Related info sent by a friend in Oregon:

(Excerpts)


Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson (born 11 October 1948) is a Ghanaian Cardinal of the Catholic Church. He is the current president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace since his appointment by Pope Benedict XVI on 24 October 2009. He had previously served as Archbishop of Cape Coast. He was elevated to the cardinalate by Pope John Paul II in 2003.[1] He is considered papabile.[2]

Reform of the International Financial System

In response to the global economic crisis started in 2008, Cardinal Turkson together with bishop Mario Toso elaborated a proposal to reform the International Financial System by creating a Global Public Authority and a Global Bank that consider the interest of all developing countries. The document of 40 pages was officially presented in October 2011 and criticizes the actual structure of International Monetary Fund and other institutions. [18]

In October 2011 Cardinal Turkson called for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises. The document, Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority was very specific, calling for taxation measures on financial transactions. It notes that “The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said. The document condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems. “In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.[10] [11]

An accomplished polyglot, Turkson is able to speak English, Fante, French, Italian, German, and Hebrew, in addition to understanding Latin and Greek.
Source & References:

Peter Turkson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Turkson)


Thoughts?

Related info sent by a friend in Oregon:

(Excerpts)


Thoughts?

Would it be non-biblical to have a black pope?

Oh that's right, you think it's non-biblical to have a pope.

Related info sent by a friend in Oregon:

(Excerpts)


Thoughts?

Why do you care?

Why do you care?

C'mon, libby, I was just asking for thoughts - not insults! lol
Still love ya as a friend. :flowers:

Here's some more insight which you may already know:

article:


article by Andrea Tornielli
VATICAN CITY

According to Italian daily newspaper "Libero", Pope Benedict XVI is thinking about leaving the papacy next April, when he will turn 85...


http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/news/detail/articolo/papa-el-papa-pope-dimissioni-resignation-renuncia-8389/

I don't think God differentiates by race. Only faith.

but that being said, Im not sure the humans in the church could deal with a black leader. Blacks generally look down on child molesters. It could cause quite the uprising in the church if all the priests started getting thrown in jail.

C'mon, libby, I was just asking for thoughts - not insults! lol
Still love ya as a friend. :flowers:

Here's some more insight which you may already know:

article:

Nope. Don't believe that. I choose to think that you are trying to bait someone into a conversation that will provide a springboard for something about the RCC and "another Jesus" that didn't set up a papacy, blah, blah, blah. If I'm wrong, I know I will be cleansed of this lack of charity in Purgatory.

Nope. Don't believe that. I choose to think that you are trying to bait someone into a conversation that will provide a springboard for something about the RCC and "another Jesus" that didn't set up a papacy, blah, blah, blah. If I'm wrong, I know I will be cleansed of this lack of charity in Purgatory.

Really? Who is going to "cleanse" you, and what part of the Bible do you defend your statement on?

Just a curious Christian wonderin'....

Why do you care?

I was going to add that to my response, but I did not care......

Why do you care?C'mon, libby, I was just asking for thoughts - not insults!I see the discussions have really progressed the past few months. :coffee:

I see the discussions have really progressed the past few months. :coffee:

Even the dumbest fishes in the sea will quickly quit biting bad lures.
SM is a false prophet and a caster of artificial baits.

It will never change

Even the dumbest fishes in the sea will quickly quit biting bad lures.
SM is a false prophet and a caster of artificial baits.

It will never change

Hi there Bird Dog. I see that you are still "biting". lol :coffee:

I see the discussions have really progressed the past few months. :coffee:

I think this thread falls under the category of, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

I think this thread falls under the category of, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Then you better think twice, libby, because it is the RCC that is fooling you and one Billion other Catholics into believing that you'll get a "second chance" to make things right in the hereafter. That is a false teaching and is not what The New Testament Jesus nor His Apostles taught at all.

...If I'm wrong, I know I will be cleansed of this lack of charity in Purgatory.

And, according to Mormonism (the religion you called "flukey") when you die you will be given another chance in the spirit world to accept Mormonism as the true religion for your salvation. They have probably already conducted a "baptism by proxy" for you!

Note:
There Is No Second Chance - and, yes: There Is Only One Truth.

Then you better think twice, libby, because it is the RCC that is fooling you and one Billion other Catholics into believing that you'll get a "second chance" to make things right in the hereafter. That is a false teaching and is not what The New Testament Jesus nor His Apostles taught at all.



And, according to Mormonism (the religion you called "flukey") when you die you will be given another chance in the spirit world to accept Mormonism as the true religion for your salvation. They have probably already conducted a "baptism by proxy" for you!

Note:
There Is No Second Chance - and, yes: There Is Only One Truth.

See? What did I tell you?

See? What did I tell you?

Libby - the truth is the truth. It is what the Bible preaches and teaches. Nothing else.

It is up to you to decide which is true - what the Bible says or what your priest says.

Your choice and your eternity.

Libby - the truth is the truth. It is what the Bible preaches and teaches. Nothing else.

It is up to you to decide which is true - what the Bible says or what your priest says.

Your choice and your eternity.

Does it even occur to you that some of us study the Bible and find that it DOES agree with the Bible? Gosh, you people just assume we're not actively seeking God.

Does it even occur to you that some of us study the Bible and find that it DOES agree with the Bible? Gosh, you people just assume we're not actively seeking God.

libby, when you say you are "actively seeking God" does that mean you really haven't found Him yet?

IOW: Faith in The New Testament Jesus is not enough to have revealed God to you whereby one can have the assurance that His Atonement has the Power to cleanse you from all unrighteousness, once and for all, in the here and now?

That's why you expect to go through a purification process of your own atoning in "purgatory" (as taught by the Vatican) before you can enter Heaven?

Where is that taught in the Holy Bible?

Does it even occur to you that some of us study the Bible and find that it DOES agree with the Bible? Gosh, you people just assume we're not actively seeking God.

Yes, it does. Every time I read a post like the one I quoted.

Are you actively seeking God? Outside of the Bible, what other source do you have?

A simple answer of your other sources where you "seek God" will be a good starting point.

What I am saying is that, I, as a born-again Christian, am saying that the Bible IS the source of Christianity and salvation. The only source.

Do you have other alternative sources? Or references in the Bible that contradict what I am saying?

Leave your personal feelings at the door, please. Let's see some documentation.

If so, please let me know.

Yes, it does. Every time I read a post like the one I quoted.
Are you actively seeking God? Outside of the Bible, what other source do you have?
A simple answer of your other sources where you "seek God" will be a good starting point.
What I am saying is that, I, as a born-again Christian, am saying that the Bible IS the source of Christianity and salvation. The only source.
Do you have other alternative sources? Or references in the Bible that contradict what I am saying?
Leave your personal feelings at the door, please. Let's see some documentation.
If so, please let me know.

You sound like SM's bastard child!

And, according to Mormonism (the religion you called "flukey") when you die you will be given another chance in the spirit world to accept Mormonism as the true religion for your salvation. They have probably already conducted a "baptism by proxy" for you!



Did Libby die and someone forget to tell her??

Proxy Baptisms are done for the DEAD, so if they are cast out, and are spending eternity in hell they get one LAST chance to accept the Mormon Baptism and join Christ in heaven.

You can baptize (according to the Mormon's) as many as you like, but it's up to the spirit being to accpept that baptism or not. The baptism can not be forced on a dead person's spirit...

If you had sinned in your life, and were cast out into the depths of hell, wouldn't you like it if somebody had the thought to throw you a life ring and pull you out of the eternal damnation that is supposed to be hell??

Would it matter WHO threw you the lifering, especially if they were the ONLY one to do it?

When are you going to show YOU care for your fellow man, and you start baptizing for the dead in the hopes of pulling one soul out of the depths of hell?? Or do you and your religion not care about those cast out as much as the more Christian Mormons do?

Did Libby die and someone forget to tell her??

Proxy Baptisms are done for the DEAD, so if they are cast out, and are spending eternity in hell they get one LAST chance to accept the Mormon Baptism and join Christ in heaven.

My mistake. Thanks for the correction itsbob. :yay:


You can baptize (according to the Mormon's) as many as you like, but it's up to the spirit being to accpept that baptism or not. The baptism can not be forced on a dead person's spirit...

If you had sinned in your life, and were cast out into the depths of hell, wouldn't you like it if somebody had the thought to throw you a life ring and pull you out of the eternal damnation that is supposed to be hell??

Would it matter WHO threw you the lifering, especially if they were the ONLY one to do it?

When are you going to show YOU care for your fellow man, and you start baptizing for the dead in the hopes of pulling one soul out of the depths of hell?? Or do you and your religion not care about those cast out as much as the more Christian Mormons do?

Thanks for the insight for what you believe itsbob. However, as stated to libby, There Is No Second Chance.

According to The Holy Bible, a person receives the assurance of Salvation through faith in Christ in the here and now.

IOW: A person either dies a saved soul or a lost soul according to the decision he/she made about receiving The New Testament Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour.

My mistake. Thanks for the correction itsbob. :yay:



Thanks for the insight for what you believe itsbob. However, as stated to libby, There Is No Second Chance.

According to The Holy Bible, a person receives the assurance of Salvation through faith in Christ in the here and now.

IOW: A person either dies a saved soul or a lost soul according to the decision he/she made about receiving The New Testament Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour.

So your answer is NO, you wouldn't give a fellow human being a chance to be saved from eternal hell... and your evil God wouldn't allow it.

Yep, I was right, Mormon's are better Christians than you'll EVER be.

Yes, it does. Every time I read a post like the one I quoted.

Are you actively seeking God? Outside of the Bible, what other source do you have?

A simple answer of your other sources where you "seek God" will be a good starting point.

What I am saying is that, I, as a born-again Christian, am saying that the Bible IS the source of Christianity and salvation. The only source.

Do you have other alternative sources? Or references in the Bible that contradict what I am saying?

Leave your personal feelings at the door, please. Let's see some documentation.

If so, please let me know.

You sound exactly like SM, so I'm not going to bother trying. If you truly are interested, there are myriad threads (not to mention websites) that document Catholic doctrine FROM THE BIBLE! If you are only interested in perpetuating the lies that SM tells (like the notion that Purgatory is a "second chance", though we've told him ad nauseum that it categorically is NOT) then you won't seek info on your own, and you'll continue to try to bait Catholics here. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to bite. I'll leave the Holy Spirit's job to the Holy Spirit.

You sound exactly like SM, so I'm not going to bother trying. If you truly are interested, there are myriad threads (not to mention websites) that document Catholic doctrine FROM THE BIBLE! If you are only interested in perpetuating the lies that SM tells (like the notion that Purgatory is a "second chance", though we've told him ad nauseum that it categorically is NOT) then you won't seek info on your own, and you'll continue to try to bait Catholics here. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to bite. I'll leave the Holy Spirit's job to the Holy Spirit.

libby, the concept of purgatory is a "second chance". The fact that your soul has to be "cleansed/purified" in the afterlife of certain sins before you can see God means that you don't believe Christ's Atonement was enough to cleanse/purify you from all unrighteousness in the here and know.

Therefore, according to the RCC teaching, when you die as a sinner your sins are not completely washed away by the Blood of The Lamb (New Testament Jesus) and you need to endure some sort of punishment/atonement before your soul is clean enough to enter Heaven. Thus, you need that second chance to get things right.

Additionally, you have been taught that you can send prayers to help others get out of "purgatory" sooner. Is that correct?

According to the Holy Bible, when a person sincerely repents and places complete faith and trust in The New Testament Jesus, they become a born-again Child of God, cleansed from all unrighteousness in the here and now and are assured immediate acceptance for their soul to be with The Lord when they die. No spiritual half-way house called purgatory.

Jesus did it all by paying the penalty for the sins of the repentant individual and in Him our Salvation is assured and complete.

You sound exactly like SM, so I'm not going to bother trying. If you truly are interested, there are myriad threads (not to mention websites) that document Catholic doctrine FROM THE BIBLE! If you are only interested in perpetuating the lies that SM tells (like the notion that Purgatory is a "second chance", though we've told him ad nauseum that it categorically is NOT) then you won't seek info on your own, and you'll continue to try to bait Catholics here. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to bite. I'll leave the Holy Spirit's job to the Holy Spirit.

No, Libby - I would like to see your support, your Catholic doctrine "from the Bible" for the existence of purgatory, not sheol/hades/grave, or any other place where any unsaved sinner that has not committed a "mortal sin" can be bought or prayed out of eternal damnation, IN THE BIBLE.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I have problems with the Catholic doctrine of purgtory, simply because it is not Biblical:

- It is not explicitly found in the Bible.
- It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.
- It implies that justification is not by faith alone.
- It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.

The grave is for the body. Sheol/hades is for the punishment/tormenting of the unsaved soul or spirit between death and the Great White Throne judgement.

The Bible is clear that ones eternal state cannot change after death (Luke 16:22-31), no matter what actions are attempted on the deceased's behalf.

All I want to see and ponder, Libby, is your biblical proof of purgatory.

No, Libby - I would like to see your support, your Catholic doctrine "from the Bible" for the existence of purgatory, not sheol/hades/grave, or any other place where any unsaved sinner that has not committed a "mortal sin" can be bought or prayed out of eternal damnation, IN THE BIBLE.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I have problems with the Catholic doctrine of purgtory, simply because it is not Biblical:

- It is not explicitly found in the Bible.
- It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.
- It implies that justification is not by faith alone.
- It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.

The grave is for the body. Sheol/hades is for the punishment/tormenting of the unsaved soul or spirit between death and the Great White Throne judgement.

The Bible is clear that ones eternal state cannot change after death (Luke 16:22-31), no matter what actions are attempted on the deceased's behalf.

All I want to see and ponder, Libby, is your biblical proof of purgatory.

No, you do not want to "ponder" the Biblical evidence for Purgatory. To ponder means to "consider something deeply and thoroughly", and if you felt it was necessary to do this, you already would have, as a Christian. If you felt it was necessary you would go to the other sites with far brighter minds than mine to help you understand.
You want to argue, and I won't. Period.

No, you do not want to "ponder" the Biblical evidence for Purgatory. To ponder means to "consider something deeply and thoroughly", and if you felt it was necessary to do this, you already would have, as a Christian. If you felt it was necessary you would go to the other sites with far brighter minds than mine to help you understand.
You want to argue, and I won't. Period.

OK, Libby.

I gave you five points on my stance against purgatory.

You won't defend your statements, leaving you with no credibility. Just a defensive shell you probably crawl into a lot in your non-defense of Catholicism.

Good luck in eternity.

OK, Libby.

I gave you five points on my stance against purgatory.

You won't defend your statements, leaving you with no credibility. Just a defensive shell you probably crawl into a lot in your non-defense of Catholicism.

Good luck in eternity.

What gutter did you crawl out of, find Jesus and then start bashing the Roman Catholic Church?

Please do not be offended, you are not the first one I have asked this question.

Evangelicalism.......coming to a stripmall near you.

What gutter did you crawl out of, find Jesus and then start bashing the Roman Catholic Church?

Please do not be offended, you are not the first one I have asked this question.

Evangelicalism.......coming to a stripmall near you.

Pray tell, Bird Dog, who is bashing Catholicism? I certainly am not. Or are you just one of those PC'ers who cannot take any disagreement against yourself?

You are certainly the name-caller here, and like Libby, very, very touchy.

Defend if you want to, please. But just put up a defense. I won't call you any names, or ask where you came from, or be uncivil.

Back up the churches' claim in the Bible is all I am asking for. Any reasonable person can see that.

Don't get mad, just get our your Bible and give me some quotes on purgatory and how the CC came to the state where Jesus's victory over sin is not good enough in itself?

Pray tell, Bird Dog, who is bashing Catholicism? I certainly am not. Or are you just one of those PC'ers who cannot take any disagreement against yourself?

You are certainly the name-caller here, and like Libby, very, very touchy.

Defend if you want to, please. But just put up a defense. I won't call you any names, or ask where you came from, or be uncivil.

Back up the churches' claim in the Bible is all I am asking for. Any reasonable person can see that.

Don't get mad, just get our your Bible and give me some quotes on purgatory and how the CC came to the state where Jesus's victory over sin is not good enough in itself?

You are new here.

Libby, Radiant, One and others have been subject to the bashing of the Roman Catholic Church for quite awhille by persons who pull themselves up from the gutter, find Jesus and then want to tell us we are reading the "wrong" bible, following the "wrong" Jesus, that the faith we, our families and a billion+ like
us for 2,000 years are wrong and we are going to Hell because of it.

