Was This The Greatest Supernatural Event Of The 20th Century?

[Glomung]

But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;

Yes, I am very much aware of that bit of scripture. What makes you think that it has anything to do with the subject at hand? He was speaking to the generation standing in front of Him. Do not assume that every statement made by Jesus has an eternal scope. Jesus wept. Is He still crying? He also performed miracles after saying that, were they not wondrous?

 

[the_patriot13]

he was speaking to that generation, but he was also prophesying.

And thankyou, by the way, for finally addressing scripture. We may disagree on the meaning of it, but it is so much nicer to actually be debating whats in the Bible, and not our own say-sos.

 

[calvin]

An evil and adulterous generation...................yup that is this one alright. But notice well the wording there:
An evil...not This evil.... Jesus could not be limiting what He said to the then generation...anyway, would He have meant Gen X, Y or what?
Nah An evil... is much more sweeping a generalization than just those alive then.
Nor did He say This evil and adulterous generation.

 

[Major]

But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;

Yes, I am very much aware of that bit of scripture. What makes you think that it has anything to do with the subject at hand? He was speaking to the generation standing in front of Him. Do not assume that every statement made by Jesus has an eternal scope. Jesus wept. Is He still crying? He also performed miracles after saying that, were they not wondrous?

My brother, notice the comment from calvin in #83. He is absolutly correct!!! "AN" not THIS as the word THIS would indicate the generation He was speaking to.

NO.........What Jesus says has immediate implication as well as eternal.

Jesus is still weeping!

Every time a lost soul drops into hell.....Jesus weeps over him/her.

 

[Major]

"since the Bible says there will be no more such signs"
The Bible says no such thing, that is the main problem with much of modern Evangelical Christianity, you guys just make it up as you go along and when necessary shoehorn a bit of scripture in to suit the desire.

We are being a little defensive are'nt we Glo???

A learned man as yourself should be able to discuse these matters in respect and love as no one wants to argue but instead keep a lively thread going.

I love ya man and respect your choice to be a RCC.

 

[Glomung]

The ONLY generation that saw the sign that He was refering to was the generation standing in front of Him as He spoke. No generation since then has seen Him rise from the dead, so it is implied if not obvious that His statement applies to that generation. And as I said before, did He not do miracles after that statement? In which way are they not signs and wonders? Did his apostles not do miracles well after He had been resurected? Picking an arbitrary point in time and saying "no miracles after June 15, 104 A.D." (date picked at random) is just bad theology and completely unsupported by scripture.

Whether you folks like it or not, people have been talking face to face with Jesus regularly for the last 1900 years.
In the RCC and Orthodox Churches these are called Saints. Much of what has been learned by these folks has been of great value to those who are willing to listen.

 

[Major]

The ONLY generation that saw the sign that He was refering to was the generation standing in front of Him as He spoke. No generation since then has seen Him rise from the dead, so it is implied if not obvious that His statement applies to that generation. And as I said before, did He not do miracles after that statement? In which way are they not signs and wonders? Did his apostles not do miracles well after He had been resurected? Picking an arbitrary point in time and saying "no miracles after June 15, 104 A.D." (date picked at random) is just bad theology and completely unsupported by scripture.

Whether you folks like it or not, people have been talking face to face with Jesus regularly for the last 1900 years.
In the RCC and Orthodox Churches these are called Saints. Much of what has been learned by these folks has been of great value to those who are willing to listen.

In claiming that the pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” the Catholic Church rejects the sufficiency and supremacy of Christ’s priesthood, and grants to the pope roles that Christ Himself declared would belong to the Holy Spirit.

What does the Bible say about this..............

Ex. 33:20.......
“But He [God] said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !"

John 1:18.......
“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

John 5:37 .......
“"And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.”

John 6:46.........
"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.”

1 Tim. 6:15-16.......
“He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.”

 

[Glomung]

You are aware that Jesus and God the Father are not the same person?
No one has seen God the Father? Well Moses did, but that's another issue. I'll go on faith that no one has seen God the Father for 3000 years or so.
God the Son, plenty have seen Him, both before and after the Resurrection. Have you forgotten Revelation? John saw Him plain as day.
As for the Pope, you misunderstand the nature of the office. It is the office given to the Apostle Peter.
It does not conflict with or replace the Holy Spirit in any way.

 

[avemaria]

Play nice! It is a miracle that this thread survived 24 hours.

