first church?????????

[elijahlexis]

much as it would seem that the argument of Peter being the head of the church
has been resolved with the reputed evidence shown throughout the thread
i am still not convinced
so lets not assume that i have accepted the fact that he is indeed what is being construed as fact
Yes, i agree that it was Peter that Christ said he would build His church upon
but it was the heart toward God that the church would be built upon
all the writings and stuff from all the people that are supposed scholars or saints
that were directed by the RCC to do those writings (or were at least fulfilling their duties and obligations to the RCC when writing the stuff) are biased to say the least
i dont doubt that many of my RCC friends are also my brothers and sisters in Christ, i also dont doubt there are many who are RC that will die and go to hell
same as with any other religion-------------soem have the right heart some not
no doubt i will see many people of many nations, and many religions, in heaven
no doubt they have recieved Christ
but what does any religion have to do with the spreading of the gospel?
nothing save the heart of the person who actually has the heart and mind of God to do just that
and that takes seeking Him, coming into His presence, surrendering all, being a servant and example
just to say that one is christian is not the determining factor,
a matter of the heart
it is a personal thing between man and God
an individual thing for all men
i cant work out your salvation
no one can work out mine
i rely on God's Word, the Bible to seek Him
now that Word comes in many fashions
but it does not change
or cause division amongst the children of God
as do alot of religions
(granted some religions don't even have the foundation of repentance or salvation and i am not refering to those, just the beliefs and doctrines that hold true to the Bible
trivial stuff who peter was
compared to what we really need to be seeking
to find out who God is!!
not that the study helps cant help out
just they are just that
helps (some not maybe)

i applaud those who have the conviction to stand up for what they believe s truth
but lets get it straight
what i believe and what anyone else believes is what we believe
doesnt make it gospel outside of straight scripture

oh
the idolatry comment
wasnt pointed at anyone
just an observation of what i see

should i praise the apostles or mary or moses
or the God that made and directed them?
who should i pray to?
only God, through the only intercessor----------CHRIST

there isn't another intercessor
not to say there is no such thing as intercession or intercessory prayer and all that
just that it must be to God through Christ with the leading of the Holy Spirit
God is alive
Jesus is alive
the Spirit is alive

none of them dead
all of them speaking to men and giving revelation , saving grace, direction TODAY

please, lets not argue things not found in scripture
i don tcare much about who wrote waht when and in what century and under what edict
i want to know everyone heres opinion
i want to know what God is speaking to everyone here
not an opinion on an opinion

Gods Word stands the test

and our calling is to spread the gospel
all of us

love ya all
elijalexis

ps, thank you all for the frank and heartfelt discussion here in this thread
still learning
still reading
keep em coming
in love always

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hi elijah

but what does any religion have to do with the spreading of the gospel?

I don't have time to address all your post right now, but this jumped out at me as I began to read your post.

The word "religion" has developed a negative connotation within Protestantism, as somewho something anti-Christian.

But Christianity is a religion. The Gospel of Christ is about a faith, a religion.

The New Testament condones the idea of religion and not only that, but of TRUE religion and as such something good.



Religion can be pure and undefiled before God, pleasing to God . . and the bible tells us this is so as Christians - here are several versions of the same verse:

Jam 1:27


(ALT) Pure and undefiled religion before [our] God and Father is this: to be caring for orphans and widows in their affliction [and] to be keeping oneself unspotted [fig., uncorrupted] by the world.

(ASV) Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.
(BBE) The religion which is holy and free from evil in the eyes of our God and Father is this: to take care of children who have no fathers and of widows who are in trouble, and to keep oneself untouched by the world.

(CEV) Religion that pleases God the Father must be pure and spotless. You must help needy orphans and widows and not let this world make you evil.

(Darby) Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

(DRB) Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation and to keep one's self unspotted from this world.
(EMTV) Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

(GB) Pure religion and vndefiled before God, euen the Father, is this, to visite the fatherlesse, and widdowes in their aduersitie, and to keepe himselfe vnspotted of the world.

(GNB) What God the Father considers to be pure and genuine religion is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering and to keep oneself from being corrupted by the world.

