"CHURCHIANITY" vs. GOD'S MODEL - Part III

[Buff Scott Jr.]

"CHURCHIANITY"
VS.
GOD'S MODEL
Part III

Buff Scott, Jr.​

KING JAMES' BLUNDERS AGAIN
As the knowledgeable student knows, King James substituted "Easter" for "Passover." If "Easter" expresses what is found in the Greek pascha, it would be acceptable to translate it "Easter." But here is where the bone rubs. "Easter" does not express what is found in the Greek pascha, and "church" does not express what is found in the Greek ekklesia.

"Easter" stemmed from Eastre, a pagan goddess, and denotes a pagan festival, while the Greek pascha refers to the Jewish Passover. The devious Vatican borrowed "Easter" from the pagans, dressed it up with a few eccentric solemnities, and began to celebrate it as a holy day. Protestants then acquired the "holy day" from the Papacy. The same is true of "church" or "Churchianity." Like "Easter," "church" does not have her genesis in heaven, but was acquired from men.

DEFINING MY POSITION
Before we launch into this thing further, I think it wise that a few clarifications be made, lest I confuse you.

1] Jesus ushered in a community of believers. "Upon this rock [Peter's confession that Jesus is God's Son] I will found my community" (Matt. 12:18).

2] In the scriptures, we find this community or congregation listed under certain synonyms, such as: household, chosen race, royal priesthood, holy nation, a new people, spiritual house, new Israel, and one body.

3] Jesus has a people. This cannot be doubted. They are scattered over the hills and valleys of sectarianism. His people are not confined to any one sect, religious party, denomination, or "church."

4] The partisan systems and their "churches" were not established by the Son of God and His special envoys, the apostles.

5] "Church" is not synonymous with any entity recorded in the oldest Greek manuscripts. It is, in fact, antonymous.

Our obsession with "church" has engendered more schism than we'll ever be able to solve. For when we adopt a foreign label or title that separates us from our fellow Christians, as we have done with "church," we become a divisive religious league—a party, sect. I like the way The Living Bible tenders Galatians 5:20. It identifies the "party spirit" as, "...the feeling that everyone else is wrong except those in your own little group."

I'm inclined to believe this strikes at the very core of our divisive predicament. The New English Bible renders "party intrigues," and The Christian Bible describes the party spirit as "dissensions, sects." So we need to inquire, Have we adopted the "church" epithet to separate ourselves from other believers and to identify ourselves as a particular brand of believers?

To clarify, are we Baptist Christians, Methodist Christians, Church of Christ Christians, Lutheran Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Assembly of God Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, or Church of God Christians?

If "yes" to any of the above, the Spirit justly charges us with possessing the "party spirit," a work of the flesh, which the apostle Paul condemned (Galatians 5:20). No tossing of the coin will alleviate that fact. And if we are guilty of creating and/or promoting religious parties, how can we then claim that Jesus authored our churches? He founded the one body of believers, not our multicolored schisms. His children are scattered among most sects, for wherever He has a child we have a brother or a sister. But He is not the framer of our denominations, just as He was not the framer of the sects of his day. He strongly opposed the religious parties (sects) of His day, as scripture confirms over and over.

There are, of course, other earmarks of a sect or religious party besides its name, label, or title. When a group of professed believers sets up a doctrinal platform, whether based on truth or fallacy, and rejects other believers who cannot accept it, that group becomes a religious party or sect. The "Christ party" at Corinth was just as wrong as the "Paul party," the "Apollos party," and the "Cephas party" (I Cor. 1:12-13). It was wrong because it rejected other believers.

[Look for Part IV soon.]​

 

[Arch Stanton]

"CHURCHIANITY"
VS.
GOD'S MODEL
Part III

Buff Scott, Jr.​

1] Jesus ushered in a community of believers. "Upon this rock [Peter's confession that Jesus is God's Son] I will found my community" (Matt. 12:18).

you forgot the important part that happens next.... "I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Arch:

Please understand that Roman Catholicism is not the primary caption of "Churchianity" vs. God's Model." The Roman Catholic sect and other sects are alluded to occasionally, yes, but neither is the chief caption. I will post my remarks below regarding your sect, but then please back off with your Roman Catholic sentiments in response to "Churchianity" vs. God's Model."​

<><><>
​

SCRIPTURES USED AS “EVIDENCE”

Matthew 16:18-19 do not reference “Bishop,” pappas or “Pope,” or any other clerical figure. There is nothing in the Greek that remotely connects Jesus’ remarks to today’s Catholic Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and Popes. The oldest Greek manuscripts justify the following paraphrase:

“And I tell you, you [Peter] are a stone, and upon your confession that I am the Messiah, I will found my community, and the evil powers of the invisible world will never destroy it.” I have before me a literal translation from the Greek into English of Jesus’ proclamation. It reads:

“Now I also say to you, that you are Peter [a piece of rock], and upon this bedrock [confession that I am the Messiah], I will build my group of Called ones, and the gates of the grave will not overpower it” (The Christian Bible, CHRISTIAN BIBLE SOCIETY, Post Office Box 530, Mammoth Spring, AR 72554).

