Bishops, Elders & Deacons

[Guest]

Dear Homer,

Yep, you are 100% correct and tomorrow I'll be 100% Protestant with your argument ... sorry, I lied ... gotta go to confession (another topic, another day). If you continue to read Scripture it also says to do the same with "teacher" (Matt 23:9). Do you have a Sunday School "teacher", do your children (grandchildren) have a teacher? What you are doing is reading Scripture out of context because if you read Scripture you will also see teacher used in the correct context (Eph 4:11, Jms 3:1, 1 Tim 2:7). Was Father Abraham wrong in being called "father"...heck, it is in scripture? (8 times in Scripture!) 1 John 2:15 the elders are referred to as "fathers". Read your Scripture (you keep telling me to) .... Paul even tells us that he is our "Father" in Christ!

You mean you contrued Scripture as to never allow your children to call you father, dad, papa? That would be a very sad state of affairs.

"Father" (call no man Father) in the scriptural context is to place someone above Father God. If you remember your history (there I go again) it had to do with the Roman Emperors wanting divinity status by calling them "father". Catholics do not have a Father God above the Trinitarian God Christians are known for. Then again, the Trinitarian God was not defined until one of those bad, bad Catholic Councils and written about by some bad, bad Church Father who just happened to be Catholic. Your references about "father" are way off base and poorly founded in Scripture.

Homer, you are the quintessential "protesting" Protestant because you answered with your statement.... "Every Sunday is "Easter" as far as I'm concerned". Read it again ... its all about "you". You say "as far as I'm concerned" No proof text, no history, just your conviction. You continue with statements like "ought to suffice...", "It would seem we honor elders (how do you give DOUBLE HONOR because that is what Scripture commands?...it's not a would seem thing, it's a command!), but you never give "reason" only "your" feelings.

I argued with a Mormon in my living room with the same argument but his went like this "In the bosom of my chest I know this to be true". How can I argue with you or the Mormon? With that logic you are always going to be 100% correct. Unfortunately you are 100% wrong with Scripture.

Scripture commands every Christian in 1 Peter 3:15: "...Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope...". This context is about spreading the Gospel to unbelievers, those that have little concept of God, Jesus or the Spirit, so Christians have to get on a non-believer's level. You seem to ignore this and place yourself on a level other than what Scripture wants you to do to spread the Gospel. It says give "Reason", not "bosom of my chest" stuff. When you give "reason" then a non-believer can "understand" and then start opening/reading Scripture.

Some are, as Scripture says, Gal 1:7 "But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. Or maybe they are interpreting Scripture to their own destruction as Scripture also states.

You state "I can't recall a precept in scripture regarding how elders are to be addressed.". You and others have addressed this until our stomachs get upset ... it is "ELDER"....not pastor or minister. You simply do not want to own up to what Scripture says and what your (Protestants) argumentative logic has stated time and time again related to Bishops and Priests. Latin and Anglo-Saxon is OK for pastor and Minister but not Bishop and Priest.

Your interpretation of Easter is unusual because you said ... "Every Sunday is "Easter" as far as I'm concerned", well then what about Christmas. Is every Monday "Christmas" since it appears to start over every week for you?

Again you also state "And why all those fancy robes and hats? Is that how servants are to dress? See Matthew 23:5." Pretty simply, my friend. You do not honor the man, nor his clothes but his office, the Word he preaches. With that logic, then why have a nice Church? It is because you honor God, His temple of worship. Why did they adorn the Ark of the Covenant with gold and statues? It was because it housed the OT God. Why wrap Jesus in fine linen and spices when he died and place Him in a stone grave fit for a Rich man? Because we (NT Christians) adored Him. You fool yourself with these trite arguments about the wrapping of the Church. Catholic Christians adore God and will dress Him and His Church in the finest as long as we can.

Matt 23:5 deals with YOUR focus when you think it is what is on the outside that matters when it is strictly the inside that counts. Many things help Christian "focus"...some have big fancy Bibles with pillow case adornment (I know you've seen those by Protestant women ... I did), some pastors (Vineyard/Horizon) need/have six figure salaries and many have their pictures throughout their church atriums ...but find a statue (don't go into that typical statue scripture Protestants throw out unless you want more Scripture), a picture of Jesus .... it were as if it were the plague!!!! The last time I heard, a Catholic Priest makes about $22,000/year .... wow, big benefits there! Our Churches adorn themselves with pictures and statues of Jesus to remind us of His suffering, death and resurrection. We even have those of the earliest Scriptural Saints that deserve double-honor for their sacrifices.

As for the style of the clothes ... they are from the period of Peter and Paul. As Paul stated "I am YOUR FATHER IN CHRIST", so does the Catholic Priest. The priest dresses to adorn that Father of Christ. It is a transient celebration because later the priest wears simple shirt with a collar, a pitiful car and a salary to match. Many protestant pastors have the finest clothes, a fancy car in the parking lot and a home to boot. If you remember history (darn it there I go again), the earliest Christians kept a very low profile to avoid capture. Torture and death. Only after Constantine legalized "all" faiths, not simply Christianity ...do you see the Church celebrating itself like that acorn but now a flower blooming.

Many Protestant faiths like the Baptists and Assembly of God (my wife was a former AG) have a deep disdain for Catholic Christianity. There is a very adamant Baptist apologist named James White who goes on and on about Catholics being wrong about this and that. Unfortunately, I guess he was not that good at keeping his family on the Baptist straight & narrow because his sister came into the Catholic Christian Church several years ago. Boy, I'd love to be there for Christmas dinner!

By the way, two things. "Etymology" ... yes, its late and I am relying on Spell Check too much. Thank you for the correction. Also, "...being a servant is as high as it gets.." Right on, brother! Gotta go to bed, many teeth to drill tomorrow.

Christ's Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hi CatholicSteve,

I’m enjoying this discussion (although maybe a bit terse for my taste).

This statement caught my eye.