(HNV) Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

(ISV) A religion that is pure and stainless in the sight of God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows in their suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

(KJVA) Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
(LITV) Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

(YLT) religion pure and undefiled with the God and Father is this, to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation--unspotted to keep himself from the world.


​

Yes, religion is not only necessary for Christians, it is good if it is as described above by James.

It is not religion in Christianitythat is the problem.



It is false religiousity of inidividuals whose religion is actually false. That person's religion will not avial him anything, it will have been in vain:

Jam 1:26 And if any man think himself to be religious, not bridling his tongue but deceiving his own heart, this man's religion is vain.



​

Yes, the spreading of the Gospel has everything to do with religion, pure and undefiled religion, pleasing to God. The Gospel is spread through one's Christian religion, which includes reaching out to those in need. For if we do not do this, then our religion, and thus our gospel, is false.

Jam 2:14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

Jam 2:15 And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food:

Jam 2:16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?

Jam 2:17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

Jam 2:18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.

​

As St Francis said:

“Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.”


​

We are not to be so 'heavenly minded" that we forget there is a true and pure religion to practice in our daily lives towards others, and that we are to do more than just "preach" with words . . we are to be the Gospel to others around us, and that is done through the practice of our religion, and it is done well if our religion before God is pure and undefiled as James explains above.


Yes, the effective spreading of the Gospel is most definitely dependent on one's religion . . . the living out of the Christian faith to God and among each other and the world.




Here is the Webste'r's Definition of religoin in 1828

Religion


RELIGION, n. relij'on. [L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans.]

1. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.

2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1.

3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.

4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion.

5. The rites of religion; in the plural.

Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English


​

​

As a site exploring the idea of religion notes:

Many conservative Christians refer to Christianity not as a religion but as an intensely personal relationship with Jesus Christ.


​

However, Christainity, in its fullest sense of the word, is much more than a personal relationship with Jesus Christ . . that is only part of it, the core of it. It is also about our relationship with others and how we live our faith among each other and those around us in the world.



The Gospel is the message of Christianity, and so is the message of a religion . .Chrsitianity in its fullest sense of the word. The Christian religion is most defintely necessary for the spreading of Gospel, for the Gospel is the message of the Christian religion.



Peace in Him!

 

[Harry the Heretic]

I do not "trust" Gills commentary in the way you are implying above, and using it or any other commentary does not mean I accept everything they have to say about everything. . . .

I used it, and others, to demonstrate that the interpretation of Acts 15 you are asserting, that James was making a decree and thus this was proof that Peter was not the head of the Church, is flawed.

But their is a bias in their commentary, that is contrary to both of our positions. And that being said one could find many commentaries that are outside of the truth in many aspects. The fact that they are so against an earthly authority would naturally carry over into Acts 15.

In fact, that these commentaries do NOT support the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16, either in full or even in part, actually gives even MORE credibility to their position that James' words were not a decree, an edict, etc . . but merely of his opinion, suggestion etc . . For they have NO REASON to take away from James something that is his IF it was really there. . especially if it would disprove the Catholic belief in the Papacy.

I disagree based on the reasoning above. They would be reluctant to concede any kind of authority.

Why would you expect to see a precedent or example to one of the first precedents or examples present in scripture of Peter's leadership style?

Because the bible is full of them in all manner of topics, especially in relation to fundamental truths, of which RC considers Apostolic authority to be a fundamental truth. For we can point to all manner of paradigms of God that weave themselves like a thread throughout scripture. Even the precedent of Christ's redemptive work is plainly attested to in the accounts of Abraham and Isaac, the 1st passover feast, the "baptism" of Isreal etc. There are all kinds of patterns, foreshadowing, and "modes of operation" that attest to and describe the kingdom of God.

So should we see Peter getting up and saying "this is the way it is" as though he were God?

Not as though he was God, but as the leader of all the churches, yes, if he is the binder and looser the way it is presented in RC teachings.

Should Peter "lord it over" the rest of them there simply because he is the leader of the Church?

