Protestants: please stop using the label "Bible-believing"

[GottaGo12345678]

Thats nice, threaten me, and then say God bless? If you can’t respond to what I wrote, leave it alone. Personal attackes like yours always tell me the debate is over because you have nothing more worth while to respond with. I used your own scripture quote against you, and you are ticked off about it. If you can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen pal. You can take issue with me any time…bring it on.

Greggy, that was not a threat it was a warning not to take my posts out of context. How could it be a threat? Do I have some mystical power and influence over you or perhaps a voodoo doll I’m getting ready to put hot needles in?

Apparently you have experienced this before with other posters as you implied above; perhaps you should think about that?

You also stated “I used your own scripture quote against you”; that is laughable; if you actually go back to post #551 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5683410&postcount=551 you will see when in proper context you actually confirmed what I said.

Anyway; I am definitely through with you unless something of substance becomes of this .

May God bless you with some humility.

 

[greggy53]

Apparently you have experienced this before with other posters as you implied above; perhaps you should think about that?.

No I haven’t had this happen to me before. Like you, other people have made personal attacks against me when I have gotten the better of the argument, but that comes with the territory. You are the first one to accuse me of taking something out of context, and then instead of demonstrating to me how I did it you threatened and stomped your feet. You need to learn how to loose a debate more graciously. It’s the Christian thing to do. I’ll respond to anything you post if I want, and you are free to do the same to me. If you don’t respond that is fine. Not to reply, is to reply.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

You haven’t that is why you think they are wrong. Many much more erudite protestants than you did read and was therefore converted. The force of the truth of the Catholic Church proved overwhelming.

Head knowledge is a poor substitute for heart knowledge.

Okay. Another case of your inability to read properly.

Here it is again. John 21, Jesus says to Peter : feed MY sheep, feed MY lambs. So Jesus here is actually telling Peter to be guardian of HIS (Jesus’s) sheep. So while Jesus is Eternal Shepherd, He has appointed someone else (Peter) to look after His (Jesus’s) Sheep.

Is there no distinction in your mind between all the apostles being assigned to minister the proclaim the gospel versus Peter being assigned to do the same?

Who was Jesus entrusting His sheep to? Peter. Who was entrusting His sheep to Peter? Jesus. That is as clear as day and there is no running away from that fact.

In that verse Peter, yet it applies to all the apostles and all that the Spirit has called and gifted to proclaim the gospel; that is reality; Pope Peter is fiction.

And where did I mention Mary? This is one of the grave errors some posters here make. They / you reply to what you think I am thinking than what I have actually written. Stick to the written word.

You did not mention Mary; I did because when I was thinking about the Catholic Peter, the Catholic Mary came to mind. You actually judge me for for guessing what you were thinking, which I did not, but you stand guilty of doing it by your own admission above…

And no it is not a different Peter. Peter is Cephas, rock. End of story. You will be hard pressed to prove that He isn’t Cephas (rock) because Jesus himself called him as such in John 2.

Actually he is a saint and is with the Lord and no one I know disputes that Jesus gave him a name that means small rock or stone, no different than Peter referring to all believers a living stones.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

The priests role is to make a sacrifice. Read the accounts of the last supper. This is the time when Jesus instituted the priesthood.

Solid! Airtight!

How about John 20:21-23? And yes forgiveness of sins is God’s alone. But God GAVE that authority to His disciples.

Try to get it in your head who actually and really has the ability to forgive sins; hint is is not of human origin?

Do you understand the meaning of the word GIVE?

Do you understand that God alone forgives sins (you said it yourself above) and the apostles and every one who proclaims the “Good News” , then then embrace it; their sins are forgiven or loosed from them?

And we pray to the Father. As a matter of fact much more so than you do. The Mass is one whole song of prayer and praise to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Who else do you pray to & through besides God, the Father? You presume to know how much I pray? Humility is noble in God’s sight; not pride.

