Christianity [OT] The Word became flesh and dwelt among us

Jun 13, 2014
3,794
672
345
USA
Doesn't really answer my question but it's clear that the bowing and the submission to him contradicts what peter said when he told his followers all should stand to the lord. Not to mention the fact that bowing to a man contradicts the bible, as well as the pope and his underlings donning themselves in idoltry.

Peter role in the bible also doesn't match what the modern role of the pope seems to be either. Pope seems more like a "king" of Christians now.This is especially true if you read all the scriptures instead of the 'canon"
You asked for information on "the status and concept behind the position" and I tried to give you as much scriptural sources as I could. Maybe you could reword your question slightly if you were looking for something different?

The "modern role of the pope" is the same as it was in the days of Peter and the early Church - to authoritatively teach on faith and morals. It's not a matter of bowing, kingship, or submission but instead deference and unity. I don't think bowing contradicts the bible at all, it's a sign of respect, not a mortal sin. I don't think the pope or his underlings don themselves in idoltry, you're going to have to elaborate here with examples. If you think this stuff contradicts the Bible, you're going to have to a) show us where, and, more importantly, b) why it shouldn't be read in harmony with the fifteen Bible passages I provided.
 
Oct 10, 2018
973
310
205
www.kickstarter.com
I don't think bowing contradicts the bible at all,.
Bible directly says not to unless it's toward god.

The Pope today does not do what Peter does and contradicts what peter does in the bible. Peter told men to stand and that he should not be praised he did not like being seen as more than a man. Jesus also never installed peter, so how is Peter considered the first pope?
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,089
989
225
last week i discovered this book, The Golden Legend: Readings on the Saints Vol. 1. im about halfway through it. it is fascinating, the most widely-reproduced medieval text after the Bible. it tells hagiographies of the saints and other Christian legends:



it tells stories of all the saints, and is quite interesting. i think i will need to read it a second time because i have trouble separating all the stories to the unique Saints. many of them are tragic tales. people tortured and publicly executed for simply saying what they want to. often there is graphic violence done to these people, they suffer tremendously: stretched on the rack until bone marrow seeps through the skin, scratched with nails and the wounds immediately salted, tied to a stake and burned, placed into a pot of boiling lead, stripped and rolled over hot coals, etc. nearly all the early saints were punished repeatedly before being beheaded. some of the women were simply refusing to consummate marriages to pagans who expected them to praise the Roman idols: they were raped, beaten, sold into slavery, tortured, and made examples of by public execution. all of the saints remained steadfast in their beliefs, they never caved to torture, they actually welcomed the punishment at times, the true meaning of "turn the other cheek" as really a revolutionary tactic of non-violence in an era of extreme violence.

the Roman Empire around 0 AD was quite a violent place indeed. the pagan Roman empire was putting to death nonbelievers and "cultists" who did not observe the idols of the Roman religion. Christians were living as hermits in the desert and caves and even tombs to escape this, driven quite literally underground by the state persecution. it is easy to forget the historical context that the Bible was written in, but it was really very dire circumstances, and Jesus's life seems to have been borne out by many people IRL. at any rate it's equal parts fascinating and horrifying to contemplate all this in 2018. it is puzzling how such an anti-Christian society turned into a world-spanning Christian empire, and the miracles of the saints seem to have played some part in that.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2014
3,794
672
345
USA
Bible directly says not to unless it's toward god.

The Pope today does not do what Peter does and contradicts what peter does in the bible. Peter told men to stand and that he should not be praised he did not like being seen as more than a man. Jesus also never installed peter, so how is Peter considered the first pope?
I already showed you where in the Bible Jesus installs Peter and flat out tells him to lead - I think the onus is on you now to show us some concrete examples of what you think is inconsistent about the Pope today. We don't think the Pope is more than a man. I don't see how you think showing deference to another human being is against the ban on bowing, or where you're getting this ban on bowing from in the first place. Jesus did tell his disciples to listen to the ecclesiarchy (Matthew 22:3), just as Paul tells his readers to listen to those in authority (Romans 13). All of the apostolic epistles in the New Testament advise Christians to listen to the Church.