I beleive that you and your fellow gutter climbers are wonderful, you finally found your way to salvation.

Leave the Catholics alone and go pull the thousands left in the gutter out.

We are truly comfortable in our faith and you will not change us.

May God Bless You

Defend if you want to, please. But just put up a defense.

Has the thought occurred to you that Catholics don't feel we have to defend our 2,000 year-old faith against a relative newcomer (you're "non-denominational", yes)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Libby told you to peruse old threads for the "defense" you're asking for. I don't think the Catholics here feel the need to reiterate everything for every newbie who comes along with misperceptions. If you want to know, you've been pointed in the right direction, go look for it.

The bible-only along with my-personal-interpretation-which-can-be-the-only-interpretation diatribe is old and tired. If you haven't noticed, you're being dismissed with a wave of a hand. :yawn:

Has the thought occurred to you that Catholics don't feel we have to defend our 2,000 year-old faith against a relative newcomer (you're "non-denominational", yes)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Libby told you to peruse old threads for the "defense" you're asking for. I don't think the Catholics here feel the need to reiterate everything for every newbie who comes along with misperceptions. If you want to know, you've been pointed in the right direction, go look for it.

The bible-only along with my-personal-interpretation-which-can-be-the-only-interpretation diatribe is old and tired. If you haven't noticed, you're being dismissed with a wave of a hand. :yawn:

Roman Catholic dogmas and extra-Biblical teachings began around 300 years after the death, crucificxion and resurrection of The New Testament Jesus. Constantine and company introduced additional teachings and "assumptions" that were never taught by Jesus nor His Apostles.

The only reliable writings for being God's Words to mankind are those of the Old Testament and the New Testament that are based on first-hand accounts and teachings by OT Prophets and Patriarchs and later by Jesus and His Apostles. These writings can be based on the Authority of God's Words and inspiration by the Holy Spirit of God to Jesus' Apostles.

The Holy Bible is the only reliable source.
Yes - Sola Scriptura!

Roman Catholic dogmas and extra-Biblical teachings began around 300 years after the death, crucificxion and resurrection of The New Testament Jesus. Constantine and company introduced additional teachings and "assumptions" that were never taught by Jesus nor His Apostles.

The only reliable writings for being God's Words to mankind are those of the Old Testament and the New Testament that are based on first-hand accounts and teachings by OT Prophets and Patriarchs and later by Jesus and His Apostles. These writings can be based on the Authority of God's Words and inspiration by the Holy Spirit of God to Jesus' Apostles.

The Holy Bible is the only reliable source.
Yes - Sola Scriptura!

:deadhorse

To bad I am on my IPad and can't post the squawking Parrot.

:deadhorse

The Warning Continues just as Christ would want the warning to continue - not just to those of the RCC but to Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.



Sola Scriptura

The problem that the RCC finds with "Sola Scriptura" is that reading the context of the Gospels of The New Testament will prove that the Vatican is teaching falsehoods. That's why so many parishioners have been indoctrinated to have antagonism toward "Sola Scriptura" and that is why the RCC claims it (and no other denomination) has been given the exclusivity to interpret the "Scriptures" to the masses.

Sola Scriptura is avoided by cults because Sola Scriptura exposes false teachings:

Matthew 7:13-23
Matthew 23:9-33
Mark 12:38-40
Luke 20:46-47
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
2 Corinthians 11:12-15
Galatians 1:6-9
Galatians 3:1-29
2 Peter 2:1-22

To teach and believe that Mary was literally "assumed," is alive and active in the redemption process alongside Jesus is a falsehood according to the context of the New Testament teachings. Even Orthodox Judaism does not teach of a Moshiach and His mother playing a part in the redemption of mankind.

Paying religious tribute to any other person, place or thing in partnership with the Saviour of mankind is not only a form of worship but considered blasphemy and anathema. The RCC has established Mary as being all the titles given to her pursuant to the Cathecism and papal decree. As a Catholic, it is incumbent upon you to believe it.

As I mentioned once before, the former Fr. John Corapi, advised his audience to "turn to Mary," "direct your devotions to Mary," etc. Additionally, the late Pope John Paul II was known for his devotions to Mary as well.

The Holy Bible instructs believers to Turn To Jesus (The Jesus of The New Testament).

Has the thought occurred to you that Catholics don't feel we have to defend our 2,000 year-old faith against a relative newcomer (you're "non-denominational", yes)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Libby told you to peruse old threads for the "defense" you're asking for. I don't think the Catholics here feel the need to reiterate everything for every newbie who comes along with misperceptions. If you want to know, you've been pointed in the right direction, go look for it.

The bible-only along with my-personal-interpretation-which-can-be-the-only-interpretation diatribe is old and tired. If you haven't noticed, you're being dismissed with a wave of a hand. :yawn:

Ah, the smarmy/snarky/smirky condescension coming from a good, humble Catholic. You are probably an Apple user as well, I would guess. That type of attitude goes along well with the i-crowd.

Catholicism is not "old and tired"? All 1900 years of it? "With your-personal-interpretation-which-can-be-the-only-interpertation?"

I was on that other site for years as tampafan/tampafan76. I just refuse to pay any amount for public forums.

Yes, you are correct. I am a born-again Christian, as the Bible teaches, and am non-denominational. The Bible has no differentiation between Christians - you either are one or not. No denominations. Just a believer or not.

It doesn't matter that Catholicism was formed 1900 years ago. Age does not make it biblical. It started out following the teachings of Christ, but then got more and more off track of what the Bible teaches, and more and more into their own man-made doctrines and rituals. The church that Jesus Christ planted with Him as the rock and foundation, the apostles building on it, honors and worships Christ, and Christ only, on His work of salvation.

Not a pope, not a Mary, not bishops. Just Jesus Christ.

The reformation that began in 1517 was the actual enlightening of people that saw through Catholicism and its accumulated mis-representations or non-representations of what the Bible actual does or does not state, putting the Bible out to the masses so they could see for themselves what it actually says and preaches.

It doesn't matter that Catholicism was formed 1900 years ago. Age does not make it biblical. It started out following the teachings of Christ, but then got more and more off track of what the Bible teaches, and more and more into their own man-made doctrines and rituals. The church that Jesus Christ planted with Him as the rock and foundation, the apostles building on it, honors and worships Christ, and Christ only, on His work of salvation.

You subscribe to the Total Apostasy theory? "It started out" following the teachings? Does that mean that you acknowledge that the Catholic Church was the original Church; that is was, indeed, the Church into which the charge was given to preach to all nations, etc.?

You subscribe to the Total Apostasy theory? "It started out" following the teachings? Does that mean that you acknowledge that the Catholic Church was the original Church; that is was, indeed, the Church into which the charge was given to preach to all nations, etc.?

The Original Church was/is based on the fulfilling prophecies of Messianic Judaism that was established by Jesus and His Jewish Apostles.

As you may know the definition of "Catholic" only means Universal. The Universal Church is the Spiritual Church comprised of all born-again believers who have received Christ alone as Redeemer and personal Lord and Saviour. No denominational ties or membership to belong to at all.

Quite different than Roman Catholicism which came along 300 years later and introduced another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary which are all entirely different and varied from The New Testament accounts.

The Holy Bible is the Only Source of Truth. No ifs ands or buts nor extra-Biblical explanations, dogmas, traditions, rituals, etc. The RCC is no different than Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, etc. all claiming to have "revealed truth" (extra-Biblical teachings) above and beyond what had already been set forth by the Old and New Testament accounts of how God has provided Salvation for mankind through Christ alone.

Yes, There Is Only One Truth.

The Original Church was/is based on the fulfilling prophecies of Messianic Judaism that was established by Jesus and His Jewish Apostles.

As you may know the definition of "Catholic" only means Universal. The Universal Church is the Spiritual Church comprised of all born-again believers who have received Christ alone as Redeemer and personal Lord and Saviour. No denominational ties or membership to belong to at all.

Quite different than Roman Catholicism which came along 300 years later and introduced another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary which are all entirely different and varied from The New Testament accounts.

The Holy Bible is the Only Source of Truth. No ifs ands or buts nor extra-Biblical explanations, dogmas, traditions, rituals, etc. The RCC is no different than Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists, Moonies, etc. all claiming to have "revealed truth" (extra-Biblical teachings) above and beyond what had already been set forth by the Old and New Testament accounts of how God has provided Salvation for mankind through Christ alone.

Yes, There Is Only One Truth.

Where are the writings of all of those good and faithful Bible Christians of the early centuries? Why were they not warning the kool aid drinkers of the RCC that they were headed the wrong way?
Show me that the Spiritual Church comprised of all born-again believers who have received Christ alone as Redeemer and personal Lord and Saviour.
even existed outside of the RCC through historical evidence.
There is none.

Where are the writings of all of those good and faithful Bible Christians of the early centuries? Why were they not warning the kool aid drinkers of the RCC that they were headed the wrong way?
Show me that the
even existed outside of the RCC through historical evidence.
There is none.

Writings? What writing is needed to complement the Bible? The Bible needs no additions or deletions. That would be saying God does not know what he had written.

The apostles were dead. Nine were probably martyred, Judas committed suicide, John died of old age, Philip's demise unknown. Add to those Paul's execution, and Stephen being stoned to death, there was none of the writers left.

Christians were being hunted down and exterminated. more or less, for over 300 years until the fall of Rome. That's what sparked the cult of the saints and the real beginning of developing the Catholicism away from teachings of the Bible and molding more of their additions and rites to fit their church, not the church of the Bible.

The Bible stands on its own merits. Trying to make it "better" and adding works, among other things as a requirement for salvation, is playing with eternal fire.

Writings? What writing is needed to complement the Bible? The Bible needs no additions or deletions. That would be saying God does not know what he had written.

The apostles were dead. Nine were probably martyred, Judas committed suicide, John died of old age, Philip's demise unknown. Add to those Paul's execution, and Stephen being stoned to death, there was none of the writers left.

Christians were being hunted down and exterminated. more or less, for over 300 years until the fall of Rome. That's what sparked the cult of the saints and the real beginning of developing the Catholicism away from teachings of the Bible and molding more of their additions and rites to fit their church, not the church of the Bible.

The Bible stands on its own merits. Trying to make it "better" and adding works, among other things as a requirement for salvation, is playing with eternal fire.

That's not what I'm asking. Just as there are Christian/Catholic Christian writings in 2012, there were Christians in the Early Church who wrote: Justin Martyr, Polycarp, etc. Now, if the Catholic Church was right in the beginning, and you said it was, and then started to go astray, I would expect there to be writings from the more learned to the commoners, so to speak. Most people were illiterate, so people needed teachers because they couldn't read the Bible. Where are the writings from the real, non-denominational Bible Christians warning the regular Joe's not to listen to Rome? Find me some historical evidence of Bible only Christians. Show me that they did in 120A.D. and you, SM and IS feel it is your responsibility to do in 2012.
Clear enough?

That's not what I'm asking. Just as there are Christian/Catholic Christian writings in 2012, there were Christians in the Early Church who wrote: Justin Martyr, Polycarp, etc. Now, if the Catholic Church was right in the beginning, and you said it was, and then started to go astray, I would expect there to be writings from the more learned to the commoners, so to speak. Most people were illiterate, so people needed teachers because they couldn't read the Bible. Where are the writings from the real, non-denominational Bible Christians warning the regular Joe's not to listen to Rome? Find me some historical evidence of Bible only Christians. Show me that they did in 120A.D. and you, SM and IS feel it is your responsibility to do in 2012.
Clear enough?

Crystal clear, and you are still stuck with mud in your eyes.

The answer is the writing and expose by Martin Luther in 1517 with his Ninety-Five Theses, that opened they eyes of Christendom, to the horror of the Roman Catholic Church, which would no longer be the "universal" church.

From about 320 AD until after Luther, who, by the way was condemned by the pope and deemed an outlaw.

During that time frame, as you stated, most people were illiterate. Essentially the only thing they knew about the church and Christ's teaching was what was read to them by the RCC. One avenue of thought in, no avenue out without being deemed an outlaw or a heretic, or both, often leading to death by execution. No differences allowed.

Under those conditions for almost 1,200 years, who do you think was going to win those battles? Who wrote the history?

The Pope of the RCC and the Italian Emperor, went hand in hand supporting and implementing the state-sponsored religion. There was no opposition, openly, anyway, until Luther.

History changed forever, and so did the writers.

Not only did Luther have the gall to expose flaws and heresies in the RCC teachings concerning the Bible, he also translated the Bible from Latin, which very few could read, into the vernacular (native tongue of other countries), causing a tremendous impact on the church in other countries.

Luther's theology challenged the authority of the Pope of the RCC. His teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, opposed sacerdotalism that only a special order of men could be priests of the word. Luther taught, and the Bible teaches as much, that all saved by the grace of God through the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross, are considered priests in the eyes of God.

Man, did that rock the pope's world.

Once the masses could understand the Bible in their own languages, then they could shake off the fetters of the RCC and generally stand up to the RCC as nations, and not just individuals.

That's where we are today. Being able to see something for oneself is just amazing.

...Where are the writings from the real, non-denominational Bible Christians warning the regular Joe's not to listen to Rome? Find me some historical evidence of Bible only Christians. Show me that they did in 120A.D. and you, SM and IS feel it is your responsibility to do in 2012. Clear enough?

Historical Evidence:

"First-Century" (Non-Denominational) Writers Inspired By God

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and, of course, The Teachings of The New Testament Jesus Christ:


Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? ...Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:14-16; 22-23)


And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (Mark 13:21-23)


Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation. (Luke 20:46-47)


Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)


But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. - NIV (2 Corinthians 11:12-15)



The warnings were not just against the future heresies being introduced by extra-Biblical teachers but of those taking place even during the first century when the Apostles were spreading the Gospel Message of Jesus Christ.


I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7)- NIV

Crystal clear, and you are still stuck with mud in your eyes.

The answer is the writing and expose by Martin Luther in 1517 with his Ninety-Five Theses, that opened they eyes of Christendom, to the horror of the Roman Catholic Church, which would no longer be the "universal" church.

From about 320 AD until after Luther, who, by the way was condemned by the pope and deemed an outlaw.

During that time frame, as you stated, most people were illiterate. Essentially the only thing they knew about the church and Christ's teaching was what was read to them by the RCC. One avenue of thought in, no avenue out without being deemed an outlaw or a heretic, or both, often leading to death by execution. No differences allowed.

Under those conditions for almost 1,200 years, who do you think was going to win those battles? Who wrote the history?

The Pope of the RCC and the Italian Emperor, went hand in hand supporting and implementing the state-sponsored religion. There was no opposition, openly, anyway, until Luther.

History changed forever, and so did the writers.

Not only did Luther have the gall to expose flaws and heresies in the RCC teachings concerning the Bible, he also translated the Bible from Latin, which very few could read, into the vernacular (native tongue of other countries), causing a tremendous impact on the church in other countries.

Luther's theology challenged the authority of the Pope of the RCC. His teaching that the Bible is the only source of divinely revealed knowledge, opposed sacerdotalism that only a special order of men could be priests of the word. Luther taught, and the Bible teaches as much, that all saved by the grace of God through the work of the Lord Jesus on the cross, are considered priests in the eyes of God.

Man, did that rock the pope's world.

Once the masses could understand the Bible in their own languages, then they could shake off the fetters of the RCC and generally stand up to the RCC as nations, and not just individuals.

That's where we are today. Being able to see something for oneself is just amazing.

So, Christ set up a system of Bible only Christianity, knowing full well that practically nobody could read (not to mention that there were no printing presses, Barnes and Noble, etc.) or access the Word of God? For 1200 years, by your version of history, no one is saved.
Yeah, okay. If you really wanted to "ponder", then you would steep yourself in history and stop looking through 21st century glasses.
I'm done.

So, Christ set up a system of Bible only Christianity, knowing full well that practically nobody could read (not to mention that there were no printing presses, Barnes and Noble, etc.) or access the Word of God? For 1200 years, by your version of history, no one is saved.
Yeah, okay. If you really wanted to "ponder", then you would steep yourself in history and stop looking through 21st century glasses.
I'm done.

libby, the Spoken Word of God is the most powerful communication that speaks to a person's heart and inner being. That's what the Great Commission was all about when Jesus sent His Disciples out to preach the Good News so that those who heard could know the Truth and that Truth would set them free! The fact that the Holy Bible is a compilation of writings is only indicative of the Gospel Message that was being verbally preached to those of the first-century era of Jesus and the Apostles. They didn't need books when the spoken Words and Truth of God were being preached. It was the Power of God's Message that pierced the hearts of people and made them understand where they stood in relationship with God. The Bible clearly states that some heard and believed and some heard and turned away because they didn't want to hear God's Word that convicted them of the sins and darkness of life that they preferred over a life with God.