You wrote:

With that logic, then why have a nice Church? It is because you honor God, His temple of worship.

Can I trouble you for a NT verse that describes a building, any building, as the temple of God? I’ve always thought God’s temple was the totality of His people. You know…living stones and all?

I’m also curious where we get the command to “adorn” such buildings. By the way, I agree with much of what you said about Protestant churches and pastors as well.

Cheers.

P.S. By the way, do you go by Dr. Steve, Dentist Steve, or Steve DMD?

[Guest]

Dear Chris,

Glad you like the inter-change, unfortunately I am slowly not enjoying it. You used a very appropriate word "terse" for your sense of the discussion. I am not sure you are looking at that from my perspective or the readers? I will tell you from my point-of-view of the Protestant "silence" it has become very frustrating and antagonistic. That would be one reason for many of my CAPITAL words and !!!!!!! points and sometimes condescending rhetorical questions...why?

Pretty simply. I am asked a question and then I answer the question with a question back to the writer. What do I get back? No answers, just more questions like "yeah, but what about this or that?". It seems like a pretty one way dialogue. They ask, I answer. They ask, I answer. But when I ask, they say "yeah, but what about this?".

Even you find the discussion "enjoyable", but do you even answer any of the dozen or more questions I have asked back, for example, minister/pastor word origins, Christmas/Easter non-scriptural, Protestant pastors richness vs a priest's mass vestments...etc? No, what you have done is simply asked me another question. No wonder I am getting a little "terse". It does not appear there is a Protestant out there that wants to validate their use of any of the above using the same standards they attack most of the very "Catholic" questions they ask of me.

So, when you say that it is a bit "terse" for you, then again I need to go to Scripture to show Protestants how Scriptural Christians talk about religious/spiritual matters ... go to the whole chapter of Acts 15. What happened there? They argued. Some translations even use stronger language than "argue". Therefore, "terse" is a cakewalk compared to what Christians of the caliber of Paul & Barnabus went through at Antioch. I feel like Paul/Barnabus (in the apologetic sense) yet lack that NT authority body that they had to take a disagreement to for a mandated judgement (and that is all Scriptural language from Acts 15 ... the NT Church... where can you find that today?).

Now, because you appear to be a reasonable man I will answer your questions(s) you present. In doing so may I ask that you answer mine? First your question. I will paraphrase but you basically ask for a NT verse that talks about any building as a temple of God. You also aks for where does it ask Christians to adorn these building? Before I answer this please be aware that by the very tense or standard you place this question on me, then I have every right to ask you the same related to a Protestant "tradition, manner, function...etc", OK?

For some reason, you ask solely for a NT verse. I hope you realize we are a people of the Word. This Word is the spoken and the written, both OT and NT. Even Scripture tells us that not everything is "written". If you cite 2 Tim 3:15 as your proof text, please save your breath. These verses I agree with 100%. They say Scripture is "useful", it does say it is the only thing. There were 12 Apostles, but only 4 wrote Scripture (5 if you include Paul as a later Apostle). So, 8 other Apostles were preaching God's Word....was their preaching any less than the other 4? It was never just the written word. The NT Bible (OT also) was never even finished in its final form until about the 4th century, so for almost 400 years there wasn't even a Bible running around to convert non-believers just a bunch of letters and such. Many of these letters and such were frauds and it took a Church Council to codify the true ones from the false teaching.

I degress. Your constant reliance of simply written NT scripture wasn't something the earliest Christians followed. Also, you realize that the New (Testament) fulfills the promises of the Old (Testament). When the NT is silent, then the OT still has validity. If that were not the case, then we could simply throw out the OT because everything we need is in the NT. By your very request "show me in the NT (paraphrased)" you negate the OT as useless. This constant request for only the NT basically tells me that you do not need or study the OT because it is useless for salvation. If salvation is the ultimate goal then forget the Old and keep the New, right? If your faith is true faith, you really don't need the OT just simply accept the NT as your last Word in truth. Unfortunately, this would be grossly wrong.

Therefore, when you ask for a NT building I am not sure I can do that. Can I show you verses of the use of "Temple" which in the Scriptural sense is a place of God's presence. The proof text of this is Jesus telling us that the Temple will be destroyed and He will rebuild it in three days. Of course, the Temple is now Him because God found this Temple corrupted. Jesus shows deep respect for the Temple by protecting it by chasing the money changes, etc, out. He does not destroy it. When Jesus was a little boy, where did He go to discuss spiritual issues ... the Temple. In the NT a Christian disciple actually describes a physical Temple ....

Mark 13:1-4
1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" 2 "Do you see all these great buildings?"

Luke even describes a parable by Jesus using the Temple as a Holy place related to two individuals who wish to pray, so even Jesus still hold the Temple as Holy and sacred. The point here is not the outcome of the two but how Jesus regards the Temple.

Luke 18:9-14
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

Luke even talks about how the disciples saw the Temple "adorned". There you go, the first Scriptural NT verse for "adornment".

Luke 21:5-19
5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

But, Catholic Steve, how do you get around the fact that Jesus later says that this Temple will be thrown down? Did you read that? Read it again. Jesus, through Luke, is describing the Old Temple that will be destroyed and will be later re-built in three days (Jesus' death/resurrection), the New Temple. Jesus is warning us about the Old Jewish Temple, the Jewish non-believers because He will soon show us the way through His death & resurrection. It will be this Temple that we will follow. You have this big hangup that Catholic's are following the old Temple ... Heck, we were the first to declare this victory over the old Temple teachings. In reality, you really have a problem with a nice building to worship God in, huh?

Maybe you have a problem with "temple"? Why not take the stance like Jesus did? Yes, corruption is everywhere, also in the Temple. But, Jesus also found the Temple such a highly sacred place that He even calls our body's "temples" in 1 Cor 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own" Heck, it houses the Holy Spirit...not bad house guests! Do you think it would be nice to dress that temple up? Stay fit, exercise, dress well be presentable so others will welcome you? If that is the case then don't you think that Churches of Worship should look good, be presentable so others feel welcomed...a center to focus their devotion before they go out into a very different world?

