Quote:

---

Quote:
I know this continues the derail, but I wanted to adress your comments. The practice of being single is not against the Bible.

"I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do." 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 RSV


10 The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11 Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by othersand there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Matthew 19:10-12

---

This is absolutely true,but the idea of requirirg celibacy to be a priest or pastor or 'clergy' is not biblical in any way shape or form not in the old or new testaments. Furthermore let us note that all the apostles were married, including Peter.

Matt 8:14-15


14 Now when Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw HIS WIFE"S MOTHER lying sick with a fever. 15 So He touched her hand, and the fever left her. And she arose and served them.
NKJV

Paul says the other apostles were married and he and Barnabas is actually the only one who is not and he clearly states that he does have the right to marry, he just chooses not to. He has the 'gift' that you mentioned in Matt 10.

1 Cor 9:3-5

My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
NKJV

Cephas is name for Peter the same one mentioned in Matt 16. The other apostles and even the Lord's brothers (yes Mary had other children after Jesus) had wives!

Also Peter was not the first pope.
1.) the idea of apostolic succession is never established in scripture in fact the opposite is true. Jesus himself strictly and clearly forbade the taking of titles or taking positions of authority over one another.

Matt 23:2-12

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. 4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; (like forbidding marriage to be a priest --1 Tim 4:3) but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.' 8 But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; (Pope or 'pastor', 'reverend' or any other honorific title) for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and YOU ARE ALL BRETHREN. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your FATHER; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
NKJV

Jesus again says that there are to be no rulers or ones in authority over each other,

Luke 22:24-27

Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' 26 But not so among you; ON THE CONTRARY, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

This 'taking of authority or ruling over' also includes the church.Jesus is the head of the church and that is on earth as well and this is why he gave gave apostles, prophets, etc for a reason notice he did not give popes or singular heads of churches and no where in New Testament scripture is this modeled. NO WHERE and the only one close to exercising this sort of singular ruling authority over a chruch is James, not Peter. Acts 15:13-18

Eph 4:11-16


11 And He Himself (the Lord) gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head Christ 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
NKJV

2.) Peter was not the first Pope, there was no pope until after Constantine, In fact there was no 'official church' until after Constantine in the 4th century, that is the birth of the Roman Catholic church! There is scant to no scriptural backing for apostolic succession, at least none that does not take some serious manipulation. The Matt 16 passage used to justify Peter as pope is badly misinterpreted. Jesus is the rock. Peter is a 'chip off the rock' but is never to be the ruler of the church and Jesus makes this clear. Read what happens right after Jesus's prophetic statement that he would use Peter to build his ecclesial community. He rebukes Peter calls him Satan because Peter tried feeling like he was now 'the dude" tries toexercise authority over Christ! This went on to cause division among the brethren We see Peter again try to exert his 'authority' in the transfiguration where he is bascially rebuked by the Father himself! (lol) This attitude of Peter's is the one that lead to argument that Jesus deals with in the Luke scripture pointed out above. One that exist between James and John and Peter. What Jesus said in Matt 16 is simply this, 'Simon, because you were the first to outwardly proclaim me as the Christ before the others (and it was not Peter but the Father who revealed this to him) , you will be the first to be given the privilege of proclaiming me as Christ before men'. And that is exactly what we see happen in Acts 2. The rock that Jesus built HIS church on was Peter's confession, "You are the Christ the Son of the living God", not Peter himself. In fact if you read Acts you will see that Peter's position and authority in the church DIMINISHES. In Acts 6 we see the first conflict/crisis in the body and you do not see Peter personally rise up nor his name mentioned at all. It is 'the twelve' which Peter is part of. By Acts 10 we see the ascension of James, Jesus's half brother, as the head main leader in the Jerusalem church. Peter never acted as a pope, because he never was a pope nor did the chruch before Constantine ever have a pope like figure head. Only Christ.

OPAG.

Are you willing to read some history? I can recommend some things if you are. Statements like, "There was no church till the 4th century..." when we have, in the historical record, proof of a church professing things like Mary's perpetual virginity and apostolic succession from hundreds of years before the 4th century, makes me think you haven't read much history.