The exercise of authority does not imply one is "lording it over" as Christ is of the most excellent example. It is appropriate to look to Christ as an example in all areas as we are to model ourselves after him in all, this would include when authority has been given to any individual.

We see the exact same thing happen at the very beginning of the Church, when the disciples meet to choose Judas' successor. Let's look at that more closely as well.

I was thinking of using this as an example earlier to bolster my position. It is evidence contrary to an Apostolic lineage as it is the scriptures and God (by the casting of lots) that determines the need for a replacement and picks Judas's successor. I would imagine that the Pope is not determined in a similar manner. Plus the contrast of Peter's action here as compared to the account in ACts 15 (which you address as a function of leadership style).

The scriptures you quoted do indeed use the same word as used in Acts 15 of James giving his opinion, to mean, in these other scriptures, the rendering of a decision as we normally use the word "judge" or "sentence" (as in passing a sentence by a judge.)

However, it is a serious error to assume that because it is used in such a limited way in some places, that it is always used in that same limited manner, even when several protestant scholars declare to the contrary.

The word you are speaking of has a broader usage and meaning than the limited one you have presented above. It also means (per Thayer)

2) to approve, esteem, to prefer

3) to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion

Yes this is true but in the majority of the cases it is not used in this manner, and given the english equivalents used in the JB,KJV and NAB, ASV and others the translators did not believe this to be the case. The fact that this judgement is used to bind the gentiles to certain activities would go further in proving the context of its usage as not being an opinion.

By making sure James knew, he helped to build up the local Church in Jerusalem and its leadership to strengthen and encourage them, rather than undermine them and James' authority there. The sign of a good leader indeed.

The problem with this reasoning is that Peter is in Jerusalem and had not travelled to Rome. So peter is the leader but in history and in Acts it is James who is exercising authority. Now it is not in the same manner as the authority attributed by RC to the Pope, but that is not the point. It is the lack of the authority granted to Peter by RC tradition that is of interest. I find the position of leadership style not strong enough to convince me in this regard.

I am sorry you do not understand the governing structure of the Catholic Church .

I understand it in its application, and in the description of the Popes authority.


New York Catholic Catechism

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by one, God himself on earth."

Catholic Encyclopedia;

"If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life."

"Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the Roman Church: "To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See."

Above we see that another is to succeed Judas in his office as Apostle

The selection of Juda's replacement can hardly be construed as a mandate for Apostolic succession as practiced by RC. It is in the context of restoring something that was lacking, not in the context of of succession. Are you saying that there are 11 cardinals chosen for succession in the manner of Juda's replacement? If that is the case then I would definitely have to reconsider my position, but I do not believe that to be the way it plays out in RC government.

First, the Catholic Church does not embrace modern textual criticism. Individuals within the Church may do so, but not the Church as a whole. There are very many who do not. So making such a blanket statement as that above is false, and the conclusion you are drawing from it is flawed.

The new JB does.

Fr. Raymond E. Brown described by Time magazine as "probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S."


"The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

* Matthew - c. 70-100 as the majority view, with conservative scholars arguing for a pre-70 date, particularly if they do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Mark - c. 68-73
* Luke - c. 80-100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John - c. 90-110 - Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition"

But putting all that aside, realistically speaking, where would you see such information? Do any of the books in the New Testament concern themselves with a listing of who succeeded whom? Do we even have a book in the NT which concerns itself with what happened to each and every apostle?

Exactly, but we do see concern for those congregations on how to govern themselves and the criteria for it.

The only book in the New Testament that is of the historical genre is Acts, and it does not take us far enough to record what happened after Peter and Paul's deaths, so other than the first instance of Apostolic succession in Acts 1, we do not see any further specific examples of this in scripture because it does not go far enough forward in the historical recording of the New Testament Church.

The genre of the Nt is not the issue here. Students of the NT have used the epistles to establish a historical fact. The historical fact in this case is not a single mention of a congregations apostolic successor is recorded.

Up to this point in the scriptures if succession, or lineage was important, it was carefully recorded.


I hope this sheds some light on the delima I have with RC's views of the Church. I have no animosity towards Catholicism, and hope none of the above statements are seen as such.

