bookie?

I prefer this brand:

I guessed wrong.

We disagree!



Jesus said this to Peter and about Peter.

The keys are to the church on Earth.

Then Jesus spoke with all his disciples.

Peter was doing what he was told.

Where does the word equally come in this verse?

I don't dispute this,

do you have an explanation why Peter was singled out in John 21?

The Spirit led Peter to write that because it was true. Peter was ONE of the elders among many fellow elders in the church.




James, Peter, and John were identified as "pillars". Peter was not mentioned first, but second, with no other designation. So James, Peter, John were identified EQUALLY as elders. Peter receives no special title recognition that is different from any of the other Apostles anywhere in the whole NT.





Peter was the only Apostle to deny Jesus Christ publicly, and that he did publicly three times.

In our Lord's grace, He gave Peter the opportunity to publicly affirm three times that He loved the Lord to replace the three time public denial. (Note that the question the third time grieved Peter. He knew exactly that Jesus was reminding him of his three time public denial.) To confirm Peter's restoration, Christ also gave Peter a three fold commission to feed his sheep.

This passage is commonly referred to as "The Restoration of Peter".

By Paul, who never met Jesus.

Jesus, on the other hand, identified Peter as the rock upon which his church would be built.

Peter was the first Pope.

Therefore the Roman Catholic Church is the church Christ specified, and you are going to hell for denying the words of Jesus Christ himself.

QED

Who was James at the Council of Jerusalem?

Only if one believes that Dr. Luke is lying in Acts 9.

Only if one believes Paul is lying in 1 Corinthians 15:8.

Only if one believes that the Apostle Peter is lying in 2 Peter 3.



"Peter was the first Pope" is an invention of man, not proclaimed by Spirit in holy canonized scripture. Nowhere in canonized scripture does it indicate that Peter was "the pope" of the Apostolic Church. Not even in Peter's own writing.



I see you now believe that Jesus is Jesus the Messiah.
Even satan knows that, so good for you for catching up to his speed.

One goes to hell for not being among elect from before the foundation of the world, i.e. not having Christ's righteousness imputed to them by salvatory relationship with Him before they take their last breath. Romans 8:1 has me covered. But thank you for your concern.

James, the brother of Jesus, the overseeing bishop of Jerusalem's Christian Church.

Is James also the Apostle James the lesser or James the son of Alphaeus?

What was James opinion about circumcision of the gentiles before the council of Jerusalem?

If James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, who appointed him, and wouldn't he be the "host" of council of Jerusalem.

Does Obama have to say he is president to be one.

Seems Paul says not everything to be followed is written,

No they are not.
Anyone can enter and be a member of the earthly church.
Anyone can belong to the Church visible on earth, believers and non-believers.

The keys are to His kingdom, which is not on Earth.
Not everyone can enter into the Heavenly kingdom.
Many are called but few are chosen.
Only the chosen are able to enter His kingdom.
Peter told us what the keys are that unlock Christ's kingdom.
They are given to every true believer.




This is a point that commentators have disagreed upon for many, many years.

The way I see the three main "James":

1. There is a James the Greater (brother of John)
2. There is James the Less, son of Alphaeus, possibly brother or cousin to Matthew; brother of Judas (not Iscariot).
3. There is James, the brother of Jesus according to Paul, who did not follow Jesus as Messiah until after the crucifixion and resurrection when Christ appeared to him (1Cr 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.), which eliminates James Zebedee and James Alphaeus who were Apostles by calling. This James, the brother of Jesus, became the bishop/elder/overseer of Jerusalem Christian Church.

Some historical and modern commentators agree with that, others don't. It doesn't really make a difference to or change the leadership/overseer position of "James" in the NT.



Scripture gives no indication.




Scripture gives no indication. Perhaps Jesus Christ did when he met with James after His resurrection. One of the historians, I can't remember which one, Jerome? Eusebius? wrote that the Twelve appointed him.



You're being ridiculous.
Obama doesn't have to say that he's a political hypocrite to be one either.



Paul says that written scripture fully equips us.
If a doctrine or practice is not recorded in canonized Holy Scripture, then men are only guessing/speculating and they run the great risk of devising and practicing doctrine which angers and grieves our Lord. You can witness that in Christ's letters to the Churches in the Book of Revelation (doctrines of Balaam, of Jezebel, of the Nicolaitans, etc.)

Which James was this?

The elder/overseer of the Jerusalem Christian church, the brother of Jesus.

Great parties, low dues, but the initiation is a bitch!

That's was the problem.

Jesus did not say there will not be leaders among the Apostles.

So, it gets back to Jesus telling Peter, he is the rock that the Church will be built on. We will disagree about this.

