Join Us Today!

Join our non-denominational community with 10,000+ members and more than 50,000 monthly visitors today. Engage in bible discussions, studies, prayer support and friendly fellowship.

The Keys To The Kingdom Of God......

Discussion in 'Seeking Jesus' started by Thelight238, Mar 26, 2005.

  1. The Keys To The Kingdom Of God

    Romans 3:23(21-26)--All have sinned and come short of the ''Golry Of God''

    What Is The ''Glory Of God''

    Romans 6:4(1-11)--The ''glory'' of God raised Jesus from the dead
    1 Peter 4:14(15-23)--The ''golry'' and the ''sprit'' of God are one
    All have sinned and come short of the Holy Spirit of God (Romans 3:23)

    Who Can Receive The Holy Sprit

    Matthew 7:21-23(15-23)--Not everyone-only those that ''DO'' the will of the father. False authorities (in the name of theLord) False prophets (in the name of the Lord) False gifts (in the name of the lord) If these do not ''Do'' what Jesus called the will of othe father, he calls them lawleess
    Acts 9:1-6(1:3, 4-9)--Saul (Paul) told that he must ''Do'' something
    Did Jesus lie to Saul, he did not say ''believe with all your heart'', he did not say ''confess your sins to God in prayer'', he did not say ''call with your voice upon me'' he said to do something
    What Is A Person To ''Do''
    John 10:7,9(7-18)--Jesus said that ''I am the door''
    On the day of Pentecost Peter opended the door to the kingdom of God (God gave Peter the keys)
    1st key--Acts 2:38(37-42)--Repent greek word is Meta-Neoes Change-mind
    2nd key--Be baptized for the remission of sin (mark 16:16 is baptized-greek baptisthis matt 3:16 and Acts 8:13 when baptized-grekk baptisthis)
    ''He that believeth and when he is baptized shall be saved.....(acts 22:16, 1peter 3:21, john 3:5, matt 3:15)
    It was necessary for Christ to be baptizd so that he might fulfill all righteousness
    3ed key--The laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit (acts 8:16-18, acts 9:12,17, acts 19:17)

    Matt 7:7--Ask and it will be given to you, Seek and it will find it, Knock and it will be open to you

  2. The Keys To The Kingdom Of God

    The Keys To The Kingdom Of God
    What Is A Person To ''Do''
    John 10:7,9(7-18)--Jesus said that ''I am the door''
    On the day of Pentecost Peter opended the door to the kingdom of God (God gave Peter the keys)
    1st key--Acts 2:38(37-42)--Repent greek word is Meta-Neoes Change-mind
    2nd key--Be baptized for the remission of sin (mark 16:16 is baptized-greek baptisthis matt 3:16 and Acts 8:13 when baptized-grekk baptisthis)
    ''He that believeth and when he is baptized shall be saved.....(acts 22:16, 1peter 3:21, john 3:5, matt 3:15)
    It was necessary for Christ to be baptizd so that he might fulfill all righteousness
    3ed key--The laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit (acts 8:16-18, acts 9:12,17, acts 19:17)

    Thelight 238 thank you for insightful post you certainly read your bible, I like to share with you how it was for me, I found the the passage of the bible that most closely relates to my coming to the truth that is in Jesus is parable of the vineyard worker Mat. 20 :1-16
    I believe in the calling and in case I was called when I was a child and didn’t answer, then I became an adolescent and the Lord called me but I didn’t answer the I became an adult and didn’t answer the call, then I became a mature adult and still did not answer to my calling. By this time I was heavily burden by my mistakes (sin) and the fact that I felt so self sufficient that I thought that I could do it on my own, and the parable is so close to my own life is that when I got save (baptised) I started to read the bible in pray-full and studied it, soon after a became a leader in my congregation and in many instances I receive the rejection of those that have laboured longer in the faith and think that God is unjust for giving me the same reward when I started at about the ninth hour, any way this post is only to say thank you for the sriptires that you cited.
    On this point Who Can Receive The Holy Sprit a I agree with Stryper “ every one” God calls every one and not only once but does it till the last breath “ Call in the name of the Lord Jesus repent of your sin and you shall be saved is all that is required.
    May God bless you and keep you well
  3. I think you are quite right in that there is more to being saved than just faith alone. For as Our Lord said, all men shall be judged according to their works.
    Please do not think me to hold a position that one is saved only by works, apart from faith, for truly it is impossible to please God without having faith in Him. The position that Scripture holds to , as well as Apostolic tradition is that one is saved by Grace, and faith, thru works.