What does your Church look like? Does it have doors and windows, HVAC for heat and cooling, electricity for lights, a nice paint job, maybe a big statues of a stylized dove on the backdrop (Horizon does). How about a place for a band and screens to display the words of the songs to be sung? I'll bet you even have chairs in your church. That being said, where is that type of church building in Scripture? No where. Nada. Zip. The fat lady has sung.

You are placing a Westernized Protestant standard of a house/building/church of worship against a Catholic Church. Why not apply the standard of an East African Christian Church which is a dirt floor, clay/cow manure walls, open bays for windows, sweltering heat, no electricity, something that is pitiful to the typical Westernized Protestant Church (above). If you did, you (Protestants) would now be the ones that look like the over-embellished house of God. You see, it is a matter of perspective. The simple fact is, Catholics do physical churches to God good, really good. Catholics have been doing it for over 2000 years. Protestants tore all that down and now they only have 500+ years to build a House of God, but slowly you see these Protestant Houses of God getting bigger and better, but unfortunately they (the Protestants) are the ones going back to the Temple of the Old Testament Jews. It is all about the pastor, never Jesus. The proof is in the pudding.

Just look at all the Tele-evangelization. Look at the gaudiness that is always associated with a pig picture of the pastor plastered outside, in the brochure. If Jesus is the way, the only way, why not see one big picture or statue of Jesus? Only a picture of the pastor or maybe a stylized dove (spirit). The spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity. Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity. Scripture says that no one gets to heaven but through me (Jesus, 2nd person), so why always play down pictures of Jesus? At best, maybe a couple things about the Spirit, but there should be tons of stuff with Jesus plastered all over the place.

Catholics see how believers in God treated God both good and bad found both in the OT and the NT. Catholics take these teaching and try to treat God in the better ways found in the OT and the NT. If you disregard the OT, you are losing thousands and thousands of years and thousands of disciples in ways to worship God. God is a God of the OT and a God of the NT. God has no time barriers. You seem to wish to place time constraints on a timeless God. That is unfortunate.

If you ever get to San Diego, let me know and I will take you to a Catholic Church and a Mass and explain all that you see and then we can go to Horizon Christian Fellowship and compare the worship. Heck, ask a Catholic friend. No, you won't shrivel up and die especially if you are a born-again Christian because you are protected by the shield of righteousness, remember? You may even save a Catholic or two if you minister to them well.

Now, my friend, a question for you. What is the last sentence in the Lord's Prayer?

I go by Steve. The only time I use "doctor" is for new patients so they know they are actually talking to the dentist. After that, I am comfortable with whatever the patient likes. The only other time I use "doctor" is when I am applying for a bank loan .... for some reason they think I have more money than I really do and I have a better shot at the loan!

Christ's Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Forgive me Catholic Steve but your last sentence is really funny...
No I am sincere!

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

I would first like to say that I am deeply sorry if my post offended you. I actually meant to bring in some light-hearted humor with the doctor thing, but I can see that my aim was more than a little off. Please accept my apology.

I really don't wish to antagonize you. I should have been more sensitive to the fact that you might feel like you're in the enemies camp on this forum. Let me assure you that if you love Jesus, you are not considered an enemy as far as I concerned.

I would be happy to answer your questions from my perspective as time allows, but you will not likely find my answers as stimulating as someone like Steve Gregg for instance. But not tonight, it's bed time.

I would ask though that you lose your broad brush. You have put a lot of words in my mouth, as well as others regarding Protestantism vs. Catholicism. I happen to agree with many of the points you make about Protestant traditions.

Also, since you asked, I don't meet in a building as you described in your last post. I meet with other Christians in my home and homes of others. Not that it's better, just a preference.

God bless you brother, and good night.

[Guest]

Hi Catholic Steve,

I’m back. I didn’t really intend on getting pulled into a lengthy discussion, I really only wanted to pose a challenge to your “temple” comment. However, I feel that since you have graciously spent a lot of time posting your opinion, I will do my best to give you my take on the things you wrote. I hope your expectations are not too high. Please pardon my brevity as I only have my lunch break to complete this and I’m not a very fast typer.



You wrote:

Dear Chris,

Glad you like the inter-change, unfortunately I am slowly not enjoying it. You used a very appropriate word "terse" for your sense of the discussion. I am not sure you are looking at that from my perspective or the readers? I will tell you from my point-of-view of the Protestant "silence" it has become very frustrating and antagonistic. That would be one reason for many of my CAPITAL words and !!!!!!! points and sometimes condescending rhetorical questions...why?

I know how you feel. But one of the good (yet frustrating) things about on-line forums is that people get to choose what they want to discuss. I’ve started many threads that people simply chose not to participate in. I had to come to the realization that maybe the things I’m interested in discussing do not interest others as much and so I just move on.


You wrote:

Pretty simply. I am asked a question and then I answer the question with a question back to the writer. What do I get back? No answers, just more questions like "yeah, but what about this or that?". It seems like a pretty one way dialogue. They ask, I answer. They ask, I answer. But when I ask, they say "yeah, but what about this?".

I guess I don’t quite understand why you would find this objectionable. If you are presenting something in an authoritative way as you have, it should be expected to be challenged fairly with questions. One need not have all the answers

Even you find the discussion "enjoyable", but do you even answer any of the dozen or more questions I have asked back, for example, minister/pastor word origins, Christmas/Easter non-scriptural, Protestant pastors richness vs a priest's mass vestments...etc? No, what you have done is simply asked me another question. No wonder I am getting a little "terse". It does not appear there is a Protestant out there that wants to validate their use of any of the above using the same standards they attack most of the very "Catholic" questions they ask of me.

I find the reading enjoyable, yes. But I don’t believe that it obligates me or anyone else to give an account to you of why they disagree with you and the RCC. For some conversations, I prefer to remain a casual observer and weigh the arguments, especially if I don’t have the time to do all the research. I think some slack can be granted here.


You wrote:

So, when you say that it is a bit "terse" for you, then again I need to go to Scripture to show Protestants how Scriptural Christians talk about religious/spiritual matters ... go to the whole chapter of Acts 15. What happened there? They argued. Some translations even use stronger language than "argue". Therefore, "terse" is a cakewalk compared to what Christians of the caliber of Paul & Barnabus went through at Antioch. I feel like Paul/Barnabus (in the apologetic sense) yet lack that NT authority body that they had to take a disagreement to for a mandated judgement (and that is all Scriptural language from Acts 15 ... the NT Church... where can you find that today?).

Yes, the Judaizers were preaching a different gospel (Gal 1) and either Paul or Barnabas or both were in sin when they angrily separated in haste IMO. I hope they patched it up later, but it doesn’t seem to be recorded. I don’t think this passage gives us permission to be less than respectful when discussing disagreements.

Now, because you appear to be a reasonable man I will answer your questions(s) you present.

Thanks for the kind words, but I don’t think I’m any more reasonable than Homer or Sean and probably less so.

In doing so may I ask that you answer mine? First your question. I will paraphrase but you basically ask for a NT verse that talks about any building as a temple of God. You also aks for where does it ask Christians to adorn these building? Before I answer this please be aware that by the very tense or standard you place this question on me, then I have every right to ask you the same related to a Protestant "tradition, manner, function...etc", OK?

Agreed.

You wrote:

For some reason, you ask solely for a NT verse. I hope you realize we are a people of the Word. This Word is the spoken and the written, both OT and NT. Even Scripture tells us that not everything is "written". If you cite 2 Tim 3:15 as your proof text, please save your breath. These verses I agree with 100%. They say Scripture is "useful", it does say it is the only thing. There were 12 Apostles, but only 4 wrote Scripture (5 if you include Paul as a later Apostle). So, 8 other Apostles were preaching God's Word....was their preaching any less than the other 4? It was never just the written word. The NT Bible (OT also) was never even finished in its final form until about the 4th century, so for almost 400 years there wasn't even a Bible running around to convert non-believers just a bunch of letters and such. Many of these letters and such were frauds and it took a Church Council to codify the true ones from the false teaching.

I agree with you for the most part. I take the words of all of the apostles to be absolutely authoritative, whether written or oral. However, we only have what we have recorded in scripture to go on. The reason I asked you specifically about the NT is because that’s where we find the conditions and mandates for the new covenant. The old one is obsolete and defunct (Heb 8 ). While the OT is extremely useful for filling in some details about God and His character, I take the sayings of Jesus and the apostles to be authoritative for the Christian. Jesus said:

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
NKJV

I degress. Your constant reliance of simply written NT scripture wasn't something the earliest Christians followed. Also, you realize that the New (Testament) fulfills the promises of the Old (Testament). When the NT is silent, then the OT still has validity. If that were not the case, then we could simply throw out the OT because everything we need is in the NT. By your very request "show me in the NT (paraphrased)" you negate the OT as useless. This constant request for only the NT basically tells me that you do not need or study the OT because it is useless for salvation. If salvation is the ultimate goal then forget the Old and keep the New, right? If your faith is true faith, you really don't need the OT just simply accept the NT as your last Word in truth. Unfortunately, this would be grossly wrong.

There’s that broad-brushing I was talking about. I never said any of that. One thing you should realize by now is that wherever you have 3 Protestants, you have 4 opinions. I suspect it’s the same for Catholics, but they may not have as much liberty to express it (it’s like that in some Protestant circles as well). The point is, don’t make this a Catholic vs. Protestant thing because Protestants don’t speak with one voice on everything.

Therefore, when you ask for a NT building I am not sure I can do that. Can I show you verses of the use of "Temple" which in the Scriptural sense is a place of God's presence. The proof text of this is Jesus telling us that the Temple will be destroyed and He will rebuild it in three days. Of course, the Temple is now Him because God found this Temple corrupted. Jesus shows deep respect for the Temple by protecting it by chasing the money changes, etc, out. He does not destroy it. When Jesus was a little boy, where did He go to discuss spiritual issues ... the Temple. In the NT a Christian disciple actually describes a physical Temple ....

Mark 13:1-4
1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" 2 "Do you see all these great buildings?"

Luke even describes a parable by Jesus using the Temple as a Holy place related to two individuals who wish to pray, so even Jesus still hold the Temple as Holy and sacred. The point here is not the outcome of the two but how Jesus regards the Temple.

Luke 18:9-14
9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.

Luke even talks about how the disciples saw the Temple "adorned". There you go, the first Scriptural NT verse for "adornment".

Luke 21:5-19
5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down."

Yes, the temple was no doubt magnificent to behold. But what did Jesus ultimately say about it?

Matt 23:38-39
38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;
NKJV


Apparently God moved out.

But, Catholic Steve, how do you get around the fact that Jesus later says that this Temple will be thrown down? Did you read that? Read it again. Jesus, through Luke, is describing the Old Temple that will be destroyed and will be later re-built in three days (Jesus' death/resurrection), the New Temple. Jesus is warning us about the Old Jewish Temple, the Jewish non-believers because He will soon show us the way through His death & resurrection. It will be this Temple that we will follow. You have this big hangup that Catholic's are following the old Temple ... Heck, we were the first to declare this victory over the old Temple teachings.

I don’t know if I understood you correctly on this one. Do you mean to say that Jesus promised a physical temple building would be re-built again? That’s not how I understand His words:

John 2:18-22
18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?" 19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
NKJV

In reality, you really have a problem with a nice building to worship God in, huh?

Not really, I just don’t see it called “God’s temple of worship” anywhere. In fact, I see Stephen stressing the opposite to the religious types of his day.

Acts 7:48-51
48 However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:

49'Heaven is My throne,
And earth is My footstool.
What house will you build for Me? says the LORD,
Or what is the place of My rest?
50 Has My hand not made all these things?'

51 "You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.
NKJV

Maybe you have a problem with "temple"? Why not take the stance like Jesus did? Yes, corruption is everywhere, also in the Temple. But, Jesus also found the Temple such a highly sacred place that He even calls our body's "temples" in 1 Cor 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own"

Now we’re getting somewhere. The way I understand Paul, the temple of God always refers to the Church (people, not buildings). (1Cor 3:17, 6:19, 2 Cor 6:16, Eph 2:19-22, etc.). God’s temple (the Church, the body of Christ) adorns itself with righteous acts (1Tim 2:9, Tit 2:10, Rev 19:8 ).

Heck, it houses the Holy Spirit...not bad house guests! Do you think it would be nice to dress that temple up? Stay fit, exercise, dress well be presentable so others will welcome you? If that is the case then don't you think that Churches of Worship should look good, be presentable so others feel welcomed...a center to focus their devotion before they go out into a very different world?

The early church didn’t seem to worry about where they met, just that they met. Usually in peoples homes. That’s also my preference because it’s a more intimate setting and feels more like family…which is what we are after all.

What does your Church look like? Does it have doors and windows, HVAC for heat and cooling, electricity for lights, a nice paint job, maybe a big statues of a stylized dove on the backdrop (Horizon does). How about a place for a band and screens to display the words of the songs to be sung? I'll bet you even have chairs in your church. That being said, where is that type of church building in Scripture? No where. Nada. Zip. The fat lady has sung.

Which song? I’ve already told you where I meet so I won’t spend much time here.

You are placing a Westernized Protestant standard of a house/building/church of worship against a Catholic Church.

I don’t think I said that.

Why not apply the standard of an East African Christian Church which is a dirt floor, clay/cow manure walls, open bays for windows, sweltering heat, no electricity, something that is pitiful to the typical Westernized Protestant Church (above).

Indeed.

If you did, you (Protestants) would now be the ones that look like the over-embellished house of God. You see, it is a matter of perspective.

Can’t argue with you there.

The simple fact is, Catholics do physical churches to God good, really good. Catholics have been doing it for over 2000 years. Protestants tore all that down and now they only have 500+ years to build a House of God, but slowly you see these Protestant Houses of God getting bigger and better, but unfortunately they (the Protestants) are the ones going back to the Temple of the Old Testament Jews. It is all about the pastor, never Jesus. The proof is in the pudding.

Preaching to the choir.

Just look at all the Tele-evangelization. Look at the gaudiness that is always associated with a pig picture of the pastor plastered outside, in the brochure. If Jesus is the way, the only way, why not see one big picture or statue of Jesus? Only a picture of the pastor or maybe a stylized dove (spirit). The spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity. Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity. Scripture says that no one gets to heaven but through me (Jesus, 2nd person), so why always play down pictures of Jesus? At best, maybe a couple things about the Spirit, but there should be tons of stuff with Jesus plastered all over the place.

I actually don’t have any problem with statues or pictures of Jesus until they become idols.

Catholics see how believers in God treated God both good and bad found both in the OT and the NT. Catholics take these teaching and try to treat God in the better ways found in the OT and the NT. If you disregard the OT, you are losing thousands and thousands of years and thousands of disciples in ways to worship God. God is a God of the OT and a God of the NT. God has no time barriers. You seem to wish to place time constraints on a timeless God. That is unfortunate.

Again, those are your words, not mine. I do not disregard the OT, I just don’t use the majority of it prescriptively because I don’t believe Jesus mandates that.

If you ever get to San Diego, let me know and I will take you to a Catholic Church and a Mass and explain all that you see and then we can go to Horizon Christian Fellowship and compare the worship. Heck, ask a Catholic friend. No, you won't shrivel up and die especially if you are a born-again Christian because you are protected by the shield of righteousness, remember? You may even save a Catholic or two if you minister to them well.

I have been in many Catholic churches and have even found them enjoyable and even edifying at times. I also have many Catholic friends which I do not count as lost or in sin for being Catholic. I don’t believe God sees the church as the dichotomy man has made it. I suspect that the number of true Christians in both Catholic and Protestant churches are fairly even (and fewer than we might think).

Now, my friend, a question for you. What is the last sentence in the Lord's Prayer?

Matt 6:13
13'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
NASU

OR

Matt 6:13
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
NKJV


Depending on which manuscripts you favor.

I go by Steve. The only time I use "doctor" is for new patients so they know they are actually talking to the dentist. After that, I am comfortable with whatever the patient likes. The only other time I use "doctor" is when I am applying for a bank loan .... for some reason they think I have more money than I really do and I have a better shot at the loan!

I agree with MLH, that was funny.


God bless you.

[Guest]

Catholic Steve-

I want to interject something, and it might be off point a little but it has to do with the catholic/protestant tension.

i go to a church where many, perhaps even close to 1/2 (including our pastor) and my wife, were "raised in the catholic church." the majority of them will tell you that they believed in God, loved Jesus, and stuff like that as catholics, but they had no real personal relationship with him. Then, after they started attending another church and became "born again" (which i perceive as a term of derision in the catholic church), they deepened their faith and their personal walk with Christ. In other words, they became disciples.

i know this is somewhat anectodotal, but seems to be a very common theme. why do you think this is?

P.S. I too have been in many catholic services, particulary with my wife's parents when they were healthy. to be honest, the first couple of times it gave me the creeps. Thereafter, i became more interested in what was going on, and actually sort of enjoyed it, although i must admit i felt something like a stranger in a strange land.

TK

[Guest]

Dear Chris (Dan after this answer),

I guess we are both wrong about our assumptions...I took no offense about your humor. I actually find it very good, as do I like to do the same. No offense taken, no apology necessary, but thanks fro keeping a kind thought in your heart.