God Bless

 

[thereselittleflower]

much as it would seem that the argument of Peter being the head of the church has been resolved with the reputed evidence shown throughout the thread i am still not convinced

Hi again elijah

Fair enough

so lets not assume that i have accepted the fact that he is indeed what is being construed as fact
Yes, i agree that it was Peter that Christ said he would build His church upon

This is good that we can start here in agreement.

but it was the heart toward God that the church would be built upon

Wait though, the heart is only a part of a person, not the person. We are in agreement that Jesus said He would build His church upon Peter . . Peter is more than just his heart towards God. Jesus did not say "I will build my Church upon your heart towards God."

He said He would build His Church on Peter.

But He did more than that. He gave Peter the office of vicar/regent/major domo of the kingdom of which Christ was King, and therefore had the autority to bestow such an office on whomsoever He willed. He chose Peter.

all the writings and stuff from all the people that are supposed scholars or saints that were directed by the RCC to do those writings (or were at least fulfilling their duties and obligations to the RCC when writing the stuff) are biased to say the least

What do you mean "were directed by the RCC to do those writings" and "were at the least fufilling their duties and obligations to the RCC when writing the stuff"

What writings are you referring to? How were they directed by the RCC to write them? What duties and obligations to the RCC were they fulfilling?

You see, it is easy to make such broad generalized statements and claims, but it is much harder to back them up.

They way you state it above, it appears that you are saying that these saints and doctors of the Church had no mind of their own, that they were autoamted robots of the Catholic Church.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

As a protestant, my first encounter with the writings of some Catholic writers from the 16th century was about 7 years ago. St Theresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, and before that Thomas A Kempis - The Imitation of Christ . hailed by all Christians as the most important Chrsitian book next to the bible ever written.

These works are deep and moving testiments of God's love, mercy and grace, full of divine guidance to any Christian, Catholic or not. If you study their lives, you will see that they were anything but simply "fulfilling thier obligations to the Catholic Church" as if this was somehow something different than serving God Himslef . . they were fulfilling their obligations to God.

There is so much richness and depth to the writings and lives of the Catholic saints, so much more than ever I had seen in Protestantism .. It is so easy to simply brush them aside as being of no real consequence without taking the time to actually read them and let God speak to you through them.

If you open yourself up to the possibility you might be wrong about these writers, and ask God to speak to you about and through their writings as you begin to delve into them, I think you will be stunned at what God will show you and bring alive in your heart.

i dont doubt that many of my RCC friends are also my brothers and sisters in Christ, i also dont doubt there are many who are RC that will die and go to hell

None of us know the true state of anyone's heart, so it would be foolish to say that all Caholics or all Protestants are going to heaven . . So we are in agreement.

same as with any other religion-------------soem have the right heart some not no doubt i will see many people of many nations, and many religions, in heaven no doubt they have recieved Christ

I agree.

but what does any religion have to do with the spreading of the gospel?

I hope I was able to adequately address this to at least the point of giving you food for though above.

nothing save the heart of the person who actually has the heart and mind of God to do just that and that takes seeking Him, coming into His presence, surrendering all, being a servant and example

Yes, it does. And is this not true religion?

just to say that one is christian is not the determining factor,

No, it can never be so . . it is never enough to say one is a Christian.

a matter of the heart it is a personal thing between man and God an individual thing for all men i cant work out your salvation no one can work out mine i rely on God's Word, the Bible to seek Him

It is good to rely on the bible, for it is the sacred scriptures.

But it is alone sufficient? To a point, a basic point, but there is always the question of "am I interpreting this correctly?? And since we are fallible human beings who do not hear God clearly even some of the time, if we were to rely on scriptre alone, then we would have to rely on our own interpretation of it as well.

But God did not tell us that the bible is the pillar and foundation of truth.

In the scriptures themselves, God tells us through Paul that the CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. . .

God has given us the Church He built on Peter as the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth . . why not go to Her and receive all that God has offered to every believer through Her? Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into ALL Truth .. not just part truth and part error, but ALL Truth. As the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth, She is not going to give out part truth and part error.