It is obvious that Peter is not referenced in Jesus’ words, “upon this rock,” because Peter was only one of the “builders” in this sacred community. Paul says the household of God, or redeemed community, was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19-20).

Note, please, “apostle” is in the plural. It is safe to conclude, then, that the Vatican’s version of Matthew 16:17-19 is a distorted version, and that the community Jesus founded was not founded on Peter alone, but on the foundation of all twelve apostles.

The bottom line in all of this is that Matthew 16:17-19 bears no resemblance to the Papacy’s dogma of “Apostolic Succession.” Since the founding of Roman Catholicism in the second and third centuries A. D., there has been a succession of apostates, but not an apostolic succession. To “establish” apostolic succession, one must go outside of the New Covenant letters, because the “evidence” is not found inside those scriptures. All ambiguous religious philosophies parroted by sects, cults, and religious parties stem from external or self-made sources. And the “Unholy See” seems to be the chief “felon.”—Buff.​

 

[Arch Stanton]

Arch:

Please understand that Roman Catholicism is not the primary caption of "Churchianity" vs. God's Model." The Roman Catholic sect and other sects are alluded to occasionally, yes, but neither is the chief caption. I will post my remarks below regarding your sect, but then please back off with your Roman Catholic sentiments in response to "Churchianity" vs. God's Model."​

If you don't want Catholic responses, don't spew a false narrative about Christ's Catholic Church!

SCRIPTURES USED AS “EVIDENCE”

Matthew 16:18-19 do not reference “Bishop,” pappas or “Pope,” or any other clerical figure. There is nothing in the Greek that remotely connects Jesus’ remarks to today’s Catholic Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and Popes. The oldest Greek manuscripts justify the following paraphrase:

“And I tell you, you [Peter] are a stone, and upon your confession that I am the Messiah, I will found my community, and the evil powers of the invisible world will never destroy it.” I have before me a literal translation from the Greek into English of Jesus’ proclamation. It reads:

“Now I also say to you, that you are Peter [a piece of rock], and upon this bedrock [confession that I am the Messiah], I will build my group of Called ones, and the gates of the grave will not overpower it” (The Christian Bible, CHRISTIAN BIBLE SOCIETY, Post Office Box 530, Mammoth Spring, AR 72554).

It is obvious that Peter is not referenced in Jesus’ words, “upon this rock,” because Peter was only one of the “builders” in this sacred community. Paul says the household of God, or redeemed community, was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19-20).

Note, please, “apostle” is in the plural. It is safe to conclude, then, that the Vatican’s version of Matthew 16:17-19 is a distorted version, and that the community Jesus founded was not founded on Peter alone, but on the foundation of all twelve apostles.

The bottom line in all of this is that Matthew 16:17-19 bears no resemblance to the Papacy’s dogma of “Apostolic Succession.” Since the founding of Roman Catholicism in the second and third centuries A. D., there has been a succession of apostates, but not an apostolic succession. To “establish” apostolic succession, one must go outside of the New Covenant letters, because the “evidence” is not found inside those scriptures. All ambiguous religious philosophies parroted by sects, cults, and religious parties stem from external or self-made sources. And the “Unholy See” seems to be the chief “felon.”—Buff.​

Why do you think Luther mentions Peter as the representative of the one and only Church? [A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373]

'In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church.'
Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce:

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity Press, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)

 

[Mr GLee]

If you don't want Catholic responses, don't spew a false narrative about Christ's Catholic Church!

Why do you think Luther mentions Peter as the representative of the one and only Church? [A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373]

'In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church.'
Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce:

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity Press, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)

Usurping the teaching authority rebuking the unseen head Christ. . . seems like a odd way to represent the church? How does that figure ?. What am I missing ?

Mathew 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

What is the object lesson??? Elect Peter our brother in the lord as Pope?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Usurping the teaching authority rebuking the unseen head Christ. . . seems like a odd way to represent the church? How does that figure ?. What am I missing ?

You are missing the person Christ gave the keys to.... PETER.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

READERS:

Please look for Part IV tomorrow [Thursday].

Buff