As to my "broad brush", sorry but it is necessary when discussing theology/religion with all Protestants. There are some 30,000+ Protestant denominations all with different (if not simply subtle) doctrinal views. When you say you do not attend a "church", well in a way you do. Your "church" building is also a home ... your church has walls, heating, electricity, all the amenities of a typical church except a family also lives there.

You have been asking in the strictest sense, where is "adorning" a building a command by God in the NT. As I said, I doubt I'd find exactly that, but I did find very strong inferences of adornment and a temple. By your own standard which you hold my Catholic Church to, I said I would like to also hold you to, your church is also non-scriptural.

You wrote:
"I guess I don't quite understand why you would find this objectionable. If you are presenting something in an authoritative way as you have, it should be expected to be challenged fairly with questions."

The problem has not when anyone gets mad, I can handle that, but it bothers me when they never answer "my" questions. This is a forum, a discussion, hopefully it is going both ways but all I am learning is how smart a Catholic Christian I am. Yes, I am presenting something in an authoritative manner but so are the responders therefore they must be prepared to answer their authoritative claims with the same fairness in the challenge.

You wrote:

"I agree with you for the most part. I take the words of all of the apostles to be absolutely authoritative, whether written or oral. However, we only have what we have recorded in scripture to go on."

If the earliest Christians did not rely on the written Word for almost 400 years and the last Apostle died about 100AD that would leave some 300 years of oral teachings with whatever written Word(s) could be found (that includes non-codified scripture) why would you now limit yourself to only the written Word when the earliest Christians did pretty good?

You wrote:
"The old one is obsolete and defunct (Heb 8 ). While the OT is extremely useful for filling in some details about God and His character, I take the sayings of Jesus and the apostles to be authoritative for the Christian. Jesus said: Matt 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; NKJV"

You appear to repeat my earlier claim that really all you need is the NT. You make the OT sound like a fun non-fiction book to read because you've read everything in the NT. Jesus does not say that OT is obsolete and defunct. You go way toooooo far in your hermeneutic interpretation. It says : Heb 8:13 ‘By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.' He is calling the "Covenant" ...the agreement between God and the Jews ... obsolete/defunct. The New "Covenant" is a new agreement with God and all people, Jews and Gentiles. The teachings in the OT are still very much alive. You nullify the OT Word of God with one mis-interpreted sentence,

You quote Matt 28 but forget that when Jesus tells them to "teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you" Jesus is talking still about everything in the OT. The command that God gives you and interpret as a command....are you strictly speaking only of the 10 Commandments or are you talking about the over 600 scriptural commandments that God commands in the OT? If the OT is defunct then can we throw out the 10 Commandments or maybe part of them if we can not find them in the NT? Many wrestle with interpretation to their own destruction.

You wrote:
"There's that broad-brushing I was talking about. I never said any of that. One thing you should realize by now is that wherever you have 3 Protestants, you have 4 opinions. I suspect it's the same for Catholics, but they may not have as much liberty to express it (it's like that in some Protestant circles as well). The point is, don't make this a Catholic vs. Protestant thing because Protestants don't speak with one voice on everything."

There is no broad brush there ... that was meant specifically for you. You appear to have a narrow view of the NT when compared to the OT. I was not covering the 30,000+ Protestant faiths out there because some do feel the same about the OT and NT relationship as Catholic Christians do. Your need for NT citation and your above statement that the OT is simply good [to fill in details of God and his character] tells me this about your 1 / 30,000+ doctrinal view.... "the NT tells me how to be saved and since salvation is the desired end result, I really don't need the OT unless I want to simply keep myself occupied".

The saying you use is actually of Jewish roots and it says "Put three Jews in one room and you will get four opinions". We know what God felt about the Jews having so many opinions and ultimately how He dealt with them...Protestants should take a lesson from God. It is not exactly complimentary to mimic Jewish tradition of multiple interpretations or mis-interpretation of God. God said there is one faith, one spirit, not a multitude....simple as that and yes, the fat lady has sung, again.

As for Catholics, yes they have multiple opinions (strictly theirs). The Church authority, the Church Doctrine is one and never changing. Example: I am a Catholic Christian. I believe that the Church Doctrine is 100% correct, whether I apply it in my life is another point. I realize that I am wrong and I will pay that price when my time comes, or better yet, as I study and learn I will then start to apply it in my life. Case in point: Birth control and abortion. I used to practice birth control and I encouraged those with unwanted baby's to have an abortion. I no longer practice birth control or encourage abortion. "Why you are a horrible, unbelieving Catholic. You can't be Catholic, Steve?"

Not really. I am a scriptural Catholic Christian....we are all sinners. I believe the doctrine to be 100% truth but have not reached that level of application. In my lifetime, Mother Theresa was close. Pope Paul was close. I have a brother who is closer than I. Just like Protestant ministers/pastors who accept 100% of scripture as truth but they still violate the minister/pastor qualifications in 1 Tim 3:2-13 and Titus 6-10. Catholics apply scriptural standards to the doctrinal/truth of God's Word. I have not found that in any of the 30,000+ Protestant doctrinal faiths.

You wrote:
"Yes, the temple was no doubt magnificent to behold. But what did Jesus ultimately say about it? Matt 23:38-39 See! Your house is left to you desolate; NKJV Apparently God moved out."

For the Apostle Pete's sake did you read the whole of Matt 23?! He is talking about the unbelieving "...Pharisees, you hypocrites"!! You read one sentence and you speak as if that one sentence is absolute. Go back and read it and then read the last sentence after 38. It says "39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Jesus says He will come back to the temple, the house of the Lord AFTER you say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"...believing that Jesus is God, Lord & Savior. So, Jesus does say he will come back to the temple. What do all Christians say? I don't know much about your church but at my Catholic Church we say just that! So by virtue of Jesus and scripture, the Catholic Christian Church has Jesus in it!!! Yipeeeee! God moved out of the Old temple of the Pharisees and then moved back in as promised to those that believe!

