The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Is honesty a Christian Value?

Is honesty a Christian Value?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
I said:"The Catholic Church preceded the writing of the 4 Gospels."

Opinionated responded: It may? have preceded the writings but it didn't precede the "actual words and directions spoken by Jesus"... Arrogance? "

I reply: It id most definitely. The Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Some fundamentalists say that Emperor Constantine did but that is fallacious as all the Popes from St Peter through to the time of Constantine show these Elizabethan English claims to be mere propaganda as part of the political self justification of the rulers of England after King Henry VIII.
The term 'Roman Catholic' is also a false one made up by the civil service in the UK from the time of Elizabeth I.
SO too the three branch theory of Christianity which convert John Henry ( Cardinal ) Newman rejected as an Oxford scholar.
Posted by Webby, Monday, 22 October 2007 8:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Webby,
The title "Pope" is a Roman Concept and first appeared when Rome established the Christian Church under Constantine. Early Christianity has no heirarchy as Jesus said he that would be greatest among you would be your servant - and he demonstrated this by washing his followers feet.

Every follower of Jesus was called to be God incarnate in the world, not just one person with Papal edict authority. The fact remains the history of many Popes in the Catholic Church demonstrate anything other than the character of God. The Church of Christ universal are those demonstrating the nature of God as Jesus demonstrated and taught and that not under an organised structure or denominational power, but only under the personal inspiration of the Spirit of God.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 27 October 2007 9:28:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philo,

The Church was established by Jesus before Sts Peter & Paul even went to the city of Rome. In Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome".
Jesus commissioned all of the Apostles and upon Our Lord's Assencion into Heaven, all of the Apostles were united with and under St Peter the Apostle. "Rome " never established "the Christian Church", let alone under "Constantine". The Catholic Church had 31 Popes BEFORE Emperor Constantine allowed the Catholic Church to be legalised as it was previously subject to the peresecution of the Roman Emperors.
Please realise that the Rome of the Emperors and the Catholic Church's HQ in the city of Rome are two different entities.
Pope and also a saint Melchiades was an African. During his papacy from 311 to 314 Pope Melchiades and the Church were granted the freedom to exist legally under Emperor Constanine the secualr ruler.

Every follower of Jesus is called to be like God but none of us can ever BE God incarnate. Only Jesus is God incarnate. Bad Popes, who are exceptions, does not disprove the rule. Humility and service agreed is how authority ought to be exercised but this does not mean that St Peter, the other Apostles and their successors lack authority due to those whose character or sinfulness became known. That is angelism. OUr Lord saw much sinfulness amongst His Apostles, fear, denials etc but , like the Seat of Moses, Chrsit said to obey them but do not do the thinngs they do ( ie personal defects and sin).
If we all waited for perfect apostolic successors before we recognise their authority, we would wait forever. Also, such an attitude assumes that we are on a sinless pedestal; which is a denial of the raison d'etre for Christ to redeem us.
Posted by Webby, Saturday, 27 October 2007 11:21:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where in the history of the first 300 years of the Early Church are Church leaders spoken of as Pope? The concept of "Pope" is a Romanised development.

The NT uses the word "Lord" to identify authority and role, it never uses the word Pope. So to understand authority and example in The early Christian Church is to recognise Christ only as Lord. As Christ's followers we bow only to his Lordship. Jesus said "The Lord thy God thou shalt bow to, and Him only thou shalt serve."(Matt 4: 10). Peter actually states Jesus was made both Lord and Christ and this after his ascension in Acts 2: 36 "Therefore, let all the house of Israel know, that this Jesus whom ye did crucify God make him — both Lord and Christ." Paul states in 2 Corinthians 4:5 "For we do not preach about ourselves but we do preach, Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves your servants because of Jesus."

According to the dictionary "Pope" means to the Roman Catholic Church; the vicar of Christ, and is the head of the Church on Earth. As do Pope also does to the Greek and Coptic outhodox.

Peter and Paul were never considered the vicar of Christ on Earth nor the head of the Christian Church during their life and ministry. They were leaders and teachers in the Church but never the final authority. The Council of elders in Jerusalem had more wisdom and authority than Peter in interpretring the mind of Christ for the gentiles. In all cases in the NT all servants of the Church directed people directly to God as Lord and Master. The Lord alone is the final and only authority for the Church. We are answerable to Him only, not to any stake burning Pope considering us as a heritic.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 28 October 2007 9:26:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Philo,
where is the word "pope" in the Bible? Well, where is the word "father,"because that's what "Pope" means ("pope" means "papa") . But you won't find the English word "pope" there any more than you'd find the word "Trinity." The reality, though, is there, in Peter, from the very beginning. The ecclesiastical offices of Bishops (episkopos), elders (presbyteros, from which is derived the word "priest"), and deacons (diakonos) were already in place in the New Testament (Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, Acts 1:20, 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 2:25, Acts 15:2-6, 21:18, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Timothy 5:17). The Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is simply the successor of Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome and head of the earthly Church.

Eusebius of Caesaria (A.D. 265-340) tells us in his "Church History" who succeeded him:

Ch. 2
"After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle".

Ch. 13
"After [Emperor] Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him. In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years [Note: it was actually 9 years], delivered his office to Anencletus. But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months."

Ch. 15
"In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: 'With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life.'
Posted by Webby, Sunday, 28 October 2007 9:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,
Use of "Romanised" presupposes that there is somehow either a phantom church different from and faithful to Christ and also separate from the Catholic Church. This is false history Philo.
Christ is not "alone" and neither is Scripture "alone".
That is why Chrsit gave us the Apostles and their successors within the Church. We meet Christ through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which he commanded His Apostles to do in memory of Him.
Christ didn't establish a 'Home Alone' read your bible on your own type arrangement.
Personal prayer, scripture reading at home is good- but not to be pitted in competition with accepting teachings from the Church and the legitimate authority given to her by Christ.
One cannot privately interpret Scripure. That is a heresy.
Life in Christ and life int he Church doesn't come about by individuals picking up the Scriptures and then imagaining things for themselves or even as a group.
The false consitutions of Lutheranism and Calvinism from Eruope was used within the Anglican Constitution and thse wasy in which you are talking Philo originate in the 1500s. The Church and the Bible and how we use sacraments and understand the Scriptures existed for 1500 years before the conflictual and oppositional and the bible 'alone' and private interpreation heresies came on the scene.
Posted by Webby, Sunday, 28 October 2007 9:55:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy