When the "pope" is calling for the dismantling of all private arms ownership... You know you've lost the path
(media.patriots.win)
SPICY 🔥🔥🔥
Comments (1003)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
The bible says anything about the papacy? That's news to me.
Jesus gave Peter alone the Keys to the Kingdom.
Common misunderstanding due to a bad translation. Peter means small rock, while the rock Jesus said he would build his church on would be like a huge boulder (talking about Himself)
While Peter had a lot of responsibility and power in the early church, there is nothing in the Bible about a succession of people that inherit that role.
The Peter is the "small rock" and Jesus is the "large rock" is inaccurate. Petros is just the masculine form of the word petra. If Jesus would have named Peter "Petra", that would have been like giving a man the name "Jane" instead of "John". Petros and petra are both mean rock and are the same thing. If Petra is a giant boulder, in the Greek translation of Joshua 5, does God expect them to make knives out of giant boulders?
Also Catholics believe the Pope is essentially the Bishop with primacy. Do you know where the term "Bishop" comes from.
Hate to break this to you but the Catholic Church is anti-Christian. Anyone that thinks this current pope is speaking for God on Earth is out of their mind. God isn't telling the pope anything and if He is, this one is doing the opposite of what He says. The Pope is pushing Socialist policies to give men power over others for personal gain. Christianity doesn't teach that, the leader of the Catholic Church does.
The Jesus who spoke in parables and metaphors suddenly meant this completely literally? How do you figure that?
Just Men after a power grab, nothing more.
Not everything Jesus said was a parable or metaphor. In fact, most of the time it is explicitly said whether or not he was speaking in that manner.
Petoria was
That feel when not a based Voortrekker...
This is a Sola Scriptura argument. You can't trash the Protestants while clinging to the same thing yourself. If the the rock argument was really true to Christ's teaching, the Sees of Constantinople and Antioch and others would still have been in communion with Rome.
Edit: plus St. Peter also founded the See of Antioch. What makes Rome the keeper of the key and not Antioch? Just because Rome was the larger metropolis? That's a politically charged and thus scummy argument.
Peter established the Church in Antioch, but when he left the primacy left with him.
The valid central authority is Christ himself.
Throughout history, the repeated attempts to centralize power into the hands of one human figurehead has always produced catastrophic consequences.
To err is human, and leaving all eggs in on basket is not prudent. God told us to love our neighbors, he never told us to trust them.
One more thing: why did Rome crowned Charlemagne Holy Roman Emperor when it had not been part of the Roman Empire for 400 years after falling to barbarian raids?
The rock is not the man and the petra/petros thing is ignorant. Jesus says that his divine nature was revealed to Simon by God himself and then says "you are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church". The rock is God's revelation to man, particularly in the Holy Spirit. The rock is hearing the word of God rather than going with the flow of the world.
Then, Simon is called Rock from that point on. Not Peter, the greek word but Kephas, the Aramaic word. He holds an office of listening for God's word. Even though popes have been imperfect or even evil, their job remains to listen for the voice of God and tell us what it says.
Immediately afterward, Simon says something stupid "God forbid Lord, no such thing will ever happen to you" and Jesus calls him Satan, proving that thr man whose job is to listen and speak the will of God also sometimes is a false prophet speaking his own will. He must carefully discern whether he is hearing the will of God or his own.
What use is it to have such a person in the Church if they sometimes evil and even the good ones are sometimes wrong? Because God uses the man to communicate his will. When God chooses to speak through the Rock he does so. This provides a certain unity to the Church which is so sadly lacking in non-Catholic communities and Churches. Better to have an imperfect pope than no pope at all.
What about infallibility? When the man speaks as himself he is not infallible. When he speaks as the Rock, who has listened to God and then spoken, he is infallible. How do we know when he is speaking his own mind and not officially? This requires discernment.
In this case he tweeted: We need to dismantle the perverse logic that links personal and national security to the possession of weaponry. This logic serves only to increase the profits of the arms industry, while fostering a climate of distrust and fear between persons and peoples.