But since the topic of Papal infallibility was brought up I'll put in my 2 cents.
Just to let you all know Papal infallibility only means the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit when speaking ex cathedra and defining a Dogma .
It is very rare that a Pope does that.
A Pope's private theological opinions which he says in a homily, conversation, or writes in personal letters are not infallible.
The Church does not teach that the Pope is any more pure, humble, or faithful than you or I.
The belief is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
For instance, ancient Israel was full of atrocities and corruption but they were still the nation that God had established, they still had the true Faith, and God guided the deposit of the faith regardless of how corrupt they or their leaders were.
The people that wrote the Scriptures were great sinners (King David for example a murderer and adulterer), yet when they wrote the Scriptures they were completely guided from making a single error.
That's right, those sinners who wrote the Scriptures were with each and every word infallible when doing so.

I dont think any of us would argue against the idea that when the Church in the fourth century put together the new Testament Canon and declared it to be the "Word of God", they were guided by the Holy Spirit when doing so and the decision was infallible.
Our belief is that when Christ established the Church 2,000 years ago, he would have also provided for its continuation.
We see examples of this from such statements as "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (the Church).
He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16) 1 Tim 3:15 teaches that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth"
(Matthew 18:17) says " if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Also in Acts chapter 15 as I had mentioned previously we see that the Church leaders were guided by the Holy Spirit in making a decision that completely contradicted the Scriptures of that time.
What makes us think that the Holy Spirit would stop guiding future Church councils?

Christ promised "I am with you until the end of time" (Matt 28:20.) and that he would not leave us orphans.

Our belief is that part of that promise would have included guided the Church in the teaching of Faith and Morals.
This would have especially been true because Christ didnt leave them with a Bible or a printing press so people depended on the Church.
Since Christ left the people with a Church and that Church would more than 300 years later put together the New Testament and the first Bible and since the early Christians relied on the Church for the deposit of faith, it would only make sense that the Spirit of God was guiding the Church that Christ established in areas of faith and morals.

 

[the_patriot13]

while were on it, where is popal infallibility of any sort in scripture?

 

[avemaria]

The word Bible isnt in Scripture either.
The Bible does not say Jesus was a Virgin his whole life but any good Christian knows this to be true and would consider it a blasphemy to teach otherwise.
I say that just as one example of how a teaching can be true even if it isnt clearly stated in Scripture.

We believe that when Christ gave peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the powers of binding and loosing that was the gift of being guided by the Holy Spirit when settling matters of faith and morals for the early Church.
We see him use that authority in the Council of Jerusalem.

You asked for a papal infallibility of any sort. I shall repeat myself. The Scriptures say that all Scripture is inspired by God. But it is written by men. That is an example of a sort of infallibility. Sinful men writting Scripture without error.
The fact that there is an unbreakable chain of Popes that date back to Peter and the fact that not one of them definded a doctrine that contradicted what a previous Pope defined is a sign of God's guiding hand.(IMHO)
The second Bishop of Rome was Pope Linus in 67 AD and there is an unbreakable chain of Successors up to our Current Pope Bennedict.
You can look up Pope in a world Book Encyclopedia and it will give you the list. The world book Encyclopedia is not a religious book but they give the Historical facts.

 

[the_patriot13]

there, is your flawed logic. Scripture, is not infallible, it says in the Bible in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"

Keywords there, inspired by God. And, as already pointed out, we are not to add to scripture. Period. Second, you cant trace the pope line back to Peter. There wasn't a uniform church at that point.

So, Ive established the Bibles infallibility. It is the word of God-if we can't take God at His word, then we have nothing, I repeat, nothing to stand on.

All youve done, with Jesus being a virgin, is show something called common sense. We know, that Jesus would never have sex outside of marriage. Nowhere, in the Bible, does it show Jesus having a wife, so its logical to assume, that Jesus was never married. and since He was never married, He was a virgin. Thats logical, thats common sense, that is not evidence for popal infallicy. Nowhere, does it say that God speaks to the pope. And where does it say God gave Peter the keys to the kingdom?

And, I could care less if the popes never contradicted themselves, its whether they contradicted the Bible or not, that is the question.

 

[avemaria]

Matthew 16
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Right common sense tells us that Jesus was never married but it doesnt state that in Scripture. So you yourself know that you can use common sense to come to a conclusion that isnt clearly defined in the Bible. Well common sense tells me that since Christ didnt leave the early Church with a printing press or a Bible, he would have guided the Church in the teaching of faith and morals because that is all people had at that time was the Church.
Not to mention there is plenty evidence from Scripture that the Church had teaching authority and was guided by the Holy Spirit.

I disagree with you about our current Pope not being a successor of St. Peter because I have done the research but I dont feel like further debating that.

yes the Bible doesnt use the word infalibility when speaking of Scripture but it is the same concept. Those who wrote the Scripture were guided from error.
It has the same meaning. Your point is that the Bible alone settles Doctrinal disputes. Well before there was a Bible and before there was a printing press dont you think God would have left an authority on earth to settle Doctrinal disputes?
The acts of the Apostles and the Epistles clearly show that this teaching authority existed. Why would it up and vanish?