Temple can mean a physical house of worship or God as the temple or our body's as a temple. So your concerns of only a spiritual temple only perplexes me, because it exists in scripture all THREE ways. God exists in three ways....Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Jews of the OT times believed that numbers sometimes had huge spiritual meaning. The number "3" is one of those. God as three persons, the Temple as three manifestations. Even if you disregard the possible use of numerical reasons in scriptural repetition by Jewish/Christian writers, the three manifestations of "temple" are right there in scripture. You apparently like only one use of Temple...go figure.

You wrote:
"Not really, I just don't see it called "God's temple of worship" anywhere. In fact, I see Stephen stressing the opposite to the religious types of his day. Acts 7:48-51 .....
48 However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says:
49'Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, Or what is the place of My rest? 50 Has My hand not made all these things?' 51 "You stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. NKJV"

Stephen/scripture is speaking of the Pharisees. Stephen was speaking to the Jewish "Paul's" as he held the cloaks of the Pharisees who stoned him to death.

I quoted you scripture of temples being described as beautiful building and adorned as such. I quoted scripture where Jesus, himself, talks of praying in the temple....praying is "worship to God". Why do Protestants seem to constantly need a virtual word-for-word, sentence-for-sentence dicta to find a way to worship. Your use of scripture earlier (Heb 8: old one is obsolete and defunct) to validate throwing out the OT exemplifies a poor approach to scripture. Even the scripture you quote above is talking about the Jews who resist the Holy Spirit...well, Catholics embrace the Holy Spirit! You apply God's anger and wrath of non-believing Jews on Catholic Christians that believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior .... sorry, but the scriptural interpretation and application is wrong.

You wrote:
"The early church didn't seem to worry about where they met, just that they met. Usually in peoples homes."

Since Catholics meet in homes for Bible Study's and Churches for continued praise and worship than by your own standards, I guess Catholics are OK, right? Where in scripture does it "say" that they "usually" met in "people's homes"?....or is that an inference you are making?

You wrote:
"I actually don't have any problem with statues or pictures of Jesus until they become idols."

How can a picture or statue of Jesus become an idol? If you have no problem with that, then why don't Protestant churches put them up because they would certainly avoid any idol worship. Heck, I'll mail you a statue of Jesus if you put it up in your "home" church.

You wrote:
"Matt 6:13 13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.' NASU OR Matt 6:13 ‘For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.' NKJV Depending on which manuscripts you favor."

My question to you is what do you favor? These are supposed to be the very words of Jesus. Either He said one or the other. To dictate your spiritual life per "your favor" is foolish because it is adding or taking away from God's words and the application of Rev 22:18-19 becomes very real. Somebody is adding or taking away ...so what is it? What do you say when you say the Lord's Prayer aloud in church?

Christ's Peace, Catholic Steve.... now....


Dear TK,

You are speaking to the choir and I agree 100%. I was lost at the Mass in my early adult life. I left the Catholic Church because of two things...it was fun with song, food and a decent message that often left me very spiritual. I also attended because the girls were cute (heck, I'm human!). I even had a born-again experience, but how we can verify that is nearly impossible because when I quote scripture how to prove a born-again person I am shunned as a non-believer!

I also started to question the whole Protestant theology at Oral Roberts University (I was still a Protestant Evangelical) when people spoke in tongue ... the act was very unscriptural and I have yet to be around someone speaking in tongues that I realize now is pure gibberish.

If your wife (50% parish) was Catholic that is fine, but I find it troublesome when they are willing to sacrifice 7 books of Scripture and two sections (OT removed) as their ultimate guide (WORD) to salvation that we find only in the Protestant Bible. You see these Christians have placed their belief that a Jewish Pharisaical body of non-believers in 100AD, under Roman decree, who hated Christians, who wrote a vitriolic poem about death to all Christians, did not have the Holy Spirit and at the same time CONDEMNED all the NT books of Jesus Christ had even "spirit" (what kind of spirit?) to be able to codify what books of the Bible believers should read. Amazing! Why would I, as a believing Christian, attend a Church that preaches 7+ books less than what God dictated to us? Doesn't that violate Gal 1:7 and Jer 6:16?

As Protestants, you will say Catholics "added" books. History says otherwise. Non-believing Jews took them out! This very body of Jews cursed Jesus & cried out for Christians to die yet Protestants will cite Jewish Pharisaical codified dogma as "Christian"...go figure?

Born-again? I assume you mean the point in time when you become a believer and are "saved", ie "salvation"? I hope you mean that because during my 14+ years as a Protestant that is exactly what it meant. Catholic Christians believe that salvation is a "walk", a journey that is completed only at the end. It is not a bing, bang, boom thing. Don't believe me? I can prove it in scripture will prove it but when I show it to you then you will deny it, because it will take you out of your comfort zone.

I will agree that there are many un-educated Catholics (I was one) who do not know their faith that stay and also leave. That can also be said of Protestants... 60% of Protestant children never return to the Church upon adulthood. I am still pretty darn un-educated but found enough education to find myself back in the Catholic Christian Church. Every day I learn more and am floored with the depth of the historical Church that points to the future.

The Mass gave you the "creeps"? Did you even listen? If you really went, which I question and if you did, for how long? Did you listen to the THREE scripture reading that occur with every Mass? Did you hear the Lord's Prayer recited by the whole assembly said at every Mass? Do you know that the Mass is given every day, not just Sundays? Do you know that the Mass/Eucharist is celebrated every hour as the world turns into new time zones...that means 24 hours a day, seven days a week! Do you know that scripture commands us to celebrate the Eucharist "eat the bread, drink this wine forever", so what do they do? Silly Catholics, they actually listen to scriptural commands....they celebrate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Do you know that with the scripture reading that the BIBLE is read in church on a cycle of every three years!? Does anyone listen to the homily related to the scripture readings? It appears your wife plus 50% who probably did not listen.

