Authority of the Church

[NotWorthy]

**Here is an example of your deceptiveness and attempts to manipulate. You quoted me, but added a sentence (the third paragraph) that I didn’t write. **Please see directly below how you falsely quoted me, and then at the bottom of the page, my original quote showing what I actually said. Anyone can go back to my original quote to see for themselves.

Wow, is there is nothing too low for you in attempts to deceive. You quoted me, but added the third paragraph in the quote above which I did not write. Here is my original quote shown below:

The Blue “addition” is Old Scholar’s response to your post. I don’t think he’s deceiving you in this case. It does make it harder to respond to his reponse, but that’s a different issue.

 

[MDK]

The Blue “addition” is Old Scholar’s response to your post. I don’t think he’s deceiving you in this case. It does make it harder to respond to his reponse, but that’s a different issue.

The blue wording is not at all what I’m talking about. Besides, he can’t deceive me anyway, as his attempts fall flat.

It’s not his quote in blue text, but his quote of my words all in black text… Please go back for another look, inside where he quotes me in his post 591… there is no blue text inside the quote… it is all black, same font, same size. Inside the quote he attributed to me, he added the third paragraph which is a single sentence “Many Catholics teach that James says you are saved by works, not faith.” In this, he quotes me with something I would never say (at least without it being a major typo), and is six paragraphs instead of five.

What he’s quoting is from my post 569. That sentence he inserted doesn’t appear in my post at all, of five paragraphs.

If he was adding his comment, then he did the wrong thing. I have asked him specifically and others not to do so, as it is a misquote at that point. Even if he had changed the color (which he did not), it is not correct to put his wording in my quote. What happened above is evidence of what can go wrong. Are you aware of his history of deceit and distortion, attempting subtle changes and misinterpretations? When I see a constant mode of operation from him, what can we say? Even if it was an accident, I asked him not to do this, as it was a distortion, and here there was not even the slightest indication that it was his wording and not mine.

 

[utunumsint]

utunumsint

Here is the link: Peter’s Tomb

Same info from another site: [Tomb of Peter](” http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm”)

This one is also interesting as it gives more information about others:

                               [More tombs](” http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html”)

I’ve just returned from my trip, so I’ll take a look at these when I can find some time. Thanks for the links.

No I am not saying that. I said Peter was very reluctant to go there. After seeing the vision God gave him for the third time, Peter began to believe it. It was obvious however that he was a devout Jew and wanted to obey the Law of Moses.

Acts 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,

1. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29) Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

That’s what I meant in saying Peter was reluctant. During the council at Jerusalem Peter remember this and that was why he backed Paul in saying that Christ wanted them to preach to the gentiles as well as the Jews.

OK. We agree on that. But from what I get in your posts is that Peter was only sent to the Jews and Paul, only to the Gentiles. I don’t see this in scripture.

You asked for my source to what I said about Paul never mentioning Peter while in Rome and you say Peter was there. Well just read Paul’s writings. He says that only Luke is with him and he never mentions any visits from Peter. Also when addressing his friends in Rome, he mentions 28 people and doesn’t mention Peter. Isn’t that odd if Peter were there?

So my point was that Peter was most likely not in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. All the evidence I’ve presented shows Rome as Peter’s final destination before his martyrdom. He preached there, then was martyred.

The following is directly from this site: Constitution of Apostles

Book VII, Section IV

Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?

XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:—James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; [An incidental proof of the early origin of this compilation is furnished by the clear distinction it makes between James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of our Lord. The theory of Jerome, which identifies them, was later.—R.] upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. **Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Tim. iv. 21. and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.3 ** [Noteworthy, and to be recalled hereafter. See vol. iii. p. 258.] Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Tim. i. 5. and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. [Comp. Col. iv. 16, 17., whence this is probably derived.—R.] Of Colossæ, Philemon. Philem. 1. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. [Philem. 10.—R.] Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. [Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10.—R.] Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”Matt. xxviii. 20.

I believe this to be spurious however because Clement didn’t become Bishop of Rome until after Peter was dead. There is no doubt however, that these writings were not done by the apostles but at a much later date. They are totally discredited.

So, and I wish you could respond to this (maybe at a later date) why do you use it as evidence against the presence of Peter in Rome, and why do you use it as evidence that Linus was ordained by Paul, not by Peter? There is much earlier and more solidly dated texts that support Peter as the one who ordained Linus. Clement, was in the line of succession from Linus.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Clement of Alexandria has already been discredited by the pope I listed earlier. His writings are not considered valid by the RCC.

No early church father is considered infalible. Many of them held opinions that were later repudiated in councils. That does not discredite them as sources of valide historical information. I’m not sure why you refuse to consider him…

Tertullian stated things about Peter but I did not see anything to back it up. He was also writing two hundred years later—just when the church was trying to tie itself to Rome. Makes you wonder about him. After all, as you said, he was really not believed by the church.

 

[NoelFitz]

I read:

Paul often said that he would go to Rome and establish the church.