Additionally, the Orthodox Jews were clinging to their Mosaic Laws, religion, doctrines and traditions and they didn't want to change to accept and believe that Jesus could really be their Messiah. Yet, several thousand other Jewish men, women and children heard the Gospel and believed without even having to know how to read.

That's Faith!



Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,
(Hebrews 11:1-3)


For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(Hebrews 4:12)

So, Christ set up a system of Bible only Christianity, knowing full well that practically nobody could read (not to mention that there were no printing presses, Barnes and Noble, etc.) or access the Word of God? For 1200 years, by your version of history, no one is saved.
Yeah, okay. If you really wanted to "ponder", then you would steep yourself in history and stop looking through 21st century glasses.
I'm done.

At least my 21st century glass have the ability to look back and learn about what did happen. You should do the same.

Before you go, check out this pretty good timeline on Christianity:

Christian History Timeline: Christ to Luther (The Prayer Foundation) (http://prayerfoundation.org/christian_history_timeline_1.htm)

There was plenty of teaching and writing going on, both in and outside the RCC, including the internal rifts causing splits within the RCC itself.

The printing press was invented in the 1400's, BTW, just a little time before Luther rocked the RCC Christian world with reality.

I'm sure people were saved during those 1200 years. I believe there were Christian churches set up similar to the ones in The Acts of the Apostles and were spreading the Gospel as taught by Christ.

Libby asked:
Where are the writings from the real, non-denominational Bible Christians warning the regular Joe's not to listen to Rome?
Starman replied:
Historical Evidence:

"First-Century" (Non-Denominational) Writers Inspired By God

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and, of course, The Teachings of The New Testament Jesus Christ:

Who are you trying to kid? The gospel authors couldn't possibly be "Bible Christians" as the bible wasn't written yet. This is something a 5 year old could grasp, but yet you cling to your man-made bible-only doctrine at the expense of simple logic.

So, Christ set up a system of Bible only Christianity, knowing full well that practically nobody could read (not to mention that there were no printing presses, Barnes and Noble, etc.) or access the Word of God? For 1200 years, by your version of history, no one is saved.
Yeah, okay. If you really wanted to "ponder", then you would steep yourself in history and stop looking through 21st century glasses.
I'm done.

In addition, IF there was 1200 years of apostasy, then Jesus was a liar when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Wow people, think about the implications.


Btw, I find it ironic that non-denominationals point with reverence to the Reformation, which has resulted in over 20,000 denominations to date. Ironic, no? Yeah, Luther rocked the world alright. :highly amused:

Has the thought occurred to you that Catholics don't feel we have to defend our 2,000 year-old faith against a relative newcomer (you're "non-denominational", yes)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Libby told you to peruse old threads for the "defense" you're asking for. I don't think the Catholics here feel the need to reiterate everything for every newbie who comes along with misperceptions. If you want to know, you've been pointed in the right direction, go look for it.

The bible-only along with my-personal-interpretation-which-can-be-the-only-interpretation diatribe is old and tired. If you haven't noticed, you're being dismissed with a wave of a hand. :yawn:

Wait a minute, 2000 year faith, you’re kidding right? The churches doctrine changes all the time based on what a pope decides to decree when its not scriptural.
Case in point Mariology
Mary being ascended into heaven
Kissing the popes ring
Infallibility of the pope
A broken succession of popes
Having 3 infallible popes at one time, all declaring to be the real deal!
A splitting of the church and the formation of the Greek Orthodox church.
The Roman Catholic church looks nothing like the first, second or third century church.
The addition of the Apocrypha to scripture to lend credence to purgatory.
Would you like more examples of false doctrine?
Even having a pope was something it introduced as earlier bishops said one man should never have that kind of authority.
Small c in church used on pupose.

You subscribe to the Total Apostasy theory? "It started out" following the teachings? Does that mean that you acknowledge that the Catholic Church was the original Church; that is was, indeed, the Church into which the charge was given to preach to all nations, etc.?

Do you mean catholic Church as the universal church than yes, if you mean Romanism than a definte NO, that cult didnt establish its self fully till the 10 century and has evoloved every since.

Where are the writings of all of those good and faithful Bible Christians of the early centuries? Why were they not warning the kool aid drinkers of the RCC that they were headed the wrong way?
Show me that the
even existed outside of the RCC through historical evidence.
There is none.

Have you ever read the bishops or early church fathers? If the powers that be disagreed, they burned them at the stake, prior to that, they set them out of the church. Late comers, Jon Huss, Martian Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Ulrich Zwingli
Would you like me to dig up the bishops that protested false doctrine when it was implemented

Waldensians, Waldenses or Vaudois exsisted outside of the catholic church.
then there are some Baptist (most dont), that say they were never part of the catholic church and date themselves back to followers of John the baptist.

Libby asked:

Starman replied:


Who are you trying to kid? The gospel authors couldn't possibly be "Bible Christians" as the bible wasn't written yet. :

Perhaps the 66 books we have today in their entirety, but they had the Old Testament and a very large portion of the New while the apostles we still alive. Christ mentions the scriptures as well as they are referenced in the New Testament. Its believed the canon of script was mostly complete although not declared so by Councils till later.

Wait a minute, 2000 year faith, you’re kidding right? The churches doctrine changes all the time based on what a pope decides to decree when its not scriptural.
Case in point Mariology
Mary being ascended into heaven
Kissing the popes ring
Infallibility of the pope
A broken succession of popes
Having 3 infallible popes at one time, all declaring to be the real deal!
A splitting of the church and the formation of the Greek Orthodox church.
The Roman Catholic church looks nothing like the first, second or third century church.
The addition of the Apocrypha to scripture to lend credence to purgatory.
Would you like more examples of false doctrine?
Even having a pope was something it introduced as earlier bishops said one man should never have that kind of authority.
Small c in church used on pupose.

Wow, that's a ####-ton of ignorance you have going there, and that is what Protestant rhetoric has done over the ages, made you stupid.

I'll try to keep this simple.
1. Dogma doesn't change, it was always believed; however, it becomes necessary to formally declare it for clarity due to heresies such as the Protestant reformation. (Btw, kissing the pope's ring isn't even doctrine. I'll refrain from calling you a dolt for charity's sake).

2. Papal succession was never broken. There have been non-legitimate claims to the chair of Peter; however, they are what they are and have no bearing on legitimate succession.

3. The Church split into east/west 1000 years after Christ due to cultural differences, not doctrinal. And even so, so what? It has no bearing on the Church being 2000 years old.

4. The early church was sacramental with a heirarchy of elders and certain faith practices, which we see in both Scripture and Church Fathers. I don't see that in Protestantism, but rather Catholicism. And don't try to give me bs, I was raised in various Protestant churchs so I know.

5. Jesus used the Greek Septugaint, which contained what you call apocrypha. I don't know about you, but if it was good enough for Jesus (and He quotes it no less), then it's good enough for me. It should have been good enough for the so-called reformers too, but they were so busy trying to disprove Catholic dogma simply because they didn't want to believe it that they chose a Jewish Hebrew OT canon instead of the one Christ Himself used. There are previous threads in this forum about this as well.

6. Jesus Christ has all authority and delegates it to whom He will. The successor of Peter as visible head of His church and even you as father and head of household of your family (assuming you have a family). I don't see the problem.

I tend to think you're too proud to accept the truth, but I hope these short answers have been edifying for you nonetheless.

Perhaps the 66 books we have today in their entirety, but they had the Old Testament and a very large portion of the New while the apostles we still alive. Christ mentions the scriptures as well as they are referenced in the New Testament. Its believed the canon of script was mostly complete although not declared so by Councils till later.

Sure, Jesus mentions the OT scriptures (Greek texts, see above post); however, there is much more that isn't found in the OT implying that Jesus Himself was not "bible only" nor were the Apostles.

Protestants still have a logical problem here. :coffee:

Perhaps the 66 books we have today in their entirety, but they had the Old Testament and a very large portion of the New while the apostles we still alive. Christ mentions the scriptures as well as they are referenced in the New Testament. Its believed the canon of script was mostly complete although not declared so by Councils till later.

Yes, this is something Radiant1 didn't grasp. The Old Testamant was already written in scrolls by the scribes and as read aloud by the Jewish Priests. The Gospels of the New Testament were individual letters written to the churches and between the Apostles. These were testaments of their personal experiences that were being shared verbally as well as through the written letters that were gathered later on and compiled into the Holy Bible.

So, the writings of the Old and New Testament Bible did exist at that time albeit in loose form until the select writings were gathered and bound into one single book, the Holy Bible that we have today.

When Constantine and company came along 300 years later, that's when the Gospels became greatly perverted by the introduction of extra-Biblical teachings and interpretations that were never taught by the OT Prophets and Patriarchs nor by Jesus and His Apsotles. Rome then usurped control of the Church by its own deviant and heretical teachings and indoctrinations upon the masses.

Hey, The Truth Is The Truth!

Yes, this is something Radiant1 didn't grasp. The Old Testamant was already written in scrolls by the scribes and as read aloud by the Jewish Priests. The Gospels of the New Testament were individual letters written to the churches and between the Apostles. These were testaments of their personal experiences that were being shared verbally as well as through the written letters that were gathered later on and compiled into the Holy Bible.

So, the writings of the Old and New Testament Bible did exist at that time albeit in loose form until the select writings were gathered and bound into one single book, the Holy Bible that we have today.

When Constantine and company came along 300 years later, that's when the Gospels became greatly perverted by the introduction of extra-Biblical teachings and interpretations that were never taught by the OT Prophets and Patriarchs nor by Jesus and His Apsotles. Rome then usurped control of the Church by its own deviant and heretical teachings and indoctrinations upon the masses.

Hey, The Truth Is The Truth!

Re-read above post about Jesus quoting from the Septuagint. Protestants don't have some of the very books that Jesus quoted from. In addition, there were other writings used that never made it into the NT biblical canon; therefore, the early church as you see it used extra-biblical writings, which is not a bible-only stance. And, there was no scripture to say what was in scripture, that was determined by...men. :gasp:

Either way you look at it, Protestants have a logical problem with their bible-only stance. Protestantism is a heresy that arose 1500 years after the fact with no doctrinal or historical continuity with the early church. Not much different from JWs and Mormons. :coffee:

I love watching you guys struggle with this. :lol:

Re-read above post about Jesus quoting from the Septuagint. Protestants don't have some of the very books that Jesus quoted from. In addition, there were other writings used that never made it into the NT biblical canon; therefore, the early church as you see it used extra-biblical writings, which is not a bible-only stance. And, there was no scripture to say what was in scripture, that was determined by...men. :gasp:

Either way you look at it, Protestants have a logical problem with their bible-only stance. Protestantism is a heresy that arose 1500 years after the fact with no doctrinal or historical continuity with the early church. Not much different from JWs and Mormons. :coffee:

I love watching you guys struggle with this. :lol:

- Where did Jesus ever teach that His mother, Mary, would reign alongside Him in Heaven - helping souls get into Heaven?

- Where did Jesus teach that souls needed to go to a spiritual half-way house (purgatory) to be cleansed and purified before entering Heaven because His Atoning Blood was insufficient to cleanse one from unrighteousness in the here and now?

- Where did Jesus teach that you could help pray for someone's soul to help them get out of that "purgatory" sooner?

- Where did Jesus teach that you could pray to alternate "saints" in Heaven to present your petitions rather than directly to Him?

The list goes on but you should get the point.

It's the RCC that has the theological problems which contradict Old and New Testament Scriptures and, through its own "assumptions" is leading one billion people away from the the Truth presented within the pages of the Holy Bible.

Event the RCC admits there is no Biblical proof of Mary's asumption, yet you have bought into that lie because that's what you want to believe!

There Is Only One Truth

- Where did Jesus ever teach that His mother, Mary, would reign alongside Him in Heaven - helping souls get into Heaven?

- Where did Jesus teach that souls needed to go to a spiritual half-way house (purgatory) to be cleansed and purified before entering Heaven because His Atoning Blood was insufficient to cleanse one from unrighteousness in the here and now?

- Where did Jesus teach that you could help pray for someone's soul to help them get out of that "purgatory" sooner?

- Where did Jesus teach that you could pray to alternate "saints" in Heaven to present your petitions rather than directly to Him?

The list goes on but you should get the point.

It's the RCC that has the theological problems which contradict Old and New Testament Scriptures and, through its own "assumptions" is leading one billion people away from the the Truth presented within the pages of the Holy Bible.

Event the RCC admits there is no Biblical proof of Mary's asumption, yet you have bought into that lie because that's what you want to believe!

There Is Only One Truth

What about it? The church Christ founded isn't bible only and if the Catholic Church is in apostasy, then Jesus is a liar. There's just no way around it. The problem is the doctrine of bible only, which is shown to be a logical fallacy, never followed by the early church, and, ironically, isn't even stated in subsequent canonical scripture itself anyway! :lmao:

I've said my piece. I have no desire to participate in continued mud-slinging. You guys keep on keepin' on though because like I said, your struggling blunders in an attempt to cling to what you hold dear as opposed to the simple logical truth is just downright amusing.

What about it? The church Christ founded isn't bible only and if the Catholic Church is in apostasy, then Jesus is a liar. There's just no way around it. The problem is the doctrine of bible only, which is shown to be a logical fallacy, never followed by the early church, and, ironically, isn't even stated in subsequent canonical scripture itself anyway! :lmao:

I've said my piece. I have no desire to participate in continued mud-slinging. You guys keep on keepin' on though because like I said, your struggling blunders in an attempt to cling to what you hold dear as opposed to the simple logical truth is just downright amusing.

Letting you know that the RCC dogma about Mary's assumption; Purgatory; prayers to "the saints," Exclusive Papal authority, priests able to pronounce "forgiveness of sins" is NOT "mudslinging at all. It's pointing out the heresies that Rome has been teaching for 1900 years. One Billion Catholics would rather believe what Rome teaches than believe what Jesus taught about Salvation through Him alone.

One only need to see the examples of Rome's actions and mismanagement of God's Truth and see why the gates of Hell are prevailing against it today with all the scandals of predator priests, financial cover-ups and immoral shenanigans perpetrated by those who are supposed to be leaders and shepherds of "the flock". More scandals will be forthcoming in the near future.

The RCC is no different than Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, Muslims, etc. , all which have strayed from God's Truth and added extra-Biblical teachings that are leading people into deception and away from Salvation through Christ alone.

And I can't get over how you guys pick a Bible off of the shelf at Barnes and Noble, and immediately think you've got the answers to all of life's questions. You deny that the Holy Spirit would and could protect one office for 2000 years, but have no problem assigning infallibility/inerrancy to innumberable scribes, translators and publishers, not a one of them who you could identify as having worked on your Bible!
Your system doesn't work, logically, historically or theologically.

Have you ever read the bishops or early church fathers? If the powers that be disagreed, they burned them at the stake, prior to that, they set them out of the church. Late comers, Jon Huss, Martian Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Ulrich Zwingli
Would you like me to dig up the bishops that protested false doctrine when it was implemented

Waldensians, Waldenses or Vaudois exsisted outside of the catholic church.
then there are some Baptist (most dont), that say they were never part of the catholic church and date themselves back to followers of John the baptist.

No argument from me on any parts of your last three posts.

I stated in earlier posts a lot of the same comments, but you said them much better than I.

Well stated, but to completely ignored or pooh-poohed away by the good Catholics.

I guess documented history doesn't really mean much anymore.

And I can't get over how you guys pick a Bible off of the shelf at Barnes and Noble, and immediately think you've got the answers to all of life's questions. You deny that the Holy Spirit would and could protect one office for 2000 years, but have no problem assigning infallibility/inerrancy to innumberable scribes, translators and publishers, not a one of them who you could identify as having worked on your Bible!
Your system doesn't work, logically, historically or theologically.

God's Holy Spirit would not/does not lead people astray.

One need only to compare the teachings of RCC theology to the Holy Bible to see that the RCC is teaching another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary as well as another path to Salvation. The RCC has become a heirarchy of false leaders, false teachers and deceivers of mankind - just like Jesus warned would happen.