This is what I don't get about anti-Catholicism - you have to read the Bible against its most plausible meaning, and in some cases, you have to read it as directly contradicting itself.
 
Oct 10, 2018
973
310
205
www.kickstarter.com
I already showed you where in the Bible Jesus installs Peter and flat out tells him to lead
You actually didn't.

Also bowing to a man is directly stated by the bible. If Peter was installed than why a few verses after the phrased used by Catholics to justify Paul as pope, did Jesus call Peter Satan and a stumbling stone? The greek text even makes it more clear.

“You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church.”

Jesus was clearly referring to Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of the Living God. The Greek word Jesus used for rock (a big boulder) is petra, which is in the feminine gender. Jesus identified Peter’s confession, not Peter, as the foundation of the church. This was nothing more than a play on words. To transliterate: “You are a little stone, and on your big boulder of a confession, I will build my church.”

If he was the pope why are the details of the office non-existent and who di he pass it off to? Why was Paul allowed to rebuke the "head" and why did Jesus call him "Satan"?

In in II Peter 1:1 and 5:5 Peter himself didn't describe himself as the pope. In the same book Peter himself says "jesus" was the rock. He also taught that He (jesus) was the foundation for the church.

Peter also said "Stand up, I am only a man myself." does that not contradict the current pope who also has several symbols of idolatry across his garments at some times? Please tell me.

We don't think the Pope is more than a man.
Yet you treat him as more than a man and give him too much power over doctrine as well as the ability to determine which doctrine is relevant. He is also able to walk around law and many will bow a pray through him which is a direct contradiction to the bible on prayer.

Not only that, but he as many Catholics believe that Mary is the mother of god when got is not begotten. The Bible also puts Mary among women and not above women so the position of mary is also not very pope like as it contradicts the scriptures.

Pope looking back historically authorized imagery as well. Does the Pope have a scripture confirming Jesus' appearance?

This is a cop-out. You say this is about anti-catholicism when the only thing I mentioned was the pope and his influence. I've not throw any other part of Catholic tradition under the bus at this point which makes this a very strange statement. If this was about anti-catholisim I would have just used the current pope as an example because even some die-hard Catholics are moving away from his contradictions. That's not what this is about.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2014
3,794
672
345
USA
You actually didn't.

Also bowing to a man is directly stated by the bible. If Peter was installed than why a few verses after the phrased used by Catholics to justify Paul as pope, did Jesus call Peter Satan and a stumbling stone? The greek text even makes it more clear.

“You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church.”

Jesus was clearly referring to Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of the Living God. The Greek word Jesus used for rock (a big boulder) is petra, which is in the feminine gender. Jesus identified Peter’s confession, not Peter, as the foundation of the church. This was nothing more than a play on words. To transliterate: “You are a little stone, and on your big boulder of a confession, I will build my church.”

If he was the pope why are the details of the office non-existent and who di he pass it off to? Why was Paul allowed to rebuke the "head" and why did Jesus call him "Satan"?

In in II Peter 1:1 and 5:5 Peter himself didn't describe himself as the pope. In the same book Peter himself says "jesus" was the rock. He also taught that He (jesus) was the foundation for the church.

Peter also said "Stand up, I am only a man myself." does that not contradict the current pope who also has several symbols of idolatry across his garments at some times? Please tell me.


Yet you treat him as more than a man and give him too much power over doctrine as well as the ability to determine which doctrine is relevant. He is also able to walk around law and many will bow a pray through him which is a direct contradiction to the bible on prayer.

Not only that, but he as many Catholics believe that Mary is the mother of god when got is not begotten. The Bible also puts Mary among women and not above women so the position of mary is also not very pope like as it contradicts the scriptures.