The operative word here is MEANINGLESS. Remember Christ Himself gave us the prayer of the Our Father or the Lord’s Prayer. We repeat that several times a day. This is not meaningless repetition because in praying this we are actually OBEYING Christ’s command.

We agree on the operative word and the Lords Prayer is not what came to mind; think of mother Angelica. It is repetitive and totally outside the bounds of prayer written on the pages of Scripture. You may or may not realize, while it is okay to repeat the Lord’s prayer verbatum, and I do at times, but it really is more a blue print for how we are to pray.

keep avoiding discussing John 20:21-23

I have answered all your questions.

See above and on other posts; no reason to avoid anything written in Scripture. I guess you have depending on how one defines a “answer”.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

And I have read 1 Peter and 2 Peter and you cannot make your case properly. Unless you can put forward a coherent exegesis of these two epistles then there is no point even mentioning it.

Careful the standard you apply to others; it will come back at you.

Oh no. It is not a personal choice of who to follow. To do that would be to listen to the dictates of the devil.

I’m only speaking of free will.

I follow whoever Christ appointed. That is not a choice left to us. Christ told us who to follow and and that is who I follow

Christ appointed Himself to follow. For there is no other Name given among men which we can be saved; is there?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Nope this is not parroting. This is clear debunking of your stone/rock argument. You have to find an explanation as to why Peter is called Cephas. Your time starts now…

We already discussed this and no one disagrees that Peter was named a stone or small rock by the Lord Jesus; where we disagree is on the Primacy issue.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

snip

snip

As you can see, Peter was bishop of Rome. snip snip

Irenaeus

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

No, he was not named as bishop of Rome.

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

I do not put much stock in things written after the convergence of paganism to Christianity because at that point things become very suspect for obvious reasons.

snippy it snip snip

• The Church of Rome was already there 300 years before Constantine
• snip snip

Yep, the church of God at Rome, not the Roman Catholic Church we know today.

You may want to cite your source next time:
scribd.com/doc/19133328/The-Early-Church-Fathers-OnPeters-Presence-in-Rome

 

[steve_b]

I do not put much stock in things written after the convergence of paganism to Christianity because at that point things become very suspect for obvious reasons.

Does that mean you don’t put stock in scripture also? Paganism existed during the entire time scripture was being written, and it still exists. Or are you calling the ECF’s pagans? Or possibly you’re calling Paul suspect when he says the oral tradition from an apostle is equal in value as the written (scripture) tradition and you don’t give stock to oral traditions. If the Catholic Church is NOT to be trusted, then you can’t trust the scriptures that were compiled by the Catholic Church. You can’t say you trust the scriptures you were given by the Catholic Church without saying you trust the Catholic Church also.
gotta:

No, he was not named as bishop of Rome.

You said no ECF ever mentioned Peter was a bishop of Rome. So I gave you quotes from ECF’s that proved you wrong. Is THAT what all this rancor is about? All you had to do is say you were mistaken.
gotta:

Yep, the church of God at Rome, not the Roman Catholic Church we know today.

Same Church.
gotta:

You may want to cite your source next time:
scribd.com/doc/19133328/The-Early-Church-Fathers-OnPeters-Presence-in-Rome

Each quote was properly sourced. Go back and look at what I’m saying.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5684404&postcount=567
Every quote had a source properly referenced. ANYONE can go to the ECF’s, go to the specific name mentioned, the quote, the reference mentioned, and pull up that work and see the quote, + the entire context…

Here are the ECF’s writings online

ccel.org/fathers.html

Want proof of what I say?

You took exception to Irenaeus quote, the 1st quote. At the end of the quote was the following reference, Against Heresies 3:3:2]

That quote came from “Against Heresies”, book 3, ch 3 vs 2

From the above site, you see all the ECF’s listed. You follow the left margin promps till you get to the specific person, “Irenaeus”, then the work in question, then the book, then the the chapter, and it takes you to
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html then go down to vs 2 and you go right to the quote. See? Properly sourced and referenced.