Have you ever read the bishops or early church fathers? If the powers that be disagreed, they burned them at the stake, prior to that, they set them out of the church.

Of course I have. Can you please tell me which heretic you agreed with? As for burning at the stake, that was a product of that time in history, not particular Catholic doctrine.
Or, perhaps you would like to defend Catholics who were tortured by Elizabeth I in England? She was a Protestant, no? Do I blame her, personally, or do I blame that time in history?
You take a guess.
You all love to resort of ad hominem attacks because you cannot defend your notion that the Bible must've fallen out of the sky, from God's Hand onto your lap.

And I can't get over how you guys pick a Bible off of the shelf at Barnes and Noble, and immediately think you've got the answers to all of life's questions. You deny that the Holy Spirit would and could protect one office for 2000 years, but have no problem assigning infallibility/inerrancy to innumberable scribes, translators and publishers, not a one of them who you could identify as having worked on your Bible!
Your system doesn't work, logically, historically or theologically.

To paraphrase a line out of "Blazing Saddles", this last statement of yours could be the last act of a desperate Catholic.

What an insulting, condescending, utterly arrogant statement.

The gall of you and others like you to say we just pick up a Bible and automatically know this stuff.

I was born-again 35 years ago. I am almost 58 now, so that means I, as a church-going boy, knowing the Gospels and Gods plan of salvation, was 23 when I saw the light. I just thank the Lord, and no one else, that He found me before I departed this earth.

How about over 50 years of understanding what the Bible teaches? What Jesus said, his quotes from many books of the OT, the history of the Bible, 35 years of Bible study, retreats, Billy Graham, fellowship with the same church group of dedicated mission-working non-denominational believers.

This study of the Bible is based on the 66 books that both protostants and catholics deemed canonical and spiritually/scriptual, not the 7 additional books that the RCc officially deemed canonical only after April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent, in order to support their practices of purgatory, invocation of the saints, worship of angels, etc., because of problems or errors with those seven books.

That's how I, and undoubtedly many others that speak up on topics like this, learned what we post on topics like this.

he written Bible as we have it today was put together, authorized, accepted, and approved by various catholic councils, finalized officially by Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D.

And herein is the absurdity of your Bible only faith. The Bible was "authorized...approved...finalized officially" by none other than a Catholic pope!

You wouldn't have what you have if not for the infallible authority of the papacy!

And herein is the absurdity of your Bible only faith. The Bible was "authorized...approved...finalized officially" by none other than a Catholic pope!

You wouldn't have what you have if not for the infallible authority of the papacy!

Our Bible only faith is based on the 66 books that were deemed canonical and spiritual until the Council of Trent.

The Bible is based on the 66 books that the catholics deemed canonical and spiritual/scriptual, not the 7 additional books that the RCc officially deemed canonical only after April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent, in order to support their practices of purgatory, invocation of the saints, worship of angels, etc., because of problems or errors with those seven books.

Up until then - 1546 - those seven books were used for study and worship, but not scripture. The RCc had to make them divinely inspired to buttress their theology of non-Biblical practices.

And herein is the absurdity of your Bible only faith. The Bible was "authorized...approved...finalized officially" by none other than a Catholic pope!

You wouldn't have what you have if not for the infallible authority of the papacy!

So if the Bible is reliable, according to the "infallible authority of a pope," why has the RCC introduced extra-Biblical teachings that contradict the Bible with added dogma that dilutes the sole power of Salvation through faith in Christ alone and as found within the pages of the Bible?

IOW: If the Holy Bible contains all the essentials of information needed to know God and how to receive Salvation through faith in Christ alone why do you have such animosity against Sola Scriptura?

Here's The Truth: The RCC is no different than all other cults who have introduced "supplemental teachings and books" as their source of theology and "new revelations" (apart from the Bible) in order to maintain control over their "flock"?

Our Bible only faith is based on the 66 books that were deemed canonical and spiritual until the Council of Trent.

The Bible is based on the 66 books that the catholics deemed canonical and spiritual/scriptual, not the 7 additional books that the RCc officially deemed canonical only after April 8, 1546 at the Council of Trent, in order to support their practices of purgatory, invocation of the saints, worship of angels, etc., because of problems or errors with those seven books.

Up until then - 1546 - those seven books were used for study and worship, but not scripture. The RCc had to make them divinely inspired to buttress their theology of non-Biblical practices.

What's that got to do with what I said? You accept the Catholic Church's authorization of the Bible, but then you about face and say the RCC is not divinely inspired. Which is it, because you can't have it both ways.
If the RCC was protected by God with respect the Bible, then she is protected by God, period.
As for the other books, clearly you don't understand infallibility. Just because the Church remains silent on a subject, or refrains from declaring a matter doctrine, doesn't mean that the said doctrine is or isn't true. Just because "Trinity" wasn't defined/put into words until Nicaea in 325, doesn't mean it wasn't believed and true.
Infallibility only protects from declaring something truth that is not truth.

Up until then - 1546 - those seven books were used for study and worship, but not scripture. The RCc had to make them divinely inspired to buttress their theology of non-Biblical practices.

This is the type of ignorant bs that makes me sick.

I'll take an excerpt from Wikipedia only because of it's unbiased stance:
Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books)
Deuterocanonical is a term first coined in 1566 by the theologian Sixtus of Siena, who had converted to Catholicism from Judaism, to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament considered canonical by the Catholic Church, but which are not present in the Hebrew Bible, and which had been omitted by some early canon lists, especially in the East.[1][2][3]

Their acceptance among early Christians was widespread, though not universal, and the Bible of the early Church always included, with varying degrees of recognition, books now called deuterocanonical.[4] Some say that their canonicity seems not to have been doubted in the Church until it was challenged by Jews after AD 100,[5] sometimes postulating a hypothetical Council of Jamnia. Regional councils in the West published official canons that included these books as early as the fourth and fifth centuries.[2][6]

The Septuagint was widely accepted and used by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century, even in the region of Roman Judea, and therefore naturally became the text most widely used by early Christians, who were predominantly Greek speaking.

On the contrary, the Protestants had to remove the books because they rejected certain Catholic dogmas and in doing so stuck with a canon that was decided by anti-Christian and reactionary Jews (Hebrew OT canon as opposed to the Greek). As I pointed out already, Jesus Himself used the Greek texts, we know this because He quotes them. If Jesus Christ Himself quotes them, then surely they are worthy of being called scripture.


IOW: If the Holy Bible contains all the essentials of information needed to know God and how to receive Salvation through faith in Christ alone why do you have such animosity against Sola Scriptura?

Because God didn't deem it that way. Christ established a church, not a book. Even scripture states there is more than what had been written. There is partial truth and there is fullness of truth. As a bible-only adherent, you only have the partial truth. Heck, I'm not even sure you have the basic "essentials" anymore.

....Christ established a church, not a book. Even scripture states there is more than what had been written. There is partial truth and there is fullness of truth. As a bible-only adherent, you only have the partial truth. Heck, I'm not even sure you have the basic "essentials" anymore.

The CHURCH established by The New Testament Jesus Christ is the worldwide Spiritual Body of Believers, born-again by faith in Christ alone. There is "no longer Jew nor Greek" nor denominational division for all are united through faith in Christ.

Yes, "THE Church" is The One established by Christ which is one (not made of hands) but by the empowering union of the Spiritual Body of Believers in Christ alone and sealed by The Holy Spirit of God unto Salvation.

The RCC preaches another gospel, another Jesus and another Mary - all different than the accounts given within The Holy Bible.

This is the type of ignorant bs that makes me sick.

I'll take an excerpt from Wikipedia only because of it's unbiased stance:
Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books)




On the contrary, the Protestants had to remove the books because they rejected certain Catholic dogmas and in doing so stuck with a canon that was decided by anti-Christian and reactionary Jews (Hebrew OT canon as opposed to the Greek). As I pointed out already, Jesus Himself used the Greek texts, we know this because He quotes them. If Jesus Christ Himself quotes them, then surely they are worthy of being called scripture.




Because God didn't deem it that way. Christ established a church, not a book. Even scripture states there is more than what had been written. There is partial truth and there is fullness of truth. As a bible-only adherent, you only have the partial truth. Heck, I'm not even sure you have the basic "essentials" anymore.

Already read the article once this morning, and just now again. Your one excerpt does not tell the whole article, does not mention that divine inspiration was not agreed upon until after the Council of Trent. Very convenient to try and stave off the Reformation.

Here's a good link, with numerous references of Jesus' references to the OT, with no references to the Apocrypha. Takes just a few minutes to read:

The Apocrypha: Is it scripture? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture).

I say if the Jews, who wrote those seven books, knew them, studied them, did not recognize the apocrypha as inspired scripture and canon, that's the way I'll go with it.

"Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2).

The Jews recognized and were in charge of the OT writings. They chose not to include the apocrypha as inspired writings. They, of all people, would know.

I say if the Jews, who wrote those seven books, knew them, studied them, did not recognize the apocrypha as inspired scripture and canon, that's the way I'll go with it.

They didn't recognize the Messiah, either.

:doh:

They didn't recognize the Messiah, either.

:doh:

Only because the Orthodox Jews were impatient and expected their prophesied Messiah to be a warrior like David and militarily vanquish the Jewish enemies including the Roman government during that era.




Problems in the Apocrypha
When we look into the apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.

Condones the use of magic

Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."

Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.

Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort. Salvation by works:

• Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
• Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us, not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).


Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:

2 Maccabbees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."

Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.

Historical Errors -Wrong historical facts:

• Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
• Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.1
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

Conclusion

Obviously the apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired of God. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.

Errors in the Apocrypha | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://carm.org/errors-apocrypha)

They didn't recognize the Messiah, either.

:doh:

and...........we don't recognize SM, maybe that is his real problem with us.

I still do not understand him and the "non-demons" concern for the souls of the Roman Catholics, while leaving millions of their Gutter Slut Bretheran, lying in the gutters of life, waiting to find Jesus, so they too can come out and start condemning the Roman Catholic Church.

They are missing millions of Christian soilders to fight the evil Mary worshiping, purgatory waiting, apolistic Roman Catholic Church.

They have met the enemy and they are them.


Evangelicalism.............coming to a stripmall near you

Wow, that's a ####-ton of ignorance you have going there, and that is what Protestant rhetoric has done over the ages, made you stupid.



2. Papal succession was never broken. There have been non-legitimate claims to the chair of Peter; however, they are what they are and have no bearing on legitimate succession.


3. The Church split into east/west 1000 years after Christ due to cultural differences, not doctrinal. And even so, so what? It has no bearing on the Church being 2000 years old.


4. The early church was sacramental with a heirarchy of elders and certain faith practices, which we see in both Scripture and Church Fathers. I don't see that in Protestantism, but rather Catholicism. And don't try to give me bs, I was raised in various Protestant churchs so I know.


5. Jesus used the Greek Septugaint, which contained what you call apocrypha. I don't know about you, but if it was good enough for Jesus (and He quotes it no less), then it's good enough for me. It should have been good enough for the so-called reformers too, but they were so busy trying to disprove Catholic dogma simply because they didn't want to believe it that they chose a Jewish Hebrew OT canon instead of the one Christ Himself used. There are previous threads in this forum about this as well.

6. Jesus Christ has all authority and delegates it to whom He will. The successor of Peter as visible head of His church and even you as father and head of household of your family (assuming you have a family). I don't see the problem.

I tend to think you're too proud to accept the truth, but I hope these short answers have been edifying for you nonetheless.

2. Check your history dear, there have times when there was no pope! So it was broken.

3. My point was if the popes infallible there should have never been a split, OBTW, unless you want to give the RCC an even bigger black eye your GOC friends are much more superstitious.

4. What’s your point?

5. Really? Any proof of that? Had he ever quoted it?

6. This is based on an incorrect presupposition that Peter was the head of the church rather than Christ.

I appreciate your time, but you gave me nothing but your opinion, nothing to back it up. I think the rock VS pebble argument has been beaten to death.

Pride maybe an issue, that’s an area in progress, I am not looking for truth, I already have it in scripture, rather questioning you dogmatic dogma, I know you drank the cool aide and I know the religiosity and the works based righteousness of the RCC is very appealing to sinful human nature, but are you really so much your willing to gamble your eternity on it when its clear its teaching do not agree with scripture? Are you positive that your not trusting more in the doctrines of man, than scripture?

Sure, Jesus mentions the OT scriptures (Greek texts, see above post); however, there is much more that isn't found in the OT implying that Jesus Himself was not "bible only" nor were the Apostles.

Protestants still have a logical problem here. :coffee:

Seems to me when you are the word, you wouldnt need to quote any text! So saying something that wasnt revealed to man prior, or stated in the exact same way, is a shallow argument. Also I reject your premise, when Jesus quoted the Jewish scriptures it was from the orignal Hebrew text he was quoting, not a translation of Greek!

They still fail,utterly fail, to address the issue that the Bible does not contain a table of contents, did not fall from the sky, and was not even ordered by Jesus Himself (certainly not in any way that supercedes His establishment of a Church).
You look to the RCC for canonization, but look away on matters that don't suit you.
You trust myriad individuals but deny one office.

You demand that the Bible alone is to be used for Salvation, paying no mind to the implications of that position for 1200+ years of world history.

Yeah, you've thought this through.:eyebrow:

2. Check your history dear, there have times when there was no pope! So it was broken.

I'm not your "dear", do not call me that, (IS).

So in your view it's "broken" every time a pope dies before another is elected? BWAHAHAHAHA!


3. My point was if the popes infallible there should have never been a split, OBTW, unless you want to give the RCC an even bigger black eye your GOC friends are much more superstitious.

You obviously have no clue what infallible means do you?


4. What’s your point?

The point is, you're wrong.


5. Really? Any proof of that? Had he ever quoted it?

Deuterocanonical references in the NT:
Matt. 2:16 - Wis. 11:7
Matt. 6:19-20 - Sirach 29:11
Matt. 7:12 - Tobit 4:15
Matt. 7:16,20 - Sirach 27:6
Matt. 9:36 - Judith 11:19
Matt. 11:25 - Tobit 7:18
Matt. 16:18 - Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Tobit 3:8 and 7:11
Matt. 24:15 - 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 - Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - Wis. 4:5
Acts 1:15 - 1 Macc. 3:55
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 - Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Wis. 5:18
Eph. 6:13-17 - Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16
Heb 11:35 - 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - 1 Macc. 2:52
James 3:13 - Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - Sirach 29:10-11.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - Sirach 16:12
2 Peter 2:7 - Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – Tobit 12:15
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - Tobit 13:17.

I hope you can see that the NT you use makes numerous references to an OT you don't use. How can you and others like you claim to study the Word of God when you're missing so much? The Jews that rejected these OT books in 100 AD rejected Christ Himself and the entire NT but yet Protestants 1500 years later choose to use it anyway. You may want to ask yourself why. People like b23 are fine with that apparently, but you shouldn't be. I sure as heck wouldn't be. I'll stick with what the Son of God used, thank you.


6. This is based on an incorrect presupposition that Peter was the head of the church rather than Christ.

As if your presupposition is correct? And why should I believe you? You're just one Joe Schmoe interpreting scripture for yourself with no authority and don't even have the full scriptures at that(!). You're right, the whole stone vs pebble has been done to death and it hasn't changed anyone's mind about that particular passage has it. I'll stick with what has always been believed, not a new interpretation 1500 years later to suit personal tastes, thank you.


I am not looking for truth, I already have it in scripture

Apparently, you're not even looking for truth in the scriptures either. :ohwell:

Seems to me when you are the word, you wouldnt need to quote any text! So saying something that wasnt revealed to man prior, or stated in the exact same way, is a shallow argument. Also I reject your premise, when Jesus quoted the Jewish scriptures it was from the orignal Hebrew text he was quoting, not a translation of Greek!

See previously posted link from Wikipedia (unbiased source) regarding the Greek vs Hebrew issue. All scholars are pretty much in agreement that Jesus and all Greek speaking Jews in Egypt and Isreal/Judea used the Greek texts including the early church. Bring forth your evidence to the contrary if you have it and I'll take an honest look at it.

And herein is the absurdity of your Bible only faith. The Bible was "authorized...approved...finalized officially" by none other than a Catholic pope!

You wouldn't have what you have if not for the infallible authority of the papacy!

But he wasnt Roman Catholic Pope, that church didnt form till about 600 years later, which is a far crime from todays.

