Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Athanasius377]

Matthew is not part of the New Testament. Christians were not yet on the planet. God did not put a paper that says "New Testament" in front of Matthew. Men did that... probably Catholics.

So what part of the bible does Matthew fall into if not the New Testament?

 

[Peterlag]

So what part of the bible does Matthew fall into if not the New Testament?

The Legal administration is suited only to Israel under the Law, and is sometimes called the Mosaic Law that terminated when Jesus Christ died.

The Christ administration overlapped and functioned within the Law administration. Both the Law and the Christ administration officially ended with the coming of Pentecost.

The time period that started on the day of Pentecost is for the Church of God. It's the time period you and I now belong to, which will end with the appearing of Jesus Christ.

 

[Peterlag]

I don't give a flying f*%k at a rolling doughnut whether you strung those two sentences together in the same second, or same minute, or same hour, or same day! You posted them TOGETHER. Adjacent.

I said two statements one right after the other about some still doing water and when water was no longer needed. You made time of those two statements a factor where there was none. Not the time I wrote it. I don't see what you see because I'm not involved in your religion.

 

[Peterlag]

And death is precisely what baptism signifies. Buried, raised again. We cannot crucify and bury ourselves, we must rely on others, just as Christ did. Nor can we raise ourselves from the dead... That takes the Son of God to speak life into our hearts. The baptism of the holy Spirit is the next step in the process. We cannot receive the holy Spirit in its fullness until we have died and been raised.

I agree and none of what you said above involves water.

 

[Brakelite]

I agree and none of what you said above involves water.

Baptism in water is an outward public demonstration, a public witness, to the inward conversion of the repentant sinner. Such a demonstration can only be accomplished through water.

 

[Peterlag]

Baptism in water is an outward public demonstration, a public witness, to the inward conversion of the repentant sinner. Such a demonstration can only be accomplished through water.

Nothing like what you just said is taught in the New Testament.

 

[RedFan]

Baptism in water is an outward public demonstration, a public witness, to the inward conversion of the repentant sinner. Such a demonstration can only be accomplished through water.

Exactly! This was a part of first-century Jewish culture, calling for immersion in the mikveh for new Jewish converts, precisely for this reason. A decent primer on this states:

"Submerging in a pool of water for the purpose not of using the water’s physical cleansing properties but expressly to symbolize a change-of-soul is a statement at once deeply spiritual and immensely compelling. No other symbolic act can so totally embrace a person as being submerged in water, which must touch and cover every lesion, every strand of hair, every birthmark. No other religious act is so freighted with meaning as this one which touches every aspect of life and proclaims a total commitment to a new idea and a new way of life as it swallows up the old and gives birth to the new.

"The water of the mikveh is designed to ritually cleanse a person from deeds of the past. The convert is considered by Jewish law to be like a newborn child. By spiritually cleansing the convert, the mikveh water prepares him or her to confront God, life, and people with a fresh spirit and new eyes–it washes away the past, leaving only the future. Of course, this does not deny that there were good and beautiful aspects of the past. But, in the strictest religious sense, that past was only prologue to a future life as a Jew."

 

[Brakelite]

Sounds like your theory is that in the beginning they were called Protestant because they were protesting the teachings/practices of The Church. But at some magic point in time they stopped being Protestant. Here we are 500 years later and those denominations are still not adhering to the teachings/practices of The Church. Sooooo what's changed Brakelite?

A number of years ago, with an unprecedented appeal from Pope Francis to a combined convocation of Pentecostal and charismatic church leaders under the aegis of the well known Kenneth Copeland, a challenge was issued to all protestants worldwide. Anglican Bishop the late Tony Palmer claimed that the 'protest' was now over, and a union between Protestantism and Catholicism now the only logical outcome. Was he right? Was the protest over? Has the reformation, which the pope claims as a 'misunderstanding', now been all cleared up and become redundant? No, there are still a few true protestants around. But those charismatic and Pentecostal leaders and pastors in the auditorium listening to Palmer and the Pope, have them a standing ovation. In other words, they are no longer protestant. Nor is the Anglican church. Or the Methodists. Or the Lutherans. They have ceased the protest, they no longer hold to sola scriptura, they have signed deals and agreements with the Vatican, compromised all manner of Protestant principles and moral standards, and are no longer protestant. And I don't give a toss what the dictionary defines protestants to be.

hostile anti-Catholic revisionists,

the psychotic ramblings of ignorant anti-Catholic bigots, who are too proud to be corrected

do-it-yourself quasi-Christians or pseudo-Christians with no history.

Mentally ill anti-Catholics

your pious rant

Very Christian of you to say so.

 

[Brakelite]

Nothing like what you just said is taught in the New Testament.