 

[the_patriot13]

man, was just Gods instrument, He guided mans hand, so the scripture, is indeed infallible. To say otherwise, is calling God a liar. period. Scripture is infallible, it is in our interpretation of it, that errors come, not by the writers, but our understanding.

Good job giving the exact verse, its matthew 16:18-19, "and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"

So, you see, you are at least partly right in that Jesus, tasked Peter with starting the early, church, which we can see He did in Acts. What you do not see, anywhere in acts-which is expressly written to the church, on how the church was to be run, was Peter fulfilling the role of "pope" in fact, nowhere in acts, does it say that there will be a "infallible" person leading the church. nowhere. Its not in there. So to use those verses to say that Peter, and all the "popes" that followed him, received "infallible" words of God directly from God, is an misinterpretation of the verse.

To say that your "not going into that even though youve done the research" is copout, it really is, shows you havent really done the research. And the first mention of the catholic church in any historical document didnt appear till some 80 years after Jesus died-long after Peter died. And, from research, the early catholic church, was nothing like todays-the early catholic church, was a very Bible Oriented church, the pope wasn't this person that got visions from God, but more of just a leader who admitted their fallicies. The early catholic church, was modeled after the church in acts, and was instrumental in putting together the holy Bible.

The problem was, that over time, the catholic church turned away from scripture, and towards church tradition. It wasnt a sudden thing, it was a slow degradation, hitting probably a new low when Martin Luther posted the 95 Thesis on the church wall in 1517, all 95 were solid, Biblical problems with the catholic church. The problem was, the church never learned from these, and just continued until what we have today-a church that stands more on tradtion, and what the pope says, then on what the Bible says, which is why were having this debate. We need to get back to scripture-not church tradition. It is church tradition, that is flawed, and infallible-not the Bible.

 

[Kevin]

Matthew 16
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Right common sense tells us that Jesus was never married but it doesnt state that in Scripture. So you yourself know that you can use common sense to come to a conclusion that isnt clearly defined in the Bible. Well common sense tells me that since Christ didnt leave the early Church with a printing press or a Bible, he would have guided the Church in the teaching of faith and morals because that is all people had at that time was the Church.
Not to mention there is plenty evidence from Scripture that the Church had teaching authority and was guided by the Holy Spirit.

I disagree with you about our current Pope not being a successor of St. Peter because I have done the research but I dont feel like further debating that.

yes the Bible doesnt use the word infalibility when speaking of Scripture but it is the same concept. Those who wrote the Scripture were guided from error.
It has the same meaning. Your point is that the Bible alone settles Doctrinal disputes. Well before there was a Bible and before there was a printing press dont you think God would have left an authority on earth to settle Doctrinal disputes?
The acts of the Apostles and the Epistles clearly show that this teaching authority existed. Why would it up and vanish?

If the church was to be founded on Peter, what about all the other 1st century churches founded by the other apostles? If Peter was the "rock" why did Paul write most of the NT? Common sense prevails here. Why did Paul rebuke Peter if he was the "rock"? If Peter had more doctrinal authority than Paul, then surely the rebuke would have been the other way around? Just questioning this "common sense" thread?

 

[KingJ]

As long as the pope opposes same sex marriage, he has my full support and prayers.

It is bad church practice to elevate pope, bishops, cardinals and recognise certain saints as it unnecessarily encourages idolatry , Paul would never approve. I don't see this discussion as that important though as I strongly feel that in this evil age, we should show our support to anyone opposing evil and standing for Jesus, as they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and need our prayers and support.

 

[Glomung]

As always, this has devolved into nothing more than Catholic bashing by people who have not a clue what Roman Catholic doctrine actually is, but will happily spout nonsense all day long about what they think it is.

@patriot, cute ad hominem attack there "not going into that even though youve done the research" is copout, it really is, shows you havent really done the research"
you have no idea what research she has or has not done, she is stating that bringing it up is a complete and utter waste of time because YOU WILL NOT LISTEN
BTW it was the DOOR of the Wittenburg cathedral, not a wall, and do you have any idea what any of the 95 theses were about? I greatly doubt it. Luther was the Renaissance equivalent of Pat Robertson, and behaved in about the same manner.

"the early catholic church, was nothing like todays-the early catholic church, was a very Bible Oriented church"
You have no idea what the early church was like, there are practically no records, and there WAS NO BIBLE.
The first "Bible" was compiled by Origen, around 300 AD. Later synods determined which books would or would not be included. Scripture was not generally available to the masses until centuries later. In other words, until practically modern times, only the extremely wealthy could have unfettered access to the scriptures.

@ Kevin, Jesus said Peter was the rock upon whom He would build the church, argue with Him.
Paul was a well educated man, it is no surprise he did most of the writing.