What's that got to do with what I said? You accept the Catholic Church's authorization of the Bible, but then you about face and say the RCC is not divinely inspired. Which is it, because you can't have it both ways.
If the RCC was protected by God with respect the Bible, then she is protected by God, period.
As for the other books, clearly you don't understand infallibility. Just because the Church remains silent on a subject, or refrains from declaring a matter doctrine, doesn't mean that the said doctrine is or isn't true. Just because "Trinity" wasn't defined/put into words until Nicaea in 325, doesn't mean it wasn't believed and true.
Infallibility only protects from declaring something truth that is not truth.

We except what God ordained as his word, not popes or councils which are mere devices of His.

Also it wasnt the Roman Catholic church that cannonized scripture but the earlier church. With your preconcieved idea, you keep overlooking that the Roman catholic church did not exsist then. At a later point it feel into that.

Think of it like this analogy, you have a Christian, they sin and then they repent and move on, or at least some do. A true Christian cant stay in sin but they may find themselves it it for a season, just like the church strayed from the truth for a season, becoming something other, then those that reconized their error turned from it and started fresh, making a break from it.

and...........we don't recognize SM, maybe that is his real problem with us.

I still do not understand him and the "non-demons" concern for the souls of the Roman Catholics, while leaving millions of their Gutter Slut Bretheran, lying in the gutters of life, waiting to find Jesus, so they too can come out and start condemning the Roman Catholic Church.

They are missing millions of Christian soilders to fight the evil Mary worshiping, purgatory waiting, apolistic Roman Catholic Church.

They have met the enemy and they are them.


Evangelicalism.............coming to a stripmall near you

Actually evangelism is seeking ALL the lost, whereever we encounter them.

We love Catholics and want to see them in Heaven, just like the false converts in our own churches, or those that profess no faith at all. Like all good false religions the RCC has just enough truth to make it seem vaild and just enough error to send it members to hell for rejecting Gods plan of salvation, becase of putting their faith and trust in seven scraments, and the church, rather than FULLY in Jesus Christ!

But he wasnt Roman Catholic Pope, that church didnt form till about 600 years later, which is a far crime from todays.

I'm responding specifically to b23 who said that the RCC "authorized...finalized" the canon of the Bible.

As for the rest of your revisionist history, it's been done to death.

We except what God ordained as his word, not popes or councils which are mere devices of His.

Also it wasnt the Roman Catholic church that cannonized scripture but the earlier church. With your preconcieved idea, you keep overlooking that the Roman catholic church did not exsist then. At a later point it feel into that.

Think of it like this analogy, you have a Christian, they sin and then they repent and move on, or at least some do. A true Christian cant stay in sin but they may find themselves it it for a season, just like the church strayed from the truth for a season, becoming something other, then those that reconized their error turned from it and started fresh, making a break from it.

When, exactly, did God speak to you and tell you what He wanted in the Bible? When, exactly, did God speak directly to you and tell you that He wanted a book of His Word? (oh, and you can't use the Bible, either)

Where, in the Bible, does it tell you which books are to be included in the Bible?
You are relying on men, no matter how you look at it. You are relying on innumerable scribes, translators and publishers (GASP!! MEN!!) to have been divinely protected from error for over 2000 years; yet you reject that one office could be protected from error.
None of you have thought through the implications of what you profess. You just shoot off anti-Catholic rants and think you can sew it up with "God can do anything".
Anything, apparently, except what the RCC teaches.:bigwhoop:

I'm not your "dear", do not call me that, (IS)..

IS ????, Yes Maam

So in your view it's "broken" every time a pope dies before another is elected? BWAHAHAHAHA!.

No RCC claim that there has always been one pope after another, put there have been gaps of years when there wasnt any!

You obviously have no clue what infallible means do you?)..

Depends, are you using Websters definition or the RCC churches? I am aware of both but they dont match. Infallable the common deffinition is without error. Even by the RCC churches definition popes have disagreed or scripture and its meaning.





Deuterocanonical references in the NT:
Matt. 2:16 - Wis. 11:7
Matt. 6:19-20 - Sirach 29:11
Matt. 7:12 - Tobit 4:15
Matt. 7:16,20 - Sirach 27:6
Matt. 9:36 - Judith 11:19
Matt. 11:25 - Tobit 7:18
Matt. 16:18 - Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Tobit 3:8 and 7:11
Matt. 24:15 - 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 - Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - Wis. 4:5
Acts 1:15 - 1 Macc. 3:55
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 - Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Wis. 5:18
Eph. 6:13-17 - Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16
Heb 11:35 - 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - 1 Macc. 2:52
James 3:13 - Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - Sirach 29:10-11.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - Sirach 16:12
2 Peter 2:7 - Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – Tobit 12:15
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - Tobit 13:17. /QUOTE]

I hope you can see that the NT you use makes numerous references to an OT you don't use. How can you and others like you claim to study the Word of God when you're missing so much? The Jews that rejected these OT books in 100 AD rejected Christ Himself and the entire NT but yet Protestants 1500 years later choose to use it anyway. You may want to ask yourself why. People like b23 are fine with that apparently, but you shouldn't be. I sure as heck wouldn't be. I'll stick with what the Son of God used, thank you.


Call me crazy, but I am going to look each and everyone of these up both in the Bibe and the Apocrypha. So give me a chance to get back to you on that.

See previously posted link from Wikipedia (unbiased source) regarding the Greek vs Hebrew issue. All scholars are pretty much in agreement that Jesus and all Greek speaking Jews in Egypt and Isreal/Judea used the Greek texts including the early church. Bring forth your evidence to the contrary if you have it and I'll take an honest look at it.

I read that post and had came accross this in some other reading, I think a more correct statement was that by the time of Christ the Jews had reject Hebrew and the common language of the day was Greek.

2. The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books.

3. Josephus, the Jewish historian (A.D. 95), indicated that the 39 books were recognized as authoritative.

Below are listed several additional reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as inspired:

1. The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as scripture.

2. The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired (“Thus saith the Lord” etc.) – In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 denies it.

3. The Apocrypha is never quoted as authoritative in scriptures. (Although Hebrews 11:35-38 alludes to historical events recorded in 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42).

4. Matthew 23:35 – Jesus implied that the close of Old Testament historical scripture was the death of Zechariah (400 B.C.). This excludes any books written after Malachi and before the New Testament. (Canonicity | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site (http://bible.org/seriespage/canonicity))

Pretty much if or Lord dated the closing of scripture which did not include those books, That settles it! I find it hard to believe he quoted them but I am going to check!

When, exactly, did God speak to you and tell you what He wanted in the Bible? When, exactly, did God speak directly to you and tell you that He wanted a book of His Word? (oh, and you can't use the Bible, either)

Where, in the Bible, does it tell you which books are to be included in the Bible?

Matthew 23:35 – Jesus implied that the close of Old Testament historical scripture was the death of Zechariah (400 B.C.). This excludes any books written after Malachi and before the New Testament.

Matthew 23:35 – Jesus implied that the close of Old Testament historical scripture was the death of Zechariah (400 B.C.). This excludes any books written after Malachi and before the New Testament.

Jesus "implied"??
:roflmao:

...
Where, in the Bible, does it tell you which books are to be included in the Bible?
You are relying on men, no matter how you look at it...

libby, as you know, the Old Testament part of the Holy Bible was already established at the time of Jesus and His Apostles. These writings were all accepted by Judaism for being God's Word and as documented by the Prophets and Patriarchs that had first-hand experiences directly with God.

Then, The New Testament accounts were also first-hand accounts of letters that were written by Jesus' Apostles that included documenting His Words and the experiences they all went through during their time of walking with Christ and ministering the Gospel of Christ after He had been crucified and resurrected.

Anyone should be able to know that first-hand accounts are the most reliable. And that is exactly what the New Testament writings are comprised of. There is no need for additional or extra-Biblical writings that cannot be verified as being first-hand accounts.

Even Jesus mentioned to His Disciples that when He would go to be with The Father, He would send the Holy Spirit to bring His Teachings into their remembrance. Thus, Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, Divinely guided the writings that were documented by His Disciples and which comprise the collection of the New Tesament writings as we have them in the Holy Bible. There is no need for additional teaching because all of what we need to know has already been established within the covers of the Holy Bible.

Jesus is The One who said what should be written. Organizing the first-hand account documents that were written by the Apostles was all that the compilers of the Bible did.

As far as the accounts of what the NT Apostles wrote and what the OT Prophets and Patriarchs wrote, they were all guided by The Spirit of God's Truth.



But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)

And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:19-21)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:15-17)


And, when an individual sincerely seeks God for Wisdom, His Holy Spirit will guide him/her into the Truth of His Word without having to rely on someone else.
This prevents the individual from being led astray into false teachings.

That's God's Promise.


But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27)




And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:32;36)

I'm responding specifically to b23 who said that the RCC "authorized...finalized" the canon of the Bible.

As for the rest of your revisionist history, it's been done to death.

You pick and chose your answers, and leave much out of context. Up until the Council of Trent, the RCc owned the Bible, and very few people outside of the church saw any of it. Here's a little history:

History of the Bible: How The Bible Came To Us (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html)

180 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament from Greek into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions began about 180 A.D.
195 A.D. The name of the first translation of the Old and New Testaments into Latin was termed Old Latin, both Testaments having been translated from the Greek. Parts of the Old Latin were found in quotes by the church father Tertullian, who lived around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa and wrote treatises on theology.
300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a translation of the New Testament from the Greek into Syriac.
300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic was spoken in four dialects in Egypt. The Bible was translated into each of these four dialects.
380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome. He translated into Latin the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the New Testament from Greek. The Latin Vulgate became the Bible of the Western Church until the Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. It continues to be the authoritative translation of the Roman Catholic Church to this day. The Protestant Reformation saw an increase in translations of the Bible into the common languages of the people.

That was your Bible, including the Apocrypha.

Your RCc did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council in 1546, 30 years after Luther caused the truthful schism away from the RCc.

I know, and you know as well, there are tons of problems with the Apocypha, and your church leaders knew it as well way back in the day, but without those additional books, your church and its doctrines and theology had no legs to stand in the light of Luther's declaration.

Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible! (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm)
The Roman Catholic Bible (http://www.reachingcatholics.org/rcbible.html)

Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Early Christian writers (c. 120-220) who defended their faith against critics and recommended their faith to outsiders were called apologists.[1]

You can find myriad sources of apologetics, logically thought out and documented, against the apocrypha as being divine or scripture.

The only source you can use to justify it is the Roman Catholic Encyopledia and infallibility of your pope, which is really one and the same. What he the man says, goes.

Man before God.

Emotions over reality.

Actually evangelism is seeking ALL the lost, whereever we encounter them.

We love Catholics and want to see them in Heaven, just like the false converts in our own churches, or those that profess no faith at all. Like all good false religions the RCC has just enough truth to make it seem vaild and just enough error to send it members to hell for rejecting Gods plan of salvation, becase of putting their faith and trust in seven scraments, and the church, rather than FULLY in Jesus Christ!

I do not see this on these forums. I see the "non-demons" continually bashing the Roman Catholic Church, then giviing the secularist, atheist, Nonno boys a free pass.

Your "non-demon" brain washer brethren have taught you how to debate Catholics, not how to save souls.

You have totally missed how to become " fishers of men".

You just want to prove your righteousness.

As stated previously there would not of been a Bible for you to hold dear if it was not for the Catholic Church, which you now constantly condemn, if the martyrs, whom many we call Saints, did not prevail.

I do not see this on these forums. I see the "non-demons" continually bashing the Roman Catholic Church, then giviing the secularist, atheist, Nonno boys a free pass.

Your "non-demon" brain washer brethren have taught you how to debate Catholics, not how to save souls.

You have totally missed how to become " fishers of men".

You just want to prove your righteousness.

As stated previously there would not of been a Bible for you to hold dear if it was not for the Catholic Church, which you now constantly condemn, if the martyrs, whom many we call Saints, did not prevail.

I I respectfully disagree
1. They don’t get a free pass, but scripture tells us not to throw your pearls before swine. It’s the RCC that says we are an anathema and that there is no salvation out side the church, the Bibles plan of salvation is different and has a different gospel.
2. I spent all my life in two Denominations and rejected the teachings of both as the doctrines of men. Grace Brethren and Various Presbie churches.
3. I have no righteousness, "There is none righteous no not one"
4. I don’t believe so, Law to the proud and Grace to the humble.
The early Church not the RCC but lead by the Spirit of God.

You pick and chose your answers, and leave much out of context. Up until the Council of Trent, the RCc owned the Bible, and very few people outside of the church saw any of it. Here's a little history

You have not answered a single on of my charges; just continued to re-post anti-Catholic propaganda.
Have you ever considered the implications of what you say you believe? Do you just throw stuff like this out thinking that Catholics are too ill informed about their faith, and history itself, to answer your accusations?

You take what you think Jesus "implied" as categorical truth, yet you dismiss what He reiterated four times over?

You have not answered a single on of my charges; just continued to re-post anti-Catholic propaganda.
Have you ever considered the implications of what you say you believe? Do you just throw stuff like this out thinking that Catholics are too ill informed about their faith, and history itself, to answer your accusations?

You take what you think Jesus "implied" as categorical truth, yet you dismiss what He reiterated four times over?

Reiterated what four times over?

I take what Jesus says, written by men through divine inspiration, and He only, as the Gospel truth. Nothing man says or writes that is not divinely attributed can be taken as inspired. Are you going to Matt 16:18, by any chance?

I think that today, with all the information out there, historical and archeological finds and translations, authenticated, documented and re-documented, that anyone who does not check this information out on their own is ignorant, and relying on others to tell them what to believe just ingrains that ignorance deeper.

John 1:37-39 - when the two disciples of John the Baptist followed Jesus and Jesus asked them what they sought, they replied "where dwellest thou?"

Jesus answered "come and see".

That answer was not about where He laid his head for the night. It was a direct instruction to those seeking Him to come and see for themselves what He was about. What He and the Father were about. Check it out for themselves, then decide. For themselves. Don't let anyone else decide for them.

I know a lot of Catholics, and most of them never set a foot in a church (except for weddings or funerals), just like a lot of Protestants I know. Most of both of those groups are completely ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Because they don't even look at it.

Reiterated what four times over?

I take what Jesus says, written by men through divine inspiration, and He only, as the Gospel truth. Nothing man says or writes that is not divinely attributed can be taken as inspired. Are you going to Matt 16:18, by any chance?

I think that today, with all the information out there, historical and archeological finds and translations, authenticated, documented and re-documented, that anyone who does not check this information out on their own is ignorant, and relying on others to tell them what to believe just ingrains that ignorance deeper.

John 1:37-39 - when the two disciples of John the Baptist followed Jesus and Jesus asked them what they sought, they replied "where dwellest thou?"
Jesus answered "come and see".

That answer was not about where He laid his head for the night. It was a direct instruction to those seeking Him to come and see for themselves what He was about. What He and the Father were about. Check it out for themselves, then decide. For themselves. Don't let anyone else decide for them.

I know a lot of Catholics, and most of them never set a foot in a church (except for weddings or funerals), just like a lot of Protestants I know. Most of both of those groups are completely ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Because they don't even look at it.

See? You don't even know what He repeated four times over. You don't know what He said we must do; something that was so important that disciples walked away at that moment, never to return.

See? You don't even know what He repeated four times over. You don't know what He said we must do; something that was so important that disciples walked away at that moment, never to return.

See? See what? Jesus probably said dozens of things four times or more, and people and disciples were always coming and going as they either believed or fell away.

I would assume this particular saying you are referring to is a catholic-training rote-like thing. Maybe not but probably so.

This is not a word game or verse memorization thing. I guess you like to speak in riddles.

What's this thread about? :tap:














:ohwell:

See? See what? Jesus probably said dozens of things four times or more, and people and disciples were always coming and going as they either believed or fell away.

I would assume this particular saying you are referring to is a catholic-training rote-like thing. Maybe not but probably so.

This is not a word game or verse memorization thing. I guess you like to speak in riddles.

You mean like trying to discredit 2000 years of the teachings of my church based on what you interpret that Jesus "implied"?
All I care about is that you recognize that you ask of the RCC what you do not demand of yourself, or your own faith tradition.

What's this thread about? :tap:





:ohwell:

Dude, I don't know anymore. I just wish this Libby person would quit speaking in tongues and riddles and just put out what it is trying to state in a cognizant, understandable form. It just keeps repeating itself.

She seems to be playing Bible Trivia or a Gotcha! game of some sort, about something she thinks everyone should have at the tip of their fingers, but she gives no comprehensible clue as to what it is about.