I quoted the very passages which teach that very thing in an earlier post. You rejected it. That's your problem, but mine.

 

[Peterlag]

I quoted the very passages which teach that very thing in an earlier post. You rejected it. That's your problem, but mine.

I rejected it because water was not mentioned. I don't need to go back to look at an earlier post because I know water is not taught anywhere in the New Testament.

 

[Peterlag]

Exactly! This was a part of first-century Jewish culture, calling for immersion in the mikveh for new Jewish converts, precisely for this reason. A decent primer on this states:

"Submerging in a pool of water for the purpose not of using the water’s physical cleansing properties but expressly to symbolize a change-of-soul is a statement at once deeply spiritual and immensely compelling. No other symbolic act can so totally embrace a person as being submerged in water, which must touch and cover every lesion, every strand of hair, every birthmark. No other religious act is so freighted with meaning as this one which touches every aspect of life and proclaims a total commitment to a new idea and a new way of life as it swallows up the old and gives birth to the new.

"The water of the mikveh is designed to ritually cleanse a person from deeds of the past. The convert is considered by Jewish law to be like a newborn child. By spiritually cleansing the convert, the mikveh water prepares him or her to confront God, life, and people with a fresh spirit and new eyes–it washes away the past, leaving only the future. Of course, this does not deny that there were good and beautiful aspects of the past. But, in the strictest religious sense, that past was only prologue to a future life as a Jew."

And with your water you totally wipe out the cleansing of the sanctified in Christ Jesus. There was also no water when Jesus Christ stripped off all adverse principalities and powers and was no longer subject to the natural realm when he was raised from the dead. God has made Jesus Christ to be free from among the exercised or operative influence of sin. It's Jesus Christ who became the first to be set apart from sin, appointed to a new position of work, by way of a ceremonial cleansing and purification by his Father. Therefore, he was made free from the slavery of sin nature and death, and became the head of the body, the first born among many brethren.

 

[Marymog]

A number of years ago, with an unprecedented appeal from Pope Francis to a combined convocation of Pentecostal and charismatic church leaders under the aegis of the well known Kenneth Copeland, a challenge was issued to all protestants worldwide. Anglican Bishop the late Tony Palmer claimed that the 'protest' was now over, and a union between Protestantism and Catholicism now the only logical outcome. Was he right? Was the protest over? Has the reformation, which the pope claims as a 'misunderstanding', now been all cleared up and become redundant? No, there are still a few true protestants around. But those charismatic and Pentecostal leaders and pastors in the auditorium listening to Palmer and the Pope, have them a standing ovation. In other words, they are no longer protestant. Nor is the Anglican church. Or the Methodists. Or the Lutherans. They have ceased the protest, they no longer hold to sola scriptura, they have signed deals and agreements with the Vatican, compromised all manner of Protestant principles and moral standards, and are no longer protestant. And I don't give a toss what the dictionary defines protestants to be.

Lol....Nothing has changed Brakelite. Your statement that the Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans no longer hold to sola scriptura and that they have ceased the protest against The Church is completely false.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Marymog]

Now you see my point. Water can get you wet and it's good for drinking and washing up. Who on earth could have ever thought water could get somebody filled with the spirit of Christ? Here's a bit more if you're interested in 2,000 years of biblical teachings that are not biblical...

Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, and water baptism is relevant. And then there's everything that you know about our sin nature was taught to you by them.

I do see your point, Peter. The Spirit isn't IN the water!! That means one cannot get filled by the Holy Spirit just by getting wet and saying some words while doing it. Moses could have put down his hands and the Israelites would have still won the battle. His hands being held up by rocks meant nothing. And why should we anoint the sick with oil? Oil doesn't do anything!! That mud that Jesus put on the blind mans eyes!! That mud didn't do a thing. Jesus was wasting his time putting that mud on his eyes.

BTW....that "Roman Catholic doctrine" that you speak of when it comes to using water in baptism was actually started in the 1st century. And I get it....you don't think that water=baptism is in Scripture BUT it is in our historical Christian writings from the 1st centry....SOOOOO it's not really a "Roman Catholic doctrine" since it has been a doctrine since Christ was alive. It is a Christian doctrine......Just FYI!!!

 

[RedFan]

Lol....Nothing has changed Brakelite. Your statement that the Anglicans, Methodists and Lutherans no longer hold to sola scriptura and that they have ceased the protest against The Church is completely false.

Thank you for your time.

I can;t speak for Methodists and Lutherans, but Anglicans never held to sola scriptura. Richard Hooker's three-legged stool has held sway in Anglican thinking for centuries.