This seems to me to be incorrect. Can it be backed up?

 

[BRB]

(Edited)

By “justification,” Luther thought that a sinner who is forgiven is still totally corrupt, unable to get away from sinning constantly. However, Paul spoke of Christians as a “new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). They are made over from scratch-- they are not at all merely the same old total corruption!

.

The real issue precisely stated. Luther never really accepted one’s rebirth in H.S. as enabling one to overcome their former selves.

History also shows us that at the end, Luther was a very conflicted man … with bigoted ideas and much racial prejudice against Jews. Hardly the ‘new creation’ that Paul speaks of.

 

[NotWorthy]

I read:" Paul often said that he would go to Rome and establish the church."

This seems to me to be incorrect. Can it be backed up?

Yes, you are correct. Paul himself refutes that in Romans chapter 15:

20
****** Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation,*** 21 ****** but as it is written: “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”*** *** 22 ****** That is why I have so often been prevented from coming to you***.

 

[NotWorthy]

The real issue precisely stated. Luther never really accepted one’s rebirth in H.S. as enabling one to overcome their former selves.

If I remember correctly, this sprang from Luther’s inability to overcome one or more of his Spiritual weaknesses, even though he tried numerous penances and prayers to strengthen himself.

This influenced him into thinking it could not be done.

History also shows us that at the end, Luther was a very conflicted man … with bigoted ideas and much racial prejudice against Jews. Hardly the ‘new creation’ that Paul speaks of.

 

[elts1956]

That is not true. Not producing an egg is not an abortion. An abortion can only occur after the egg is fertilized and it becomes a human life. You can’t ‘abort’ something that isn’t there.

Taking a contraceptive does not prevent fertilization. It prevents the fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I had really hoped to see this thread slip quietly into obscurity.

 

[elts1956]

That is not true. Not producing an egg is not an abortion. An abortion can only occur after the egg is fertilized and it becomes a human life. You can’t ‘abort’ something that isn’t there.

Birth Control Pills do not prevent ovulation. They prevent a fertilized egg from (name removed by moderator)lanation on the wall of the uterus. See the following websites:

christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-bcpill.html

prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

1. “Does the birth control pill cause abortions? Using research results from medical literature, Randy Alcorn has convincingly shown that the answer is `yes.’ He has, with care and compassion, given us the truth. The question for us as Christians is how we will respond now that we know.”
   ~ Linda Martin, M.D., Pediatrician
2. “By carefully detailing the available medical information concerning the abortifacient effects of oral contraceptives, Randy Alcorn has developed a logical and thoughtful challenge to every prolife person. The conclusions of this study are scientifically accurate. Birth control pills usually prevent pregnancy, but sometimes they cause an abortion. Questions? Objections? Randy has addressed them in a gentle but firm way. This is the manner in which the often fiery debate over prolife subjects should be carried out- unemotionally, intelligently and quietly. The evidence is before us . . . `How should we then live?’”
   ~ Patrick D. Walker, M.D., Professor of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
3. “In this challenging book Randy Alcorn has the honesty to face a tough and uncomfortable question. This compelling evidence will make you rethink the question of birth control pills.”
   ~ John Brose, M.D., Surgeon
4. “In this impeccably researched book, Randy Alcorn takes an unblinking look at what medical experts know about how birth control pills work. I painfully agree that birth control pills do in fact cause abortions. Our individual and collective Christian response to this heretofore varnished-over information will have profound consequences for time and eternity. This is a disturbing must-read for all who profess to be prolife.”
   ~ Beverly A. McMillan, M.D., Ob/Gyn

If however, you believe what the medical world defines as the beginning of a pregnancy, you could probably have a clear, though muddled, conscience.

emergencybirthcontrol.org/

Medical science defines the beginning of pregnancy as the successful implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Medication that works before pregnancy begins is by definition not abortive.

As for me, I believe LIFE begins at CONCEPTION.

 

[BRB]

Anything other than separate species, eating the bread and drinking the wine as two separate things violates God’s word and that should be obvious. I wonder why Paul called it wine and bread. Also I wonder why Christ called it the ‘fruit of the vine’ instead of blood.

OS …

What do you believe the Catholic teaching on Transubstantiation to be ?

What part of the doctrine do you agree/disagree with ?

 

[Church_Militant]

It looks like OS will be a while getting back to us, so I suggest that we keep any posts on topic and perhaps even wait for his return to begin the discussion again. It’s very important to stay on topic to prevent good threads from getting confused and then getting closed.

 

[cfrancis]

I see -]Cal/-] Old Scholar is preenting his peculiar interpretation of Scripture.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James is pretty clear, especially as he uses the same word for “justified” as Paul uses. Interestingly enough, Paul doesn’t contrast good works and faith, but, as OS has shown, works of the law and faith - which makes sense, as the context of the verses reveals:

Romans 3:28 *Therefore we conclude that a man is **justified by faith ***