Dude, I don't know anymore. I just wish this Libby person would quit speaking in tongues and riddles and just put out what it is trying to state in a cognizant, understandable form. It just keeps repeating itself.

She seems to be playing Bible Trivia or a Gotcha! game of some sort, about something she thinks everyone should have at the tip of their fingers, but she gives no comprehensible clue as to what it is about.

She is just proving the only thing you know about the Catholic Church is what your stripmall preacher has told you and have not learned anything on your own.

There are lots of souls to save. We Catholics are saved and comfortable in our beliefs.

Thank you very much for caring.

She is just proving the only thing you know about the Catholic Church is what your stripmall preacher has told you and have not learned anything on your own.

There are lots of souls to save. We Catholics are saved and comfortable in our beliefs.

Thank you very much for caring.

Oh, please. :killingme

:smoochy:

Dude, I don't know anymore. I just wish this Libby person would quit speaking in tongues and riddles and just put out what it is trying to state in a cognizant, understandable form. It just keeps repeating itself.

She seems to be playing Bible Trivia or a Gotcha! game of some sort, about something she thinks everyone should have at the tip of their fingers, but she gives no comprehensible clue as to what it is about.

It's called the Socratic method. By asking you certain questions it is hoped that it will lead you to use critical thinking so that you can logically come to conclusions. Unfortunately, that is too much to ask for some who have a lot of preconceived and erroneous notions and will balk and go into denial finding ways to get around the facts usually through double standards and outright hypocrisy (which I believe is the case Libby is pointing out to you here). This is when such hypocrites are termed "a bigot", although those who are termed bigoted will go into denial about that too. At that point is when the one using the Socratic method thinks you are a complete and total moron and dust their feet of you trusting that they presented evidence adequately and that the bigot might (and that's a big might) catch on one day, for there is always hope for stupid people. :huggy:

Oh, and btw...

I read that post and had came accross this in some other reading, I think a more correct statement was that by the time of Christ the Jews had reject Hebrew and the common language of the day was Greek.

2. The Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) officially recognized our 39 Old Testament books.

3. Josephus, the Jewish historian (A.D. 95), indicated that the 39 books were recognized as authoritative.

Below are listed several additional reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha as inspired:

1. The Jews never accepted the Apocrypha as scripture.

2. The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired (“Thus saith the Lord” etc.) – In fact, 1 Maccabees 9:27 denies it.

3. The Apocrypha is never quoted as authoritative in scriptures. (Although Hebrews 11:35-38 alludes to historical events recorded in 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42).

4. Matthew 23:35 – Jesus implied that the close of Old Testament historical scripture was the death of Zechariah (400 B.C.). This excludes any books written after Malachi and before the New Testament. (Canonicity | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site (http://bible.org/seriespage/canonicity))

Pretty much if or Lord dated the closing of scripture which did not include those books, That settles it! I find it hard to believe he quoted them but I am going to check!

Weak. Those Jews are the very anti-Christian reactionaries (Jamnia) I was referring to. 1Maccabees 9:27 and Matthew 23:35 are referring to the prophets only.

All evidence has been presented appropriately. It's up to you to catch on. I'm now dusting my feet of this thread. You know, the whole pearls before swine thing.

What's this thread about? :tap:

:ohwell:

It was supposed to be about the possibility of the next pope being black, although for what purpose I could not say. Catholics don't give two craps about what color the pope is. :shrug:

Re: This Thread

...It was supposed to be about the possibility of the next pope being black, although for what purpose I could not say. Catholics don't give two craps about what color the pope is. :shrug:

lol... So we happened to get off track a bit. Happens now and then. :whistle:

Actually, what I found interesting is that supposedly there is a teaching within the RCC that mentions the end of days will culminate when a black pope is chosen to head the Roman Catholic Church. Have you or libby, or others, heard of this?

Re: This Thread



lol... So we happened to get off track a bit. Happens now and then. :whistle:

Actually, what I found interesting is that supposedly there is a teaching within the RCC that mentions the end of days will culminate when a black pope is chosen to head the Roman Catholic Church. Have you or libby, or others, heard of this?

The Church does not teach that.

What you are referring to is a supposed ancient Italian prophecy that makes reference to a white pope and black pope dying in the same night before the coming of the end; however, the colors are symbolic, not actual. And, such prophecies have no bearing on one's salvation or Catholic teaching.

So umm, if the next pope is a black man are you going to run around telling everyone the sky is falling? :jameo: :killingme

The Church does not teach that.

What you are referring to is a supposed ancient Italian prophecy that makes reference to a white pope and black pope dying in the same night before the coming of the end; however, the colors are symbolic, not actual. And, such prophecies have no bearing on one's salvation or Catholic teaching.

So umm, if the next pope is a black man are you going to run around telling everyone the sky is falling? :jameo: :killingme

Interesting... Two popes at the same time.

No.

Yes.

Interesting... Two popes at the same time.

Not necessarily. It's never wise to make assumptions, especially about archaic prophesies.

Not necessarily. It's never wise to make assumptions, especially about archaic prophesies.

It was a rhetorical comment, not an assumption. I really don’t care about that.

What I do care about is, in a world where there has NEVER been a black pope, is the CC ready for one? When I look at the CC, I see a lot of different countries, not just the US. So your opinion, albeit valid, may not be the opinion of say Germany or England or Mexico or even Italy; people that may not be ready for a black pope; or even completely reject the notion. I’d be very interested in knowing what their thoughts on this would be.

Not necessarily. It's never wise to make assumptions, especially about archaic prophesies.

Actually, there could be two popes at the same time if Benedict XVI resigns (for whatever reason) as some speculate and a new pope is selected. Thus, there are two living during the same time period. (present days) and, through happenstance, both die on the same day.

As far as the "white and black being symbolic," yes, I understand how that could be symbolic - kinda like one being a good pope and one being a bad pope (anti-pope). Either way, I found it interesting also that the supposed last pope of the RCC would be named "Peter". Hmmm....

BTW: Speaking of making "assumptions" is that not what the RCC has done on many things that are extra-Biblical?

The RCC even admits that there is no solid Biblical proof of "purgatory" or that Mary was "born sinless," a "perpetual virgin," who was assumed body and soul into Heaven where she now reigns as Queen of Heaven, Mediatrix, Redemptrix, Advocate, and one who helps Jesus get souls into Heaven. Is that why the Apocrypha is so important to the RCC? Maybe that's where the teachings come from? :whistle:

Actually, there could be two popes at the same time if Benedict XVI resigns (for whatever reason) as some speculate and a new pope is selected. Thus, there are two living during the same time period. (present days) and, through happenstance, both die on the same day.

You know (probably for a different thread) this brings up an interesting thought… first of all, my history on this is really bad, but has there ever been a pope to resign? It’s my thought they serve until death. Secondly, if a pope resigns and another one is elected, does that resigned pope no longer have the blessing of infallibility? Is their stature as the voice of Christ removed when they resign?

You know (probably for a different thread) this brings up an interesting thought… first of all, my history on this is really bad, but has there ever been a pope to resign? It’s my thought they serve until death. Secondly, if a pope resigns and another one is elected, does that resigned pope no longer have the blessing of infallibility? Is their stature as the voice of Christ removed when they resign?

It's expected that they serve for life, but it's not required; there are previous popes who have resigned in the past for various reasons. Infallibility and the protection of the Holy Spirit belongs to the office, not the person; therefore, a resigned pope does not have the charism of infallibility for he no longer holds that office and is no longer pope. He does, however, retain his sacramental powers as ordained bishop/priest.

So glad you're here. Some things should be obvious if they've listen to a darn thing any of us have said. The office, the office, the office.
Yet, for some reason they are determined to keep that mental block in place.

So glad you're here. Some things should be obvious if they've listen to a darn thing any of us have said. The office, the office, the office.
Yet, for some reason they are determined to keep that mental block in place.

libby, "the office" is what the RCC has indoctrinated you to report to rather than allowing you to report personally to The New Testament Jesus Christ.

The only block that is going on is that the RCC is blocking One Billion parishioners from coming to the Fullness of Truth that is found only through placing faith and trust in the New Testament Jesus Christ and no one else.

lol... So we happened to get off track a bit. Happens now and then.

Actually, what I found interesting is that supposedly there is a teaching within the RCC that mentions the end of days will culminate when a black pope is chosen to head the Roman Catholic Church. Have you or libby, or others, heard of this?


So said that the point of your thread was a curiosity about this "teaching". You get the answer, which is that there is no "teaching", just an old wives' tale, and you prove that it was an insincere question, just baiting, when you follow the answer to your supposed question with this.

[QUOTE]"the office" is what the RCC has indoctrinated you to report to rather than allowing you to report personally to The New Testament Jesus Christ.

The only block that is going on is that the RCC is blocking One Billion parishioners from coming to the Fullness of Truth that is found only through placing faith and trust in the New Testament Jesus Christ and no one else.

You are full of bull, and have no real questions about the Catholic Church. You're just looking for ways to put out your anti-Catholic propoganda.

So glad you're here. Some things should be obvious if they've listen to a darn thing any of us have said. The office, the office, the office.
Yet, for some reason they are determined to keep that mental block in place.

Lighten up Francis! Sorry my inferior skills can’t keep up with the superiority complexes of catholic members.

I should have just saved this for another thread, but there is no office that holds the keys to the infallibility of Christ. God warned us of CREATING Him in OUR own image and thus putting those things ahead of Him. God is no less infallible in my heart. If there were an office that God’s infallibility resides, it would be our hearts, not some manmade ‘office’.

No authority that belongs to God can be granted to a man from another man. Only God can grant that authority.

Lighten up Francis! Sorry my inferior skills can’t keep up with the superiority complexes of catholic members.

I should have just saved this for another thread, but there is no office that holds the keys to the infallibility of Christ. God warned us of CREATING Him in OUR own image and thus putting those things ahead of Him. God is no less infallible in my heart. If there were an office that God’s infallibility resides, it would be our hearts, not some manmade ‘office’.

No authority that belongs to God can be granted to a man from another man. Only God can grant that authority.

This is in direct denial of Matthew 16:18 where Peter is given the keys to Heaven. Your heart if fallible. If weren't, then you, me, libby, Starman, et al would be sharing a Coke and a smile and singing Kumbaya, and there would be no evil in the world; however, that's not the reality now is it. :rolleyes:

A question for you, on what authority did Peter or any of the other 11 Apostles elect Matthias to replace Judas? If the Apostles had no authority, then why replace Judas at all?

Now, you can stomp your feet and say you don't like it all you want, but that doesn't change reality. :shrug:

Just a reminder:

Knights to Knights
4th Annual Talk
Where: St. Mary’s Ryken High School
When: Thursday, March 29th at 7pm
Come here Steve Ray discuss “The Failure of Sola Scripture and Why I Believe in the Church.” Steve Ray is a convert to the Catholic Church and the author of three best-selling Ignatius Press books (Crossing the Tiber, Upon this Rock, and a scripture commentary entitled St. John’s Gospel). He is in great demand as a speaker for conferences and parishes around the world and is a regular guest on Catholic Answers Live, Ave Maria Radio, Relevant Radio, EWTN and many other radio and TV programs. He is the writer, producer, and host of the 10-part video/DVD series “The Footprints of God: the Story of Salvation from Abraham to Augustine.”
This event is sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, J. F. Taylor, Inc., and St. Mary’s Ryken. The event is open to the public and is free.

This is in direct denial of Matthew 16:18 where Peter is given the keys to Heaven.

So only Peter received "the keys" and not the other Apostles who were individually sent to various parts to proclaim the Gospel Message of Christ???

Where in the Bible does it indicate that all the churches being established during the time of the Apostles had to report to Peter's authority? On the contrary, Peter's ministry was sent to preach to the Jews and Paul was commissioned to take the Gospel Message to the Gentiles. Then, the Apostles all together were commissioned to go out and make disciples of people who would continue spreading the Good News that Salvation is through faith, by the Grace of God and through the Atoning Blood of Christ alone. Nothing and no one else grants forgiveness of sins and Eternal Salvation apart from The New Testament Jesus Christ.



A question for you, on what authority did Peter or any of the other 11 Apostles elect Matthias to replace Judas? If the Apostles had no authority, then why replace Judas at all?...

The replacement had to be made in order for the 12 Tribes of Israel to be completely represented. Each of the 12 Apostles heading up the church represented one of the tribes of Israel, Jesus being The Rock that is the Foundation of the New Testament Christian Faith.

So only Peter received "the keys" and not the other Apostles who were individually sent to various parts to proclaim the Gospel Message of Christ???

Yes.

Where in the Bible does it indicate that all the churches being established during the time of the Apostles had to report to Peter's authority? On the contrary, Peter's ministry was sent to preach to the Jews and Paul was commissioned to take the Gospel Message to the Gentiles. Then, the Apostles all together were commissioned to go out and make disciples of people who would continue spreading the Good News that Salvation is through faith, by the Grace of God and through the Atoning Blood of Christ alone.

Peter holding the keys doesn't make the other Apostles any less important; however, the primacy of Peter is apparent throughout the NT. The primacy of Peter cannot denied albeit only by the hopelessly deluded.

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Nothing and no one else grants forgiveness of sins and Eternal Salvation apart from The New Testament Jesus Christ.

Agreed.

The replacement had to be made in order for the 12 Tribes of Israel to be completely represented. Each of the 12 Apostles heading up the church represented one of the tribes of Israel, Jesus being The Rock that is the Foundation of the New Testament Christian Faith.

Yes, and the replacement initiated by whom? Primarily, Peter.

The replacement had to be made in order for the 12 Tribes of Israel to be completely represented.

Huh? The 12 Tribes had to be represented? To whom? I thought the necessity of anything and everything went away upon the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; at least in your theology?

It was a rhetorical comment, not an assumption. I really don’t care about that.

What I do care about is, in a world where there has NEVER been a black pope, is the CC ready for one? When I look at the CC, I see a lot of different countries, not just the US. So your opinion, albeit valid, may not be the opinion of say Germany or England or Mexico or even Italy; people that may not be ready for a black pope; or even completely reject the notion. I’d be very interested in knowing what their thoughts on this would be.

I always wondered if the world would be ready for a US pope.

Yes.

Its Possible one for the RCC and one for the GOC

Huh? The 12 Tribes had to be represented? To whom? I thought the necessity of anything and everything went away upon the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ; at least in your theology?

libby, everything revolves around God's Plan of Salvation that started with the children of Israel as pomised to Abraham. The twelve tribes are certainly going to be part of that plan while Gentiles have been grafted in to also partake of God's Grace to those who accept Christ by faith.

Indeed, there will be a representation of the twelve tribes of Israel as mentioned in the following Scripture:


And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates...And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof.

(Revelation 21:9-15)


That's why the Apostles had to fill the twelfth position replacing Judas.

BTW: No matter how hard the RCC tries to claim "authority," Rome was not given exclusive rights and keys to the Kingdom of God nor was there meant to be the establishment of a papal office in Rome. That's what the RCC has indoctrinated people with for the past 1900 years.

The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem has always been the key city of The King and there are Messianic Jews there today who bow in reverence to Christ alone and not to the pope, Mary nor "the saints". Christian Theology should be viewed through the Jewish perspective and I trust the Messianic Jewish perspective over Rome.

Still love ya as a friend. :flowers:

libby, everything revolves around God's Plan of Salvation that started with the children of Israel as pomised to Abraham. The twelve tribes are certainly going to be part of that plan while Gentiles have been grafted in to also partake of God's Grace to those who accept Christ by faith.

Indeed, there will be a representation of the twelve tribes of Israel as mentioned in the following Scripture:



That's why the Apostles had to fill the twelfth position replacing Judas.

BTW: No matter how hard the RCC tries to claim "authority," Rome was not given exclusive rights and keys to the Kingdom of God nor was there meant to be the establishment of a papal office in Rome. That's what the RCC has indoctrinated people with for the past 1900 years.

The fact of the matter is that Jerusalem has always been the key city of The King and there are Messianic Jews there today who bow in reverence to Christ alone and not to the pope, Mary nor "the saints". Christian Theology should be viewed through the Jewish perspective and I trust the Messianic Jewish perspective over Rome.

Still love ya as a friend. :flowers:

Uh, yeah. I just don't know what to say. I can't, for the life of me, see how you make this connection with R1's point about the authority the Apostles had in filling the office of Judas, with Peter as the head of that body.