Longtime lurker, but this is a topic that interests me. While it is true to say that writings existed hundreds of years before the fourth century about the Perpetual Virginity, it is equally valid to say that many writings existed refuting it as well. Most of the early writings on this topic were about Mary being a virgin at birth, but didn't address her virginity afterward.

There isn't much scriptural support for virgin always after Christs birth, so I doubt it is super important. I think there is better support for her having no other children, as Jesus gave her into John's care while in the cross, something he likely wouldn't have done if James was her biological son.

Regarding a church before the 4th century, I believe the OP is referring to an official state-approved religion of the Roman Empire. That was not until the 4th Century at the Council at Nicea, presided over by a man who was not a believer and who later murdered his wife and son.

This event officialized what the church would be out of the various sects of Christianity that had arisen. Those sects continued to exist, but they were not the state-approved Christian Church of the Roman Empire. All of us, understandably, look upon the state-approved Christisn Church of Communist China with some suspicion. It is equally valid to do the same for Roman Catholicism, especially given the actions of many of it's power-hungry, decadent, and/or prideful Popes like the Medici's or the Borgia's or Borghese (see the facade of St. Peter's basilica) or Urban VIII (see the altar at St. Peter's).

It wasn't until Theodosius in 380 that what we know of as the RCC was granted permission to call itself Catholic, other sects were delegitimized by imperial decree, and state support for pagan religions ceased. Would you fall in line of Trump declared Missouri Synod Lutheranism as the only true legitimate Christian Church? Of course not, and legitimately so, leaders of nations have no more authority to determine God's Church than does Pope Leo X to determine that indulgences are legitimate by Papal Bull. That is to say, men may say they can do it, but it is ultimately meaningless.

So the OP's points do have much merit even if you disagree with them.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Your history is full of crap, with respect. The term Catholic Church has been in use for centuries prior to Nicaea. The idea of a centrally organized church based in Rome came centuries after Nicaea.

Nicaea did not define Christian Orthodoxy out of many equal sects. It addressed the Arian controversy in specific. Small-o orthodox Christianity had been dealing with various sects and heresies for centuries, literally back to apostolic times.

---

Catholic Church, as in the Universal Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not the same thing. If you read how the discussion started on the Q thread, you'll know the discussion is about the Roman Catholic Church, specifically.

Yes, I'm aware of what the Nicean Council was addressing and the Arian controversy was one of them, but not the only thing. All of the issues together combined were to address and attempt to establish Christian Orthodoxy within the Roman Empure. It's principal outcomes were the Nicene Creed and the establishment of Synods.

Please don't refer to my history as crap, when it is, in fact, accurate.

FWIW, the original discussion on the Q thread centers around whether or not the RCC is "compromised" by the supposed New World Order. I think that there are some factions within the RCC that don't have the best interests of the faithful at heart, but I don't see the RCC as being in the pocket of the Rothschild family, especially given Francis's very kind words towards Martin Luther. Seems more like he, specifically, is trying to unite with other Christians in the face of a increasingly secular world. My opinion would change if the pope were to start caving to modern societal trends, which would also lend credibility to the rumors of why Benedict resigned.

You seem to be one of those people. Your spirit brother is probably someone like Henry George Gnass.

The OP is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church. You need to read the appropriate Q posts to understand the context.

Also, I'm referring to the establishment of the Synods to determine Orthodoxy. You'd have known that if you didn't just focus on the Arian controversy and stubbornly persist in the belief that Christian Orthodoxy was well settled before this time period.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Enjoy your conspiracy theories.

---

The one I refuted? Is that the one you are trying to now characterize me as a believer of? More than a bit intellectually dishonest and a petty tactic, don't you think?

Am I the only one that has no idea what Qanon is?

Frok said:

---

Am I the only one that has no idea what Qanon is?

---

Syndicate of nutters. Expansive thread on the politics board, but I don't suggest venturing that thread...

RetiredAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Continuation of thread from Qanon

---

Never a good sign when a thread starts like this.

---

Word. That thread is the land of 200 mpg carburetors...