Sounds right to me. The literal meaning of his words is "We need to logically disprove that weapons cause safety." And of course he is right. Gun control people do need to logically disprove it before I stop believing it.
Does it make sense that a house, any houses or buildings, is built on a single piece of rock?
When you talk to one of your kids, do the rest suddenly stop being your kids?
No, that wouldn't make any sense. When you talk to a child among your children, your attention is on him or her. That doesn't mean the rest cease to be your children.
I'm still unsure as to why there is even a need for a central human authority "to listen to God's voice" when it's been Biblical that the people don't even listen to the prophets each time they are sent. A humanly vessel is proven time and time again to be inadequate. Like you said, what is the point of a vicar when it is God's decision when and where He shall reveal His will? Remember, it was St. Paul who originally persecuted Christians and then converted out of the blue. St. Paul didn't need a vicar to hear the will of God.
Everything in Scriptures points to a trend of decentralization after Christ's sacrifice. The Gospels are documented into 4 books of 4 different points of witness and Acts are letters of several apostles, all of whom were common folks, none rabbis or priests originally.
Even in one of Christ's parables, the dishonest employee showed himself prudent in God's eyes when he found out he lost favor with his master. He separated his eggs to multiple baskets as he relieved the debts of different people.
If Christ had really wanted one of his successors "to hold all the keys", why would he even have called the others? Why would God even send His Son when the priestly nation Israel could have been enough to lead the nations?
One more thing: why did Christ made a point about the pointlessness of a priest who was vain in his obsession with keeping the laws while praising the humbled tax collector who prayed in secret?
If God wanted a vicar why the need at all to show that any secret prayers would be heard by Him?
The truth is one basket is never enough, no matter how hard you wish it to be so.
And isn't it a waste of time to prove that weapons are useful and dangerous? Did God ever have to prove to humans that a sword is a sword, and how to use it to destroy and/or to protect, like we are a bunch of robots? Didn't God simply install his automaton with flaming swords at the gate of Eden to guard it?
Do the common people need to know mathematically why 1 + 1 = 2? No, that would be a waste of time.
"Weapons cause safety" isn't even an argument. It's self evident.
All I know is I'm going Lutheran because Luther was absolutely based.
Too bad all the Lutheran churches I see are filled with SJW signs and black lives matter banners. Also female priests who talk about black transgender lives mattering and systemic racism.
Not even close, no. When he said "upon this rock I will build my church, he wasn't talking about Peter (which is where the mistake comes in because Peter can be translated as rock or stone), but rather upon the confession Peter had just made: "You are the Son of God". This statement, this confession of truth, is what the church is built upon. That Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Without that cornerstone of belief, nothing else stands.
Why would Jesus then name him Rock and say on this rock I will build my Church for no reason? Seems like that would be awfully arbitrary and confusing to throw in there for no purpose. Even renowned protestant scholars like D.A. Carson say that Peter is the rock.
In the Aramaic "Kephas" is used for both Peter and rock. The same word
Matthew 18:18 kinda turns that on its head and implies that other apostles were given equal standing.
Did the other Apostles get the keys?
I assume you're referring to the man whose real name was Michael King, Jr., not Martin Luther King, Jr.
He didn't call himself by that name until he was almost 30 years old.
What?
As an outsider, it seems to me that much of Catholicism is just shit that somebody pulled out of a hat hundreds of years ago and then for some reason everyone believed was the will of God.
For sure. At one point they made their followers pay the church to forgive their sins.
That's not what indulgences were at all. You were paying for religious to pray for you.
Right, to get you through purgatory to heaven. They were literally selling salvation
You speak more truth than you might realize.
Familiarize yourself with Russell's Teapot and the John Frum cults.
That's every religion, bub.
The Tupi Indians believed that when you die, two giant worms devour your stomach (thereby eating your soul), then an Amazonian god greets you at the gates to the afterlife by squirting chili juice in your eyes.
I don't know what happens when we die, but I know it's not that.
Personally I think the Samaritans have it right.