And that the woman who literally gave birth to the literal child in Rev. 12 is not literally Mary.
Round and round and round we go.

Uh, yeah. I just don't know what to say. I can't, for the life of me, see how you make this connection with R1's point about the authority the Apostles had in filling the office of Judas, with Peter as the head of that body.

And that the woman who literally gave birth to the literal child in Rev. 12 is not literally Mary.
Round and round and round we go.

:faint: libby, I was responding to your comment about "the twelve tribes" being represented. Also noting that all 12 Apostles are viewed equally from the Scripture cited in Revelation 21. Doesn't indicate that Peter has a greater position of authority at all.

Uh, yeah. I just don't know what to say. I can't, for the life of me, see how you make this connection with R1's point about the authority the Apostles had in filling the office of Judas, with Peter as the head of that body.

And that the woman who literally gave birth to the literal child in Rev. 12 is not literally Mary.
Round and round and round we go.

He was given evidence by his own terms and still denies it. Everyone, please now refer to the first part of post #99, http://forums.somd.com/religion/243032-will-next-rcc-leader-black-pope-10.html#post4790583. :coffee:

I always wondered if the world would be ready for a US pope.

Maybe the next pope will be a black American! Starman will crap his pants thinking it's the end of the world for sure! :jet:

He was given evidence by his own terms and still denies it. Everyone, please now refer to the first part of post #99, http://forums.somd.com/religion/243032-will-next-rcc-leader-black-pope-10.html#post4790583. :coffee:



Maybe the next pope will be a black American! Starman will crap his pants thinking it's the end of the world for sure! :jet:

lol - And it took 101 posts to finally get an answer from an RCC'er about the account of there being a "black pope." That's what was opened for discussion.
Could have saved lots of bandwidth if you would have posted your understanding of this earlier on instead of at post #101... :whistle:

http://forums.somd.com/religion/243032-will-next-rcc-leader-black-pope-11.html

Yes.



Peter holding the keys doesn't make the other Apostles any less important; however, the primacy of Peter is apparent throughout the NT. The primacy of Peter cannot denied albeit only by the hopelessly deluded.

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.
Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water.
Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.
Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."
Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.
Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.
John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.
John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.
John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.
Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.
Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.
Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.
Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.
Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.
Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.
Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.
Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.
Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.
Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.
Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.
Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).
Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.
Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.
Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.
Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.
Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.
1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.
2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.



Agreed.



Yes, and the replacement initiated by whom? Primarily, Peter.

False.

False. Your, and the Catholic, mistranslation of scripture nullifies your entire premise. The divine revelation of Christ, and the profession of faith in Christ is the ROCK. Christ is the ROCK. No man. Christ.

Not Peter. Christ is the ROCK upon which the church would/will be built. Not on any man. Not on any pope.

Peter was given the authority, by Christ, to open the doors (the keys) to Christendom, and he used that avenue on the day of Pentacost. By the authority of Christ, and not Peter's own power.

The Greek: Matt 16:18 - KJV

1st phrase - "That thou are Peter (Petros - rock or rock-man)
2nd phrase - "And upon this rock (petra - a feminine form for rock - absolutely not a name) I will build my church.....

Christ did not say, or ever said, "upon you, Peter, or upon anyone following you".

He (Christ) said , "I (my emphasis) will build the church.

Not Peter or any other man. The church would/will be built on belief and profession on Jesus Christ.

The church would/will continue to be built upon the authority of no man. Ever.

Jesus only.

BTW - you only mentioned Peter about 45 times. What about the other 140 times or so he is mentioned in the Bible, or at least the 66 books we agree upon? He is about 11 or 12 on the list of most mentioned names, God withstanding, that is.

Peter died for nobody. Jesus died for everybody. Peter never rose again. Jesus did, defeating death. Peter defeated nothing on his own, only his eternity in hell because of his belief in Christ.

Does that make him any better, more divine, than any other saved sinner?

lol - And it took 101 posts to finally get an answer from an RCC'er about the account of there being a "black pope." That's what was opened for discussion.
Could have saved lots of bandwidth if you would have posted your understanding of this earlier on instead of at post #101... :whistle:

http://forums.somd.com/religion/243032-will-next-rcc-leader-black-pope-11.html

I would have done so sooner had you mentioned earlier the stupid ancient prophecy that you were holding onto for dear life thereby stating your true intentions in starting this tread. :shrug:

Your, and the Catholic, mistranslation of scripture nullifies your entire premise.

Because some nobody who claims to have studied scripture for xx amount of years has an up on a whole organization of those who devoted their whole lives to it and for 2000 years no less. In addition, you who thinks everyone can and should interpret for themselves should have no problem when I or the Catholic Church does so. Dude, that's a hilarious joke, thanks for the laugh this morning. :roflmao:

[rock bs omitted because that horse is looong dead and easily argued]

The church would/will be built on belief and profession on Jesus Christ.

The church would/will continue to be built upon the authority of no man. Ever.

Jesus only.

Indeed! Agreed! Absolutely! Preach on brother!! :lol:

Peter died for nobody. Jesus died for everybody. Peter never rose again. Jesus did, defeating death. Peter defeated nothing on his own, only his eternity in hell because of his belief in Christ.

With the exception that Peter died for Christ...Indeed! Agreed! Absolutely! Preach on brother!! :lol:

Does that make him any better, more divine, than any other saved sinner?

No, but it does make him the holder of the keys and the head of Christ's Church. Durp durp!! :lmao:

Must. Stop. Laughing. At. You...

:faint: libby, I was responding to your comment about "the twelve tribes" being represented. Also noting that all 12 Apostles are viewed equally from the Scripture cited in Revelation 21. Doesn't indicate that Peter has a greater position of authority at all.

The twelve tribes existed whether they replaced Judas or not. After all, according to you there is no Apostolic Succession and no grounds for offices of any kind; therefore, unless you want to agree that the offices exist you are necessitating something that (according to you) isn't in Scripture.:cds:

False.

False. Your, and the Catholic, mistranslation of scripture nullifies your entire premise. The divine revelation of Christ, and the profession of faith in Christ is the ROCK. Christ is the ROCK. No man. Christ.

Not Peter. Christ is the ROCK upon which the church would/will be built. Not on any man. Not on any pope.

Peter was given the authority, by Christ, to open the doors (the keys) to Christendom, and he used that avenue on the day of Pentacost. By the authority of Christ, and not Peter's own power.

The Greek: Matt 16:18 - KJV

1st phrase - "That thou are Peter (Petros - rock or rock-man)
2nd phrase - "And upon this rock (petra - a feminine form for rock - absolutely not a name) I will build my church.....

Christ did not say, or ever said, "upon you, Peter, or upon anyone following you".

He (Christ) said , "I (my emphasis) will build the church.

Not Peter or any other man. The church would/will be built on belief and profession on Jesus Christ.

The church would/will continue to be built upon the authority of no man. Ever.

Jesus only.

BTW - you only mentioned Peter about 45 times. What about the other 140 times or so he is mentioned in the Bible, or at least the 66 books we agree upon? He is about 11 or 12 on the list of most mentioned names, God withstanding, that is.

Peter died for nobody. Jesus died for everybody. Peter never rose again. Jesus did, defeating death. Peter defeated nothing on his own, only his eternity in hell because of his belief in Christ.

Does that make him any better, more divine, than any other saved sinner?

A foundation has a cornerstone, the Rock that is the source of strength for the whole builiding. However, it continues to be built out of smaller rocks being placed carefully on top of that foundation, keeping in alignment. Peter is the smaller rock.
If you don't think Petros means that Peter is "rock" as we say, please share your interpretation for why Jesus renamed Peter?

Now, for the moment I don't know what the grammar rule is, but when Jesus says, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", the word rock is referring to the nearest antecedent, which is Peter. It is not in reference to something said a few sentences ago. But see, that is the kind of trouble you get into when you place your trust in men: scribes, translators and publishers over centuries, none of whom you can identify, and put your salvation in their hands.

[QUOTE=libby;4791594]A foundation has a cornerstone, the Rock that is the source of strength for the whole builiding. However, it continues to be built out of smaller rocks being placed carefully on top of that foundation, keeping in alignment. Peter is the smaller rock.
If you don't think Petros means that Peter is "rock" as we say, please share your interpretation for why Jesus renamed Peter?

Now, for the moment I don't know what the grammar rule is, but when Jesus says, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", the word rock is referring to the nearest antecedent, which is Peter. It is not in reference to something said a few sentences ago. But see, that is the kind of trouble you get into when you place your trust in men: scribes, translators and publishers over centuries, none of whom you can identify, and put your salvation in their hands.[/QUOT

We agree words mean things. I think we also agree that words have meaning in the order they are spoken or written.

As I stated, in Matt 16:18, the Greek manuscripts translate the name Peter as Petros, which means rock or rock-man - a name, not an object other than a persons name. The next phrase "and upon this rock (petra - a feminine form for "rock") an object, not a name.

You, I, or anybody could say Christ used a play on words here: What he explicitly did not say was "upon you Peter or upon any of your successors".
He said "upon this rock" which I believe to mean the rock we stand on, the rock Christ Jesus, when we come to believe in Him as our savior.

Christ is referred to as a rock or stone numerous times in both the OT and NT.

- He is the stone that was struck so that the spirit of life could flow from Him to all who would drink of it - Ex 17:6, 1 Cor 10:4

- To the church, Christ is the foundation and chief cornerstone - Eph 2:19-20, 1 Pet 2:6 (Peter is surely not talking about himself).

1. The apostles and prophets were to be the foundation layers, not the foundation itself. That foundation is Christ and his teachings.
2. Christ is also the chief cornerstone, which could be said to be the most important piece of the foundation itself. If the cornerstone is not perfectly laid and aligned, the entire structure is deficient. Believers strive to align themselves with Christ.

- To the Jews at His first coming, He was the stumbling stone -
Rom 9:32-33, Ps118:22, Isa 8:14, 28:16, Matt 21:42, 1 Cor 1:23, 1 Pet 2:8 (again, Peter is surely not talking about himself)

- To Israel at his second coming, Christ will be the "headstone of the corner" - Zech 4:7 (referring to the final rebuilding of the Temple under the leadership and guidance of Zerubbabel)

- To the Gentile world powers that be, Christ will be the smiting stone - Dan 2:34

- To the unbelievers, Christ will be the Stone of judgement, Matt 21:44 - a double edged sword that has already occurred (His first coming that destroyed the law and all those that held to it), and will occur again at His second coming, where that Stone of judgement will grind all His enemies to dust.

The apostles were to build the church, based on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by building the church, then and today, all members standing on the saving grace of Christ are literally the rocks, bricks, mortar of the church, that is set upon the cornerstone and foundation of Christ and His completed work on the Cross, his burial, and his resurrection.

Not on any man. "On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand...."

[QUOTE=libby;4791594]A foundation has a cornerstone, the Rock that is the source of strength for the whole builiding. However, it continues to be built out of smaller rocks being placed carefully on top of that foundation, keeping in alignment. Peter is the smaller rock.
If you don't think Petros means that Peter is "rock" as we say, please share your interpretation for why Jesus renamed Peter?

Now, for the moment I don't know what the grammar rule is, but when Jesus says, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church", the word rock is referring to the nearest antecedent, which is Peter. It is not in reference to something said a few sentences ago. But see, that is the kind of trouble you get into when you place your trust in men: scribes, translators and publishers over centuries, none of whom you can identify, and put your salvation in their hands.[/QUOT

We agree words mean things. I think we also agree that words have meaning in the order they are spoken or written.

As I stated, in Matt 16:18, the Greek manuscripts translate the name Peter as Petros, which means rock or rock-man - a name, not an object other than a persons name. The next phrase "and upon this rock (petra - a feminine form for "rock") an object, not a name.

You, I, or anybody could say Christ used a play on words here: What he explicitly did not say was "upon you Peter or upon any of your successors".
He said "upon this rock" which I believe to mean the rock we stand on, the rock Christ Jesus, when we come to believe in Him as our savior.

Christ is referred to as a rock or stone numerous times in both the OT and NT.

- He is the stone that was struck so that the spirit of life could flow from Him to all who would drink of it - Ex 17:6, 1 Cor 10:4

- To the church, Christ is the foundation and chief cornerstone - Eph 2:19-20, 1 Pet 2:6 (Peter is surely not talking about himself).

1. The apostles and prophets were to be the foundation layers, not the foundation itself. That foundation is Christ and his teachings.
2. Christ is also the chief cornerstone, which could be said to be the most important piece of the foundation itself. If the cornerstone is not perfectly laid and aligned, the entire structure is deficient. Believers strive to align themselves with Christ.

- To the Jews at His first coming, He was the stumbling stone -
Rom 9:32-33, Ps118:22, Isa 8:14, 28:16, Matt 21:42, 1 Cor 1:23, 1 Pet 2:8 (again, Peter is surely not talking about himself)

- To Israel at his second coming, Christ will be the "headstone of the corner" - Zech 4:7 (referring to the final rebuilding of the Temple under the leadership and guidance of Zerubbabel)

- To the Gentile world powers that be, Christ will be the smiting stone - Dan 2:34

- To the unbelievers, Christ will be the Stone of judgement, Matt 21:44 - a double edged sword that has already occurred (His first coming that destroyed the law and all those that held to it), and will occur again at His second coming, where that Stone of judgement will grind all His enemies to dust.

The apostles were to build the church, based on the foundation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by building the church, then and today, all members standing on the saving grace of Christ are literally the rocks, bricks, mortar of the church, that is set upon the cornerstone and foundation of Christ and His completed work on the Cross, his burial, and his resurrection.

Not on any man. "On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand...."

So why, to your way of thinking, did Jesus, at this moment in time, rename Simon with a name that translates "rock"?

Let's take a look at it:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you 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.”
20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Nobody is denying that Jesus is the cornerstone, we all believe that; however, the above passage is pretty clear-cut in regards to Peter. Peter makes his confession of faith and is then rewarded by a name change, which biblically always denotes a change of status. It's not as if Jesus is saying, "You are rock, and upon me [the rock], I will build my church..." That doesn't make any sense whatsoever especially in it's context.

Look, I get it that some people don't like the Catholic Church for whatever reason, real or imagined; however, one simply cannot be a follower of Truth and deny the realities that have been presented to you in this thread.

Let's take a look at it:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you 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.”
20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Nobody is denying that Jesus is the cornerstone, we all believe that; however, the above passage is pretty clear-cut in regards to Peter. Peter makes his confession of faith and is then rewarded by a name change, which biblically always denotes a change of status. It's not as if Jesus is saying, "You are rock, and upon me [the rock], I will build my church..." That doesn't make any sense whatsoever especially in it's context.

Look, I get it that some people don't like the Catholic Church for whatever reason, real or imagined; however, one simply cannot be a follower of Truth and deny the realities that have been presented to you in this thread.

1.) Jesus did not state "....you are Peter, and upon YOU I will build my church,..."

2.) Jesus stated "...you are Peter, and upon THIS ROCK I will build my church,..."


3.) The Rock being referred to was the proclamation of Foundational Truth that Peter made which is:
"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” That is a Rock-Solid Statement!

4.) That is what Salvation Faith boils down to: That Jesus was/is the Messiah and Son of God and that is what the gates of Hell will never prevail against.

Many have read my testimony and I can verify that my experience was similar to that of what was revealed to Peter - that Jesus is The Son of God. It was a spiritual awakening of comprehending that I could not go directly to God without going through Jesus.

That is what God wants to reveal to the spiritual understanding of people who are sincerely searching for the Truth; so that they can know that they can have eternal life and that life is only received through His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

1.) Jesus did not state "....you are Peter, and upon YOU I will build my church,..."

2.) Jesus stated "...you are Peter, and upon THIS ROCK I will build my church,..."


3.) The Rock being referred to was the proclamation of Foundational Truth that Peter made which is:
"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” That is a Rock-Solid Statement!

4.) That is what Salvation Faith boils down to: That Jesus was/is the Messiah and Son of God and that is what the gates of Hell will never prevail against.

Many have read my testimony and I can verify that my experience was similar to that of what was revealed to Peter - that Jesus is The Son of God. It was a spiritual awakening of comprehending that I could not go directly to God without going through Jesus.

That is what God wants to reveal to the spiritual understanding of people who are sincerely searching for the Truth; so that they can know that they can have eternal life and that life is only received through His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

Soooo...willy-nilly...just for fun...Jesus named Peter "rock" at the very same time that He said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church"? Yeah, that makes sense.
And again, I must ask, if not for the reason that we state, what was the purpose of Jesus changing Simon's name to rock, at this moment in His ministry? What was the purpose at all, especially at this time?