So where you turn to only the bible, I turn to the Pillar and foudnation of the Truth, the Church founded on Peter, to measure my understanding and interpreation of scripture against, so I do not go off into error.

now that Word comes in many fashions but it does not change or cause division amongst the children of God as do alot of religions (granted some religions don't even have the foundation of repentance or salvation and i am not refering to those, just the beliefs and doctrines that hold true to the Bible

Yet, the bible, the word of God in written form, has caused almost countless divisions within the Protestant arm of the Church. There are over 34,000-36,000 denonations/groups/sects which name the name of Christ that have sprung from Luther's revolt against the Catholic Church. . . . and all because people now believed they not only had the right to interpret the bible for themselves, but the ability to do so as well . .

The word of God is a SWORD . . the scripture speak of this more than once.

A SWORD is a weapon and can be used to destroy. Just as a shapr two-edged sword in the hands of a child, or even one unskilled in its use is dangerous, not only to the one weilding it (it could cost them life or limb), but also to those around them.

One must be adequately and properly trained in the use of a sword before one can be entrusted with its safe and correct use.

It is no different than the bible.

Does the word of God cause division? Yes, when weilded improperly, especially by inadequately trained hands . . and thus, we see the multiplicity of divisions in the body of Christ within Protestantism.

trivial stuff who peter was

I realize to you that this seems like somthing trivial, and I understand as I once thought it was fairly trivial as well.

But nothing could be farther from the truth. It is no trivial matter who Peter was. It is no trivial matter who Jesus made him to be in the Church. It is of extreme improtance that who and what he was in the Early Church be properly understood . . for when it is, one has then found the fulness of the faith in the Church Jesus built on Peter.

compared to what we really need to be seeking to find out who God is!!
not that the study helps cant help out just they are just that helps (some not maybe)

i applaud those who have the conviction to stand up for what they believe s truth but lets get it straight what i believe and what anyone else believes is what we believe doesnt make it gospel outside of straight scripture

]
Again, Jesus did not die to write scripture . .but to build a Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth, led into all Truth by the Holy Spirit. The Gospel is the Message of the Christian Church, the Christian religion. And as such, is not limited to scripture alone.

oh
the idolatry comment wasnt pointed at anyone just an observation of what i see

Again, I am not sure where you see anyone who is Christian, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant worshipping a man as though he were God.

should i praise the apostles or mary or moses
or the God that made and directed them?

You should give worship and adoration to God and God alone.

Mary, Moses, the Apostles etc, are those who are worthing of our special attention as examples to us in the faith to be emmulated, to be looked up to.

who should i pray to?
only God, through the only intercessor----------CHRIST

This is something that is completely dependent on how you use the word "pray" . .

For Protestants, it is intrinsically linked to worship which is given to God alone.

But not so with Catholics . .

For Catholics, the word "pray" is used in a much less restrictive and general sense, which means to ask . . to ask anyone for anything. And so, is not intrinsically linked to worship due God alone.

there isn't another intercessor

There isn't? Where does the bible say there is ONE Intercessor?

Are you not an intercessor when you pray for another?

not to say there is no such thing as intercession or intercessory prayer and all that just that it must be to God through Christ with the leading of the Holy Spirit

And how is the intercessory prayer of the saints in heaven not to God through Christ with the leading of the Holy Spirit?

God is alive Jesus is alive
the Spirit is alive

Amen!

none of them dead

And neither are the saints in heaven! They are more alive than you and me! Only their bodies have died awaiting the resurrection. They are alive before the throne of God with nothing hindering their prayers on our behalf. If Christ is interceding for us in heaven, do you think those who served Him in this life by being like Him in this life would be any less lilke Him in heaven? Serving Him any less by not being like Him in heaven? No. They would be doing what they found their Lod doing . . interceding as He does.

all of them speaking to men and giving revelation , saving grace, direction TODAY

And? How does this negate in any way that the saints in heaven also pray for us?

God is not the God of the dead, but of the Liivng.

please, lets not argue things not found in scripture

First, all we are discussing is found in scripture . .I have given detalied explanations from scripture.