    For man is body and soul and any grace in our soul must necessarily pour out into out acts(works), and because ,by faith we know that virtue and charity is pleasing to God we therefore, will ,that our soul and body acts in love for Jesus Christ. For when one is in a state of sanctifying grace(see catholic encyclopedia) he is united to Christ so that all acts of virtue ,wether they be in thought word or deed,because he is united to Our Lord, he gains merit for eternal glory.Thru Christ, in Christ, and in Christ. This is what has been taught since the beginning and it is only quite new in comparison to the Catholic Church, that one is saved by faith alone, or the belief that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith for all true Christians, or the belief that once you accept Jesus Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior you are saved ,and that there is nothing you can do to lose your salvation. Where is that in the Bible? This confusion was actuall started by Martin Luther, an excommunatant of the Catholic Church in the 1500s. But fortunately history speaks otherwise. As to Regards concearning The Keys of the Kingdom, again ther seems to be a confusion.

    Promises to Peter

    When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

    Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

    Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

    Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

    Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

    Who is the rock?

    Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

    From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

    As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

    Another alternative

    The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

    In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

    Look at the Aramaic

    Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

    Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

    When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

    Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

    Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

    Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

    If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

    The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.
  4. Thru Christ,with Christ, and in Christ.
  5. Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

    Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

    Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!

    But what about Romans 3:23, "all have sinned"? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11).

    We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

    Paul’s comment seems to have one of two meanings. It might be that it refers not to absolutely everyone, but just to the mass of mankind (which means young children and other special cases, like Jesus and Mary, would be excluded without having to be singled out). If not that, then it would mean that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin, which is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary—but she, though due to be subject to it, was preserved by God from it and its stain.

    The objection is also raised that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.

    The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was "invented" at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

    Actually, doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf. Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her.

    The Assumption

    The doctrine of the Assumption says that at the end of her life on earth Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven, just as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps others had been before her. It’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary "ascended" into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power.

    The Church has never formally defined whether she died or not, and the integrity of the doctrine of the Assumption would not be impaired if she did not in fact die, but the almost universal consensus is that she did die. Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, "after the completion of her earthly life" (note the silence regarding her death), "was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven."

    The possibility of a bodily assumption before the Second Coming is suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "[T]he tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." Did all these Old Testament saints die and have to be buried all over again? There is no record of that, but it is recorded by early Church writers that they were assumed into heaven, or at least into that temporary state of rest and happiness often called "paradise," where the righteous people from the Old Testament era waited until Christ’s resurrection (cf. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6), after which they were brought into the eternal bliss of heaven.

    No Remains

    There is also what might be called the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption. It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints. Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

    It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

    Complement to the Immaculate Conception

    Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

    The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, "Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might." If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

    Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell "in a body under debt of sin" (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

    But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

    Mary’s Cooperation

    Mary freely and actively cooperated in a unique way with God’s plan of salvation (Luke 1:38; Gal. 4:4). Like any mother, she was never separated from the suffering of her Son (Luke 2:35), and Scripture promises that those who share in the sufferings of Christ will share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). Since she suffered a unique interior martyrdom, it is appropriate that Jesus would honor her with a unique glory.

    All Christians believe that one day we will all be raised in a glorious form and then caught up and rendered immaculate to be with Jesus forever (1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 21:27). As the first person to say "yes" to the good news of Jesus (Luke 1:38), Mary is in a sense the prototypical Christian, and received early the blessings we will all one day be given.

    The Bible Only?

    Since the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are not explicit in Scripture, Fundamentalists conclude that the doctrines are false. Here, of course, we get into an entirely separate matter, the question of sola scriptura, or the Protestant "Bible only" theory. There is no room in this tract to consider that idea. Let it just be said that if the position of the Catholic Church is true, then the notion of sola scriptura is false. There is then no problem with the Church officially defining a doctrine which is not explicitly in Scripture, so long as it is not in contradiction to Scripture.

    The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18-20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).
  6. Luk 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
    Luk 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

    Please explain to me then why we as christians according to this scripture are more blessed than Mary?

    I would also like to ask where in scripture it teaches the Catholic church is the whole truth church. The verses you qouted

    Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
    Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
    Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:and, lo,I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

    This scripture say that we are to go and teach all nations what Jesus has instructed us. Where has he said that Mary was to be held in higher regard? If anything with the scripture I posted before (this one) tells us that we are not to hold in any higher regards than we would any other brothers or sisters in Christ.

    Where also can I find in the bible that Mary herself was of immaculate conception? If she herself where concieved of that manner why send Jesus?

    Mary also called God her Savior and that He (God) was mindfull of her humble state and that she was His servant.

    Luk 1:46 And Mary said: My soul gives glory to God;
    Luk 1:47 My spirit is glad in God my Saviour.
    Luk 1:48 For he has had pity on his servant, though she is poor and lowly placed: and from this hour will all generations give witness to the blessing which has come to me.

    I am not saying that Mary was not blessed because she was, but her blessing was that she was chosen to carry Jesus in her womb, beyond that its not about her. Its about Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    God Bless :love:
  7. You seem to be off base on several points

    In response to your post
    you seem to think that there is some kind of rivalry between Our Lord and His Blessed Mother.
    The truth is not so, and any one who believes such, holds to an absudity!
    God The Son is a divine person,from all eternity, Our Lady is not.

    To non Catholics, Mary seems to be the biggest obtacle to accepting what the Catholic Church is.