 

[Peterlag]

I do see your point, Peter. The Spirit isn't IN the water!! That means one cannot get filled by the Holy Spirit just by getting wet and saying some words while doing it. Moses could have put down his hands and the Israelites would have still won the battle. His hands being held up by rocks meant nothing. And why should we anoint the sick with oil? Oil doesn't do anything!! That mud that Jesus put on the blind mans eyes!! That mud didn't do a thing. Jesus was wasting his time putting that mud on his eyes.

BTW....that "Roman Catholic doctrine" that you speak of when it comes to using water in baptism was actually started in the 1st century. And I get it....you don't think that water=baptism is in Scripture BUT it is in our historical Christian writings from the 1st centry....SOOOOO it's not really a "Roman Catholic doctrine" since it has been a doctrine since Christ was alive. It is a Christian doctrine......Just FYI!!!

We do not agree. And Jesus may have put clay in the man's eyes to help with his believing. And I had heard that whenever Moses put his hands down Israel started losing.

 

[Brakelite]

If A seeks to assert ecclesiastical authority over B, but lacks power (be it physically or by persuasion and fear of damnation) to force B's submission, then it is B's choice whether to submit to A's authority. If A doesn't seek to assert such authority over B, then A's power to force submission is irrelevant and it is always B's choice whether to acknowledge A's authority.

The RCC no longer seeks to assert authority over non-Catholics, despite occasional pontifications.

I agree, but would like to add a caveat. The RCC no longer seeks to assert authority over non Catholics, for the time being. Their present reluctance doesn't negate her ambitions to do so when the time is more auspicious and with less harm to her overall standing.

 

[doctrox]

From the OP:

Where does the Pope get his authority?​

Yeah, it's through a false view of Peter:

1. The Catholic Church says that the apostle Peter was the first pope; yet Popes didn't exist until 600AD.

2. The Catholic Church says Peter, being the first Pope, wasn't married. Yet Peter had a wife (Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38; 1 Corinthians 9:5).

3. The Catholic Church says Peter was first in rank and authority, but Jesus said he was not (Luke 22:24,26, Mark 10:44, Matthew 20:27).

4. The Catholic Church says Jesus supposedly commissioned Peter to build a Gentile Roman Catholic Papacy upon a "rock" (Matthew 16:18), but as soon as he did this, Jesus turned to Peter and called him "Satan" (Matthew 16:23).

5. Peter cursed and swore (Matthew 26:74).

6. Peter denied and abandoned Jesus Christ 3 times (Mark 14:67-72).

 

[Hobie]

I agree and none of what you said above involves water.

I think you need to read your Bible a little bit more..
Matthew 3:11
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

 

[Brakelite]

I can;t speak for Methodists and Lutherans, but Anglicans never held to sola scriptura. Richard Hooker's three-legged stool has held sway in Anglican thinking for centuries.

I enjoyed that link RF, and would like to comment on the following quote from that text...
The ‘reasonable’ reader of Scripture isn’t a reckless and revolutionary apprentice aiming at an aggressive deconstruction and critique of the text, but rather the one who is truly ‘reasonable’ will enjoy the guidance of the church and appreciate it as an aid and check to our own understanding and application of the truths of our faith within the life of the church in our own time.
I like that. It allows for the ministry of teaching, it acknowledges the ministry and spirit of prophecy, but retains individual freedom of choice, judgement, and discernment. As Scripture says elsewhere, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. ”
Proverbs 11:14 KJV
But nowhere in the above does it suggest that the counsellors, teachers, or the church, have the final authority, and may use that authority to excommunicate or burn you at the stake if you disagree.

 

[Marymog]

From the OP:

Yeah, it's through a false view of Peter:

1. The Catholic Church says that the apostle Peter was the first pope; yet Popes didn't exist until 600AD.

2. The Catholic Church says Peter, being the first Pope, wasn't married. Yet Peter had a wife (Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38; 1 Corinthians 9:5).

3. The Catholic Church says Peter was first in rank and authority, but Jesus said he was not (Luke 22:24,26, Mark 10:44, Matthew 20:27).

4. The Catholic Church says Jesus supposedly commissioned Peter to build a Gentile Roman Catholic Papacy upon a "rock" (Matthew 16:18), but as soon as he did this, Jesus turned to Peter and called him "Satan" (Matthew 16:23).

5. Peter cursed and swore (Matthew 26:74).

6. Peter denied and abandoned Jesus Christ 3 times (Mark 14:67-72).

1. YOUR history of "Popes didn't exist unti 600AD" doesn't match up with actual history: Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P.L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P.L., LXIII, 69).

2. Complete lie: Peter, Apostle, Saint

3. Scripture says that Peter was first in rank/authority: Peter and the Papacy
And writings from the early church agree: What the Early Church Believed: Peter's Primacy