Second, we are not limited to scripture.

i don tcare much about who wrote waht when and in what century and under what edict i want to know everyone heres opinion i want to know what God is speaking to everyone here not an opinion on an opinion

What is God speaking to me? That I have found the fulness of faith He has given through the Church He founded on Peter and have only begun to devle into its depths. That it is all about Grace, His Divine Sanctifying Grace. I can do nothing of myself, except chose to cooperate with Him, and even that is a gift of Grace from God.

Gods Word stands the test

and our calling is to spread the gospel
all of us

love ya all
elijalexis

ps, thank you all for the frank and heartfelt discussion here in this thread
still learning
still reading
keep em coming
in love always

God bless you elijah.


Peace in Him!

 

[elijahlexis]

therese
blessings,blessings,blessings
i would say that you more or less stated what was the heart of my post
youare such a gifted and blessed of God sister!!!!!!!!!!
so lets say that
I AGREE
with all of your posts
thank you for clarifying
and thank you for the scriptures
and thank you for the wisdom
wisdom that comes from the Father-----obviously--------
you are precious!!

as for what i wrote about writings and who directed them
why they were written
forgive if i made it look like i was referring to the RCC alone
i was not

i value you as a sister, a person, and a saint
you know that per my last reply via PM........right?

gotta go to church now

LOVE PEACE AND BLESSINGS
elijalexis

 

[thereselittleflower]

therese
blessings,blessings,blessings
i would say that you more or less stated what was the heart of my post
youare such a gifted and blessed of God sister!!!!!!!!!!
so lets say that
I AGREE
with all of your posts
thank you for clarifying
and thank you for the scriptures
and thank you for the wisdom
wisdom that comes from the Father-----obviously--------
you are precious!!

as for what i wrote about writings and who directed them
why they were written
forgive if i made it look like i was referring to the RCC alone
i was not

i value you as a sister, a person, and a saint
you know that per my last reply via PM........right?

gotta go to church now

LOVE PEACE AND BLESSINGS
elijalexis

Hi elijah

Yes, I do. and if you have any question, I want you to know you are a dear brother in the Lord - I don't want you to have any question about that in your heart or mind.

God is pulling you close to Him, pulling you to seek after His very heart, to seek His Face, not merely His hand. I pray that God will lead you deeper and deeper into Himself.

If I came across that I thought you were specifically and only speaking about the writings of the Catholic Church, please forgive me. I was merely wanting to share the depths of divine truth and wisdom that can be found in such writings. If you have never read "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas A Kempis, may I highly recommend it to you?!

Thank you for your kind words elijahalexis Your words are like balm to the soul. If there is any wisdom in my words, it comes from God alone, and if you find yourself in agreement with what I have wrote, it is due only to God's truth having found, to some degree, its reflection in what I have shared and our openess to His Truth, which God has given.

May God's peace, grace, and richest blessings be yours in abundance.


In the Peace and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[SolomonVII]

The comment about The Triune God not being dead brings to mind Jesus's comments to the Saduccees. He asked them if their God was the God of Abraham and the prophets, or something to that effect. Since they did not believe in the afterlife, and they did believe in Yaweh, the God of Abraham and Moses, Jesus had only to state that Yaweh was not a God of the dead, but a God of the living.
Off the topic of church history, elijah, but worthwhile sharing, I would hope.

 

[SolomonVII]

Just one more comment about the Peter stuff being trivial. Even if there are many things that Jesus talked about that I still have no really good idea what He was trying to say, the fact that Jesus said it means that it must not be trivial!
Nothing before or since, in my way of thinking, could be more important that the message Jesus left us in his brief stay with us here on earth.

 

[Harry the Heretic]

Just one more comment about the Peter stuff being trivial. Even if there are many things that Jesus talked about that I still have no really good idea what He was trying to say, the fact that Jesus said it means that it must not be trivial!
Nothing before or since, in my way of thinking, could be more important that the message Jesus left us in his brief stay with us here on earth.

Well there's one thing we definitely agree on.


Peace to you