 

[avemaria]

Our Lord knew Peter would be dead by 70 AD, therefore he must have intended the office of Peter to last until the end of time. Although all the Apostles were given the power to bind and to loose, St. Peter received this power individually at the time he was given the keys. Jesus would not have guaranteed to back up the doctrinal teachings of Peter and his successors unless he was also going to protect them from teaching false doctrine in their official capacities as Shepherds of the Church.

Luke 22:31-32 and John21:15-17 Jesus prays that Peter's faith would not fail; Peter in turn would strengthen the other disciples. In the passage from St. John, Jesus clearly makes Peter the shepherd of his Church.
In Acts 15 after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent. His statement ended the discussion. This council obviously considered Peter's authority final. The decision also was not based on scripture which shows that the Holy Spirit was their final authority not Scripture.

Some people claim that Acts 15 shows that James, not Peter, was the head of the Church. It is Historically accurate that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, but in the Gospels, St. Peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the Apostles, whereas St. James the less is not.

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles(Mt19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk12:41; Jn 6:69.) The Apostles are sometimes referred to as "Peter and his companions"(Lk9:32; Mk16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter's name always heads the list of Apostles (Mt 10-14) (Mk 3:16-19) (Lk 6:14-16) (Acts 1:13). Peter's name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined. The names of the rest of the Apostles (all 11 combined) is 130 times. After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. This is clear evidence that he was head of the Church.

Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 2:41). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:41). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first Heretic, Simon the magician.

Peter (Rock) is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-41) Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile coverts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48)
There is also an unbreakable chain of successors (Popes) that date back to Saint Peter. After Peter died, the second Bishop of Rome was Saint Linus in 67 AD, Cletus 76-88 AD, and Clement 88-97 AD.

As far as Peter being rebuked. Yes absolutely. Sometimes the Pope needs to be rebuked. St. Catherine of Sienna had to rebuke the Pope in her time. Like I said the Church doesnt say the Pope is guarenteed to be any more pure, humble, faithful, and charitable than you or I.
The gift of being guided by the Holy Spirit from error is only granted when defining a Dogma from the chair of Peter which is rare and in the case of some Pope's never took place in their entire pontificate.

 

[Kevin]

As always, this has devolved into nothing more than Catholic bashing by people who have not a clue what Roman Catholic doctrine actually is, but will happily spout nonsense all day long about what they think it is.

@patriot, cute ad hominem attack there "not going into that even though youve done the research" is copout, it really is, shows you havent really done the research"
you have no idea what research she has or has not done, she is stating that bringing it up is a complete and utter waste of time because YOU WILL NOT LISTEN
BTW it was the DOOR of the Wittenburg cathedral, not a wall, and do you have any idea what any of the 95 theses were about? I greatly doubt it. Luther was the Renaissance equivalent of Pat Robertson, and behaved in about the same manner.

"the early catholic church, was nothing like todays-the early catholic church, was a very Bible Oriented church"
You have no idea what the early church was like, there are practically no records, and there WAS NO BIBLE.
The first "Bible" was compiled by Origen, around 300 AD. Later synods determined which books would or would not be included. Scripture was not generally available to the masses until centuries later. In other words, until practically modern times, only the extremely wealthy could have unfettered access to the scriptures.

@ Kevin, Jesus said Peter was the rock upon whom He would build the church, argue with Him.
Paul was a well educated man, it is no surprise he did most of the writing.

Three verses later Jesus calls Peter Satan. Jesus was speaking to the heart behind Peter in both occasions. Jesus will build His church on those who proclaim Him as the Messiah and will rebuke those who try and prevent His will from taking place - simple hermeneutics.

When Jesus gave the "Great Commission" He gave it to all His disciples not just Peter.

 

[KingJ]

Slow down there, Avemaria. You are trying to find reasons to praise Peter ..... We need to line ourselves up with Paul's teaching. He received the revelation on how to live by faith in an unseen God after the resurrection. The disciples DID NOT until he shared it with them. Kevin made the biggest point when he said 3/4 of the NT is by Paul. Why does the Catholic church NOT follow his advice on running a church? Paul clearly spoke of the need for elders not a pope. Paul clearly said we are a royal priesthood (no need to give titles, fancy dress or praise to fellow prominent saints).

The Catholic church is very guilty of mixing law with grace and encouraging the worship of idols. The only reasons I defend the Catholic church is because I know many good friends in it. They do not hold fast to the need to pray to Mary, saints or confess sins to a priest! Idolatry is one of the 10 commandments...why play with fire? Jesus clearly says He is our mediator. There should be no need to further explain that. If you kneel before a statue of Mary or any saint, what do you think you are doing? If you pray to God through Mary or any saint do you think you are respecting Jesus as your mediator?