Your picture is good but difficult to see everything but you appear to be young 30 years old. Therefore, I will assume (no malice) that your wife is 30 years old. If your wife attended Catholic Mass for these thirty years do you know that she heard the Bible read aloud 10 times! Now, the question is, did she listen? Maybe subliminally she did and then the spirit "clicked" in her one day at a Protestant service, but is she "more" Christian now that she is Protestant?

My answer is probably not. She is the same person. If I used scriptural standards as to her (your?) Protestant "born-again" experience I think she would fall short. That is not meant as a pejorative, simply a scriptural standard that scripture calls me to use. You see, scripture tells us not to test Jesus, but we are to test others.

I try not to fight other faiths, but I do take a stand when others "put down" Catholic Christians. I will challenge all as Paul and Barnabus challenged the born-again Christian at Antioch. I will cite scripture and pose questions right back at you. Whether you dare to answer them is something else altogether.

Mother Theresa said "I love all Faiths, but I am in love with mine". That is a great standard to hold here. I love to talk the talk and try to walk the walk, but please try to answer my questions as well.

Peace out, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

Dear Chris (Dan after this answer),

I’m not sure what you mean by “Dan” there.

I’m going to let your post be the last word in our discussion and let my case rest on what I’ve already written. I don’t think we will be able to have a productive conversation here because it seems that you will continue to lump me together with all other protestants and ascribe to me conclusions that I have not expressed (If you doubt this, go back and compare my actual words to the arguments you’ve made against them).

I just want to leave you with two points of clarification:

First, I never posed an objection to worshipping in a building, Catholic or otherwise. Only that I see no scriptural reason to call any building in our day “God’s worship temple” as you put it. Jesus seemed to indicate that in the New Covenant, worship will have little or nothing to do with location (John 4:21-24). True worship of God is a spiritual thing that does not require a specific building. Whether someone chooses to worship at a house, a field, a prison cell, a Catholic church building, or a Protestant Megaplex, it’s the heart of a person and the collective hearts of true Christians that is God’s temple, not a building IMO. At least that's what I believe the scripture to say.

Second, I also never "nullified" the OT as God’s word in anything I said. That was your interpretation of what I said. I never indicated that the NT is “all I need”. I find the OT extremely profitable and edifying, not just a “fun non-fiction book to read” as you have characterized of me. Having said that, I don’t hold the laws and practices we see described in the OT (yes, even the 10 commandments) as being mandated for the Church age. There is indeed some overlap in certain moral laws that seem to be universal and explicitly applied in both covenants, but temple worship is not one of them IMO. Again, when I asked for a NT text, it's because that's where we find the conditions of the New covenant which we are under. You may disagree and that's fine.

Good sparring with you. Thanks for all the effort you have put into the discussion.

Blessings!

[Guest]

CatholicSteve,

You complain about lack of response, perhaps its your approach. You blast away at so many targets in one post its hard to know where to begin. Your latest gasconade compels me to respond, even though Christopher has answered you well; I agee with him.

You quote Matt 28 but forget that when Jesus tells them to "teach them to observe all things that I have commanded you" Jesus is talking still about everything in the OT. The command that God gives you and interpret as a command....are you strictly speaking only of the 10 Commandments or are you talking about the over 600 scriptural commandments that God commands in the OT?

Perhaps I misunderstand your point, but are you sure we are to obey all 600 OT commands? Surely not, that would be absurd. Please explain.

For the Apostle Pete's sake did you read the whole of Matt 23?! He is talking about the unbelieving "...Pharisees, you hypocrites"!! You read one sentence and you speak as if that one sentence is absolute. Go back and read it and then read the last sentence after 38. It says "39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" Jesus says He will come back to the temple, the house of the Lord AFTER you say "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"...believing that Jesus is God, Lord & Savior. So, Jesus does say he will come back to the temple.

I fail to see where the passage indicates Jesus said anything of the kind. Can you explain where you see this? Do you find it in another translation?

Temple can mean a physical house of worship or God as the temple or our body's as a temple. So your concerns of only a spiritual temple only perplexes me, because it exists in scripture all THREE ways. God exists in three ways....Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Jews of the OT times believed that numbers sometimes had huge spiritual meaning. The number "3" is one of those. God as three persons, the Temple as three manifestations. Even if you disregard the possible use of numerical reasons in scriptural repetition by Jewish/Christian writers, the three manifestations of "temple" are right there in scripture. You apparently like only one use of Temple...go figure.

Now we seem to be really confused. In Matthew 23:16 (2x), 17, 21, & 35 the word translated "temple" is the Greek word "naos" which refers to the temple itself, and the sanctuary where only the priest could go. Not being a levite, Jesus could not enter into the sanctuary.

In verse 38 we encounter another Greek word, "oikos", translated "house". This house could mean Israel (as it was for "house of Israel), Jerusalem, or the temple.

Then in 24:1 we find another Greek word "hieron", used of the physical temple, including the outer courts, which Jesus said would be destroyed. It is important to note that this word is never used figuratively.

"Naos" is the word used to refer to the habitation of God, as in God does not dwell in "temples" built with hands, Acts 7:48 and 17:24, and the Church is now this temple, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19, and 2 Corinthians 6:16.

Which "temple" is it you think Jesus will come back to? A rebuilt physical temple? He still couldn't enter the sanctuary, He isn't a Levite, see Hebrews 8:4.


It is important to know that under the Law, there was only one temple. There is only one now, the body of Christ. Please explain to us how this temple has any relevance to the practice of adorning fine buildings, by the Catholic denomination or any other?

Where in scripture does it "say" that they "usually" met in "people's homes"?....or is that an inference you are making?

You claim expertise in church history. The church met almost exclusively without "church buildings" and did quite well for the first few centuries, then along came Constantine and things went downhill from there.

You set up many strawmen. I find many things to disagree with in the Church today, some of which you have mentioned, and I find myself in agreement with you. I am not a charismatic, but find your attacks on them gratuitous. You must have had a very bad experience with them.

I am not adverse to an ongoing discussion with you but would suggest it be kept to one or two points at a time.