1.) Jesus did not state "....you are Peter, and upon YOU I will build my church,..."

2.) Jesus stated "...you are Peter, and upon THIS ROCK I will build my church,..."


3.) The Rock being referred to was the proclamation of Foundational Truth that Peter made which is:
"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

4.) That is what Salvation Faith boils down to: That Jesus was/is the Messiah and Son of God and that is what the gates of Hell will never prevail against.

That's all fine and good, but could you please answer libby's questions? Why would Jesus change Simon's name? For what purpose?

John1:40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41 He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).
42Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated rock, in Greek, "petros").

Taking all in it's context in addition to the numerous quotes previously posted regarding the primacy of Peter, there really is no other logical conclusion to what Jesus was saying to Peter and that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom.

I'll say it again, I get it that some people don't like the Catholic Church for whatever reason, real or imagined; however, one simply cannot be a follower of Truth and deny the realities that have been presented to you in this thread.

Now, since everything has been adequately presented for those who can think rationally, I'm done with this issue as well. Please again refer to the first part of post #99. :smile:

This is in direct denial of Matthew 16:18 where Peter is given the keys to Heaven. Your heart if fallible. If weren't, then you, me, libby, Starman, et al would be sharing a Coke and a smile and singing Kumbaya, and there would be no evil in the world; however, that's not the reality now is it. :rolleyes:

A question for you, on what authority did Peter or any of the other 11 Apostles elect Matthias to replace Judas? If the Apostles had no authority, then why replace Judas at all?

Now, you can stomp your feet and say you don't like it all you want, but that doesn't change reality. :shrug:

Having the authority to do something does not require infallibility. You do remember Peter rebuked Cornelius for kneeling before Peter (Act 10:25-26)? He told Cornelius “I am only a man myself.” You do remember this same Peter denied Jesus 3 times? This is the same Peter that God gave the keys to heaven right? He did not place himself on a pedestal and claim this infallibility the ‘office’ of the Pope claims today. Given this, the ‘office’ of the Pope is NOT following Peter’s example: we are ALL equal as sinners. FALLIBLE!

You do know the CC under the orders and guidance of the ‘office’ of the Pope has been wrong a great many things. The earth being the center of the universe for example. If this ‘OFFICE’ were infallible they would not have gotten such a fundamental aspect of nature wrong; the nature God created. God would have informed this ‘office’ about the truth.

My point about our hearts holding God’s infallibility was not to imply that this infallibility actually exists. Jesus told us that he would exist in our hearts and minds; not some ‘office’. Our hearts were created by God. The ‘office’ of the pope was created by man. Therefore, if there were some ‘infallibility’, it would exist in our hearts and minds. But as you pointed out, this does not exist. We have all sinned. We all fall short of the glory of God. Even the office of the Pope falls short of the glory of God as it is held by a human; who is a sinner; and as indicated by the many mistakes made by the CC over the centuries. You do know the definition of infallible is: incapable of making mistakes. If this ‘office’ were infallible it would have made NO – NOT ONE SINGLE – NEVER – EVER mistakes.

Having the authority to do something does not require infallibility. You do remember Peter rebuked Cornelius for kneeling before Peter (Act 10:25-26)? He told Cornelius “I am only a man myself.” You do remember this same Peter denied Jesus 3 times? This is the same Peter that God gave the keys to heaven right? He did not place himself on a pedestal and claim this infallibility the ‘office’ of the Pope claims today. Given this, the ‘office’ of the Pope is NOT following Peter’s example: we are ALL equal as sinners. FALLIBLE!

You do know the CC under the orders and guidance of the ‘office’ of the Pope has been wrong a great many things. The earth being the center of the universe for example. If this ‘OFFICE’ were infallible they would not have gotten such a fundamental aspect of nature wrong; the nature God created. God would have informed this ‘office’ about the truth.

My point about our hearts holding God’s infallibility was not to imply that this infallibility actually exists. Jesus told us that he would exist in our hearts and minds; not some ‘office’. Our hearts were created by God. The ‘office’ of the pope was created by man. Therefore, if there were some ‘infallibility’, it would exist in our hearts and minds. But as you pointed out, this does not exist. We have all sinned. We all fall short of the glory of God. Even the office of the Pope falls short of the glory of God as it is held by a human; who is a sinner; and as indicated by the many mistakes made by the CC over the centuries. You do know the definition of infallible is: incapable of making mistakes. If this ‘office’ were infallible it would have made NO – NOT ONE SINGLE – NEVER – EVER mistakes.

And, after all of this time, you still do not listen when we tell you that infallibility does not extend to every utterance of the man who holds the office. It is strictly limited to matters of faith and morals, and only when he is declaring that such-and-such a matter is dogmatic. Yes, some of those dogmas/doctrines are matters with which you fundamentally disagree. Fine. That doesn't make them wrong.
The pope may have believed that the earth was flat. He may have even given homilies on the matter and written letters arguing his case. That does not make it a statement of doctrine.

And, after all of this time, you still do not listen when we tell you that infallibility does not extend to every utterance of the man who holds the office. It is strictly limited to matters of faith and morals, and only when he is declaring that such-and-such a matter is dogmatic. Yes, some of those dogmas/doctrines are matters with which you fundamentally disagree. Fine. That doesn't make them wrong....

Yes, libby, it does make them wrong - theologically wrong and that is the danger where people are led astray.

For Starters: You and One Billion other parishioners have been indoctrinated to believe that Jesus' mother, Mary, was literally "assumed" body and soul up to Heaven where she now reigns as "Queen of Heaven".

The former Fr. John Corapi insisted that priests and parishioners "turn to Mary..."

The Vatican has built its foundations on Mary partaking of the Salvation and Redemption process and calls for parishioners to direct prayers to Mary and the saints.

The Vatican is leading One Billion people away from The Truth and has been for the past 1900 years.

Yes, libby, it does make them wrong - theologically wrong and that is the danger where people are led astray.

For Starters: You and One Billion other parishioners have been indoctrinated to believe that Jesus' mother, Mary, was literally "assumed" body and soul up to Heaven where she now reigns as "Queen of Heaven".

The former Fr. John Corapi insisted that priests and parishioners "turn to Mary..."

The Vatican has built its foundations on Mary partaking of the Salvation and Redemption process and calls for parishioners to direct prayers to Mary and the saints.

The Vatican is leading One Billion people away from The Truth and has been for the past 1900 years.

And he continues to dodge the question before him. What was the purpose of changing Simon's name to Peter/rock, at this particular moment in His ministry? Grammatically, how do you reconcile that "rock" refers to the nearest antecedent, which is Peter. Or...perhaps since Jesus is the author of grammar He doesn't abide by it's rules? Or, the rules of grammar are not infallible? Or some such silliness?

And he continues to dodge the question before him. What was the purpose of changing Simon's name to Peter/rock, at this particular moment in His ministry? Grammatically, how do you reconcile that "rock" refers to the nearest antecedent, which is Peter. Or...perhaps since Jesus is the author of grammar He doesn't abide by it's rules? Or, the rules of grammar are not infallible? Or some such silliness?


libby, when Jesus asked His Disciples whom they believed Him to be, Simon stated the foundational Truth that Jesus was The Messiah the Son of The Living God.

Jesus gave Simon the name Peter (aka Cephas) for having received and bearing that Revelation of Truth directly from God. It is Upon This Proclamation of Truth (not the Roman Catholic Church nor papal office) that the gates of Hell will not prevail against.

The Proclamation is what Christ's Church is built upon, Christ being the chief cornerstone and The Rock of Salvation.

The Vatican is leading One Billion people away from The Truth and has been for the past 1900 years.

We are not being led away from the truth, we are the truth. Christianity started with the Catholic Church.

Just because someone crawls out of the gutter finds Jesus and starts attending some "non-Demon" church in a local stripmall doesn't make him all knowing about faith.

You and your arrogant veiws on Christianity are sick. If you really want to save souls, spend your time saving souls that are lost, not those of the Universal Church, the Catholic Church.

We do not need your rants and cut and paste Scripture to save us. We are saved, because we, like Peter, like Paul, like John, like Timothy, like Luke, like Matthew, etc. believed.

Continual bashing of the Catholic Church is not your way to redemption. You are sinning against your fellow Christians in a very un-Christian way.

Deeds do matter. Your deeds are sinful. You represent the worst of the Christian world. You are the reason so many hate Christianity. The reason so many go away from Christianity and think believers are nuts.

Christians are not crazy, but some like you are crazy.
I will pray to Mary to intercede for you, because she is the only one who probably can help you. By the way, she's pretty cool, Mother of Jesus. You need to quit saying all those evil things about her. I know you wouldn't want me to say bad things about your mother.

And, after all of this time, you still do not listen when we tell you that infallibility does not extend to every utterance of the man who holds the office. It is strictly limited to matters of faith and morals, and only when he is declaring that such-and-such a matter is dogmatic. Yes, some of those dogmas/doctrines are matters with which you fundamentally disagree. Fine. That doesn't make them wrong.
The pope may have believed that the earth was flat. He may have even given homilies on the matter and written letters arguing his case. That does not make it a statement of doctrine.

First of all, because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’m not ‘listening’.

Secondly, you either don’t understand the term ‘infallible’ or you and the CC have decided it’s very convenient to redefine it.

Again………………. Infallible: incapable of making mistakes.

Even on a moral/faith level the CC has challenges that hit it time and time again. Need you be reminded of the numerous sex crimes charges against multiple leaders within the church? If the 'office' were infallible and your priests are ordained under the infallible authority of the pope's 'office' these priests would not make such grave mistakes.

And, after all of this time, you still do not listen when we tell you that infallibility does not extend to every utterance of the man who holds the office. It is strictly limited to matters of faith and morals, and only when he is declaring that such-and-such a matter is dogmatic. Yes, some of those dogmas/doctrines are matters with which you fundamentally disagree. Fine. That doesn't make them wrong.
The pope may have believed that the earth was flat. He may have even given homilies on the matter and written letters arguing his case. That does not make it a statement of doctrine.

It does when they violate scripture!
There is only one mediator between God and Man! Not one main one, and others that can plead your case or intercede on your behalf. Mary’s intersession at the wedding of Canaan that was her first and last time act of intercession.
Mary’s nasty old rotten flesh and dried up bones laid rotting away for years, before a pope decided that she need to ascend to heaven, even though that never changed the truth of the matter.

When a man creates doctrine to validate lies created by other men, and they are in direct violation of scripture, he's very falable both in his office and his personal conduct and will be held accountable as a false teacher.

It does when they violate scripture!
There is only one mediator between God and Man! Not one main one, and others that can plead your case or intercede on your behalf. Mary’s intersession at the wedding of Canaan that was her first and last time act of intercession.
Mary’s nasty old rotten flesh and dried up bones laid rotting away for years, before a pope decided that she need to ascend to heaven, even though that never changed the truth of the matter.

When a man creates doctrine to validate lies created by other men, and they are in direct violation of scripture, he's very falable both in his office and his personal conduct and will be held accountable as a false teacher.

See post to SM it goes for you too. (nasty old rotten flesh and dried up bones)

Where do you sickos come up with this stuff?

We are not being led away from the truth, we are the truth. Christianity started with the Catholic Church.

Just because someone crawls out of the gutter finds Jesus and starts attending some "non-Demon" church in a local stripmall doesn't make him all knowing about faith.

You and your arrogant veiws on Christianity are sick. If you really want to save souls, spend your time saving souls that are lost, not those of the Universal Church, the Catholic Church.

We do not need your rants and cut and paste Scripture to save us. We are saved, because we, like Peter, like Paul, like John, like Timothy, like Luke, like Matthew, etc. believed.

Continual bashing of the Catholic Church is not your way to redemption. You are sinning against your fellow Christians in a very un-Christian way.

Deeds do matter. Your deeds are sinful. You represent the worst of the Christian world. You are the reason so many hate Christianity. The reason so many go away from Christianity and think believers are nuts.

Christians are not crazy, but some like you are crazy.
I will pray to Mary to intercede for you, because she is the only one who probably can help you. By the way, she's pretty cool, Mother of Jesus. You need to quit saying all those evil things about her. I know you wouldn't want me to say bad things about your mother.

You mean the Roman Catholic veared away with Christianity by the time it came it esistanace!

Souls in the RCC are very lost, if the embrace the doctrine of the RCC! If they are bad RC's, and ignorant of the churches doctrine then theres a chance they could be saved, perhaps being spiritural infants that dont know any better. Anyone that embraces the churches doctrine over scripture, I would say they are very religious, self rightous, indoctrinated or proud but still very, very lost just like the Pharisees a form of Godlyness but have missed the boat. Cling to their own goodness, seven scraments, and church doctrine to save them rather than the only one who can.
Believe in what, in whom, is your faith and trust? Belief is a verb that requires action, are you sharing the gospel urgentanly? Are you personally burdened for the souls of men? What happens if you die without last rites?

If starman is a fellow Christian why does your church say he/we are not? Would you take communion with us or invite us to your communion table? Your church dosent believe were Christains just like we dont believe that most in the RC church are and are just decieved of their salvation.

See post to SM it goes for you too. (nasty old rotten flesh and dried up bones)

Where do you sickos come up with this stuff?

We believe in total depravity of man, all men are sinners and have no rightousness of our own. Were all sin stained and wretched, including Mary, she maybe honnored for all time as Christ mother, but nothing is more sick and disgusting than to try to elevate her above that, and make her equal with Christ.

And rotten flesh and bones is nasty!

We believe in total depravity of man...

You, sir, are most definitely depraved.

[QUOTE=Radiant1;4791843]That's all fine and good, but could you please answer libby's questions? Why would Jesus change Simon's name? For what purpose?[QUOTE]

Why don't you ask Jesus? He has a great sense of humor. He allows us to have disputes like this, doesn't He? I believe you and/or Libby are asking a question about something the writers of the Bible were inspired by God to say nothing further of.

I would just suggest that one reads what the Bible says, and go with the proper, agreed upon translations of what is written. Reading in between the lines is a dangerous place to go. If one has to ask "then why did....." without writing to back up the "then why?", I would certainly not make it doctrine. One can give their opinion on what they think is being said, but you had better have absolute proof before dogma and theology is based upon it.

I think we can probably agree that the Greek language and grammar, although nothing but Greek to me, is recognized by many scholars and linguists as the purest, clearest, and most definitive form of language in the history of humanity.

I have to go by what they say words and phrases in Greek mean. I don't think there is any dispute of what those two phrases in Matthew 16:18, separated by a comma, mean as far as definition goes.

I believe the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is wrong by definition. That would make Peter not the foundation of the church, and that would negate all the popedom and infallibility aspects of Catholicism from Peter forward.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.:cartwheel

We are not being led away from the truth, we are the truth. Christianity started with the Catholic Church.

Just because someone crawls out of the gutter finds Jesus and starts attending some "non-Demon" church in a local stripmall doesn't make him all knowing about faith.

You and your arrogant veiws on Christianity are sick. If you really want to save souls, spend your time saving souls that are lost, not those of the Universal Church, the Catholic Church.

We do not need your rants and cut and paste Scripture to save us. We are saved, because we, like Peter, like Paul, like John, like Timothy, like Luke, like Matthew, etc. believed.

Continual bashing of the Catholic Church is not your way to redemption. You are sinning against your fellow Christians in a very un-Christian way.

Deeds do matter. Your deeds are sinful. You represent the worst of the Christian world. You are the reason so many hate Christianity. The reason so many go away from Christianity and think believers are nuts.

Christians are not crazy, but some like you are crazy.
I will pray to Mary to intercede for you, because she is the only one who probably can help you. By the way, she's pretty cool, Mother of Jesus. You need to quit saying all those evil things about her. I know you wouldn't want me to say bad things about your mother.

(Jesus)[ 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.

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. (Matthew 16:23-24)

You are to follow Jesus, my friend, not Mary, not the pope, not a priest, not the Roman Catholic Church that preaches falsehoods and leads people away from The Truth.

You, sir, are most definitely depraved.

In My Best Elvis, Thank ya, thank ya very much :-)

Hey, if we were not depraved, we would not have needed a savior in the first place. Just a simple little thing like a bite of a piece of forbidden fruit......just one little sin.....

Jesus would not have had to die for my, yours, the worlds depravity.

Thank God He did.