1. Yes we will disagree, especially since Jesus changed gender when speaking of "the rock". It would be like saying: Peter, you are an actor, and on this actress I will build my church.

2. If the popes are descendants of Peter, can they trace their ancestory back to Jacob and his son's tribe?

3. Do your popes get called out/rebuked in public by priests as Paul rebuked Peter publicly for being a hypocrite?

4. Why did Clement of Rome in 96 write that the greatest and most just columns/pillars of the church were Peter AND PAUL?

5. Why did Ignatius of Rome write of the command of Peter AND PAUL?

6. Why doesn't God's Word give ANY indication that Peter presided as pope over the church in Rome? There are only two canonized epistles in the bible from Peter. He was in Babylon, Egypt with Mark, who was overseer of the church in Alexandria. Paul wrote the majority of the canonized NT.

7. Peter didn't refer to himself as "chief Shepherd". Peter said Jesus Christ was the chief Shepherd. Why does your pope call himself the "chief Shepherd" when Peter made it clear that the "chief Shepherd" is Jesus Christ?

8. Why do you elevate the tradition of men over the Word of God? If Peter was the first "pope" then his successor would have been the next "pope"...however, "pope" wasn't designated for quite some time after that. There is no "pope" recorded in the bible, as, according to Jesus, no one was to "lord" or "rule" the body the way your pope rules the RCC today.

I could go on...but you're blinded and deceived by traditions of men who hold those traditions more holy than God's Word, so it's a waste of time. Thumper, God's Word says that there is ONE mediator between God and man, and it's NOT referring to your pope, not does it refer to Mary:

2. Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory co-operation (Sent. pia et probabilis).

^^That is heresy.^^ In other words, you won't find that ANYWHERE in canonized Holy Scripture.

Peter's ancestry was Jewish.

You seem to misunderstand about what the Pope is.
There can be disagreements in among the faithful.
Peter and Paul both deserve , don't you think?
Peter and Paul were both leaders in the Faith.

What is the bible? It is about God. Peter was a fisherman, not a scholar, maybe writing Peter's strong suit.
No,



What does a Shepherd do? Tend Sheep. But the church is for the worship of the Lord. Peter or any Pope is to be worshiped.






We have already discussed this, somewhat. First the name Pope is just a name. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church, he is not lord of the church.

That is why you are called a protestant.

But it doesn’t say “equally” in the bible so it is something you added. Since it doesn’t say “equally” stop it with the lies.

[

the canonized holy scripture was written by men, be careful as one poster has already caution about that:

We disagree, I know this. You don't believe that Jesus appointed Peter.

How did Christians organize? How did the New Testament come together?

"Pope" is not a name, it's a title.
The name of your current pope, which he chose, is Benedict.
"Pope" means papa/father.
Peter neither referred to himself as Father Peter, Papa Peter, nor Pope Peter.
No one else recorded in canonized scripture did either.

What did Jesus mean when he commanded the multitudes and his disciples: don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father', for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.

I think you have to be bright enough to understand.

Explain it anyway, in your own words.

There's that reading comprehension problem again.

There's a difference between a "descendant" and a "successor."




The word "father" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible? Really?

I believe what Jesus means in Matthew 23:9 is don't put your faith in anyone but God the Father.

Being called father is not wrong, believing anyone else than the Father in Heaven is God is wrong, except Jesus and the Holy Spirit is God.

Back in the day when the RCC was persecuting/prosecuting and making life all together miserable (and short) for those whom they considered heretics of the RCC, one of the confessions required was that the pope was a lineal descendant of Peter. At some point, some of their subjects became more educated, and they decided they could no longer pull the papal crown over the eyes of everyone, and they changed it to "spiritual descendant" of Peter.




Peter never referred to himself (nor did anyone else recorded in the Holy Bible) as pope/father/papa/abba in an authoritative positional title. He referred to himself positionally as a "sympresbyteros" a fellow elder (which clearly indicates there were OTHER elders), NOT as "supreme pontiff". "Supreme pontiff answering to no human" is an invention of man's lust for power. We see that Peter did in fact "answer" to Paul when Paul called him out in public for being a hypocrite.

Even if this is true, it was

a. 1,000 years ago
b. corrected later
c. no longer accepted as church doctrine and
d. the Bible still identifies Peter as the person upon whom Christ built his church, that church was unquestionably the Roman Catholic Church, and the notion that the title was formalized later makes no difference. Christ never uses the word "abortion" in the bible, either, but that doesn't stop you from objecting to abortions on religious grounds. The formal adoption of a term for something commonplace after the Bible was written does not invalidate the concept.



Says Paul, who also never met Jesus.

When are you going to stop defending the biggest liar in religious history?

Shame shame on you. Your assertions directly contradict RCC teaching concerning the conversion and veracity of the Apostle Paul.