    First, Our Lady, in scripture,which all Christians hold to be in errant, proclaims, "Behold, from henceforth,all nations shall call me blessed. For He who is mighty has done great things for me,and Holy is His name."

    One of the ten Commandments is;
    Thou shall honor your father and your mother.

    Now Our Lord, being true Man and true God, fullfills this commandment most perfectly,wouldnt you agree. Now if Christ, who has the greatest dignity, honors His mother with a perfect honor, according to that dignity she has and will have for all eternity, being the Mother of God, who are we to assume that we are just as honerable as her?

    That sounds quite egalitarian to me.

    If we are to immitate Our Lord, it is nessesary to honor His Mother for love of Him. As to Her immaculate conception, I think it is explained pretty well in the above post. I am short of time right now but i will try to respond further.

    God bless

  8. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Men adding too sola scriptures?

    No problem? :confused:

    Pro 30:5 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
  9. So please tell me

    Well now, are you familiar with who even put the Bible together?
    Do you the think the Bible that you have, just fell from the sky?
    How were the early Christians saved if for 400 years, if scriptures as we know it today were not compiled into the accepted cannon that we have available today until the Catholic Church decided what books belong in the Bible and what ones did not.This is a historical fact, just as historic as God The Son assuming human nature. By accepting the the bible in its present for is inerrant than you also accept implicitly, if not explicitly the Catholic Churches authority wether you like it or not. All The Fathers of the Church of the first centuries defended Catholic doctrine such as,the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucherist, just as Our Lord Said,and St. Paul defended.Tell me, when was your church founded? Who founded it? Did you know that the Catholic Church is the only Church that Claims it is the One True Church? And that it is the only one that can historicall trace thru the succession of Popes and Bishops to the First Bishops, the Apostles and St.Peter, the first Pope. Do you Know that within the 2000 years of Church history there have been thousands of Saints and Martys who have been perfected in the grace of God even defending the True Church at the cost of their blood? Havent you not seen the bodies of incorrupt saints who have been dead for hudreds of years and are still miraculously preserved unto this very day, such as Saint Bernadette of Lourdes or Saint Vincent De Paul?If you want to see them, look it up on the internet.
    Would God miraculously preserve The bodies of undeniably holy persons to mislead the faithful? Or rather would it not, considering the mountain of evidence,scriptural,historical,logical,philisophical, defended by the very blood of the martyrs since the beginning, be a testament of the authenticity of The One ,Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which Christ Himself aquired with his own blood.I would assume you have never seriously sought to have these questions answered.

    As if having such questions answered would make you no longer a
    Christian. For the Catholic Church by right has all of the necessary means of salvation which Our Lord Himself established.

    For the more someone looks into history, the more he ceases to be protostant.

    I believe in God the Father Almighty,
    creator of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
    And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
    The only Son of The Father.
    Eternally begotten of The Father.
    God from God, light from light , True God from true God
    Begotten, not made. One in Being with The Father
    By the power of THe Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary,and became man.
    For us men and for our salvation He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered died and was buried. He desended into hell and on the third day He arose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God The Father Almighty,from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. I believe in The Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life, Who proceeds from The Father and The Son.
    With The Father and The Son He is Worshipped and glorified. He has spoken thru the prophets. I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
    I acknowlege one baptism for the forgiveness of sin
    I look to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come

  10. I thought the verse you quoted said something about honour your Father and Mother, hmmm....maybe I'm wrong...I guess Jesus did not have to honour his earthly Father...

    How many Hail Mary's did you say today to pay penance for your sins while rubbing the rosery? Is there such a thing as Hail Jesus's? If you do Hail Jesus', do you have to rub the cross a certain number of times?
    Sent from a mobile device
  12. You said a whole lot, but I still have to believe that the revelation of who Peter said CHRIST was, is the Real Rock. Peter was indeed a good man, but Christ is the foundation of the Church. Why can't you believe that this revelation from the Father is the Rock. I know that it is a play on words, but just because Peter means rock, doesn't imply that he is the Rock that the Church is founded on. There is no Rock like our God.... Jesus is the Rock of Ages.
    Sent from a mobile device
    amadeus2 and Christ4Ever like this.
  13. Jesus is the corner stone.
    in regards to OP, yes we must call on the Lord, repent of our sin and ask to recieve the Holy Spirit.

    He only comes into our life if we ask, if we do not ask, we do not receive.
    Sent from a mobile device
    Wired 4 Fishen and amadeus2 like this.
  14. Nathaniel said he was messiah well before peter did

    47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and He says concerning him, “Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no deceit.”

    48Nathanael says to Him, “From where do You know me?”

    Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip calling you, you being under the fig tree, I saw you.”

    49Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are King of Israel.”

    50Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51And He says to him, “Truly, truly, I say to all of you, you will see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man

    1 John 5:11
    And this is that testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son
    Sent from a mobile device
  15. There is only one key you need love
    Sent from a mobile device
  16. Gods glory is His presence on steroids.

Share This Page

Users Who Have Read This Thread (Total: 0)