Pope looking back historically authorized imagery as well. Does the Pope have a scripture confirming Jesus' appearance?



This is a cop-out. You say this is about anti-catholicism when the only thing I mentioned was the pope and his influence. I've not throw any other part of Catholic tradition under the bus at this point which makes this a very strange statement. If this was about anti-catholisim I would have just used the current pope as an example because even some die-hard Catholics are moving away from his contradictions. That's not what this is about.
Your denial of Peter's installation and much of the rest of your post, like him being rebuked after the Confession and later by Paul, does not explain Jesus telling Peter three times to lead the Church in John 21:15-17. Your explanation of the confession can be explained innumerable ways, most notably using a feminine noun (Petra) and making it the name of a man (Petros). Again, your readings are requiring you to read the New Testament in contradiction of itself, and assigning precedence according to your own heresy.

You're also again conflating deference with worship. Peter told the Roman soldiers to get up because they were worshipping him. And you need to start giving concrete examples of the idolatry worn by the Pope, Catholics treating him as more than a man, or people praying "through" him, the last of which is something I've never heard of.

I used anti-Catholicism for its plain semantics, not as a loaded term - you're attacking the Papacy and now Mariology, distinguishing characteristics of Catholicism. Everyone agrees that Mary was in fact a woman, and although Christ was pre-incarnate as the divine Logos, it is undisputable that the person of Jesus Christ was born of Mary.
 
Likes: *Nightwing
Jan 9, 2018
424
309
220
I was at a Catholic wedding followed by a baptism last weekend. As an Orthodox, the speed and efficiency was stunning. I also enjoyed sitting down :messenger_grinning_smiling:

Nothing beats an Orthodox choir though.
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,129
269
240
Good to see there was one here to try to speak some sense to some of you in my absence.

http://revelationtimelinedecoded.co...13-is-the-popes-of-the-roman-catholic-church/

The antichrist is not just one man, it is a position, like the President of the United States. It has been fulfilled by many Popes.

Messiah said that many would come in my name, and the many Popes proclaim to be the “Vicar of Christ” or the “substitute Christ.”
 
Jun 13, 2014
3,794
672
345
USA
Hello there brother 🤗 What do you make of this one? 😩

My quick take is that Rome was indeed the center of the pagan world during the time of the early Church. This is probably part of why the leaders during and beyond the apostolic age deferred to the Bishop of Rome.

I can't really speak beyond that, because it's just a nebulous quote from some random guy, without any evidence or examples. The Catholic liturgy is rooted in Hebrew tradition, and every movement is directly and explicitly tethered to scripture.

I've noticed you're interested in novel ideas that don't really have any substance or scholarship behind them. All of the epistles in the New Testament (in addition to talking about the Church and deference to its leadership) warned against this kind of heresy, but you seem determined to keep illustrating the errors they warned against, over and over throughout the thread.
 
Likes: *Nightwing
Jan 31, 2018
1,129
269
240
My quick take is that Rome was indeed the center of the pagan world during the time of the early Church. This is probably part of why the leaders during and beyond the apostolic age deferred to the Bishop of Rome.

I can't really speak beyond that, because it's just a nebulous quote from some random guy, without any evidence or examples. The Catholic liturgy is rooted in Hebrew tradition, and every movement is directly and explicitly tethered to scripture.

I've noticed you're interested in novel ideas that don't really have any substance or scholarship behind them. All of the epistles in the New Testament (in addition to talking about the Church and deference to its leadership) warned against this kind of heresy, but you seem determined to keep illustrating the errors they warned against, over and over throughout the thread.
Oh? And side stepping anyone who asks anything about how many things in Catholicism simply don’t align with the teachings of Christ or scripture is ok? You didn’t seem to answer any of freedom gates questions and you completely skipped over my post about the papacy being the seat of the antichrist. Seems odd.