Every quote I gave had the same specific referencing

I didn’t hide anything. As you can see so far from my posts to you, I always back up my statements with my source properly referenced, so that you know

• it is not my opinion since I give the reference for what I’m saying,
• while you don’t have to go find what I said or quoted on your own, if you wanted to dig up the proof yourself, I always took the work out of it and made it easy for you.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

I see you purposely ignored (edited out)
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=102

Nope; you should not presume so much.

Did you try clicking your link?
Oops! This link appears to be broken.

This is the message that appears; doesn’t matter anyway I’m just ribbing you a little; I apologize.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Bible is a book, a very important book, but a book. In the beginning was the Word and ultimately in the end will be the Word…the Silence of God. There is danger in intellectualizing theology. It is about relationship where there is more than the printed page. At the end of St Thomas writing his Summa Theologica he wanted to burn it (and would have done so if it had not been for a friend who argued him out of it): There was so much more than what he had written.
For now, as in the case of St Thomas, we have our guides (the Bible and Church interpretation) Ultimately we only have God. He meets us in our need with food we are able to digest, be it milk or meat.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Does that mean you don’t put stock in scripture also? Paganism existed during the entire time scripture was being written, and it still exists. Or are you calling the ECF’s pagans? Or possibly you’re calling Paul suspect when he says the oral tradition from an apostle is equal in value as the written (scripture) tradition and you don’t give stock to oral traditions. If the Catholic Church is NOT to be trusted, then you can’t trust the scriptures that were compiled by the Catholic Church. You can’t say you trust the scriptures you were given by the Catholic Church without saying you trust the Catholic Church also.

You said no ECF ever mentioned Peter was a bishop of Rome. So I gave you quotes from ECF’s that proved you wrong. Is THAT what all this rancor is about? All you had to do is say you were mistaken.

Same Church.

Each quote was properly sourced. Go back and look at what I’m saying.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5684404&postcount=567
Every quote had a source properly referenced. ANYONE can go to the ECF’s, go to the specific name mentioned, the quote, the reference mentioned, and pull up that work and see the quote, + the entire context…

Here are the ECF’s writings online

ccel.org/fathers.html

Want proof of what I say?

You took exception to Irenaeus quote, the 1st quote. At the end of the quote was the following reference, Against Heresies 3:3:2]

That quote came from “Against Heresies”, book 3, ch 3 vs 2

From the above site, you see all the ECF’s listed. You follow the left margin promps till you get to the specific person, “Irenaeus”, then the work in question, then the book, then the the chapter, and it takes you to
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html then go down to vs 2 and you go right to the quote. See? Properly sourced and referenced.

Every quote I gave had the same specific referencing

I didn’t hide anything. As you can see so far from my posts to you, I always back up my statements with my source properly referenced, so that you know

• it is not my opinion since I give the reference for what I’m saying,
• while you don’t have to go find what I said or quoted on your own, if you wanted to dig up the proof yourself, I always took the work out of it and made it easy for you.

Again; I’m sorry for ribbing you about the source; we all eventually will forget anyway with the best of intentions; so my apologies again to you.

I have the links for the ECF’s, thanks for the offer. What I meant was since, in my opinion based on historical evidence and obvious distractions from the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church that we see today emerged out of Emperor Constantin’s forced marriage of Christianity with Roman paganism. Why do you think there are saints, and dozens of them, that exist by myth or legend. One of the most popular was and still is St Christopher; traveling mercy. He is a total myth and was the Roman god named Mercury. You can compare your saints with the Greek and Roman gods and you can find matches.

The reason for this was to get the pagans on board to give up their gods; so instead of praying and worshiping false gods, they prayed and worshiped false saints, not all were false. This all occurs around 312 AD; so I do not put much stock into things written from about 300 AD to the present that your Church presents. It wasn’t till 1965 or 1969 when the magisterium reviewed all the saints on the calendar and removed quite a few including St. Christopher.

The question is why not remove the saint status altogether and quit selling trinkets of saints they know do not exist? What would Jesus do? What would Peter do?

Do you know know most of those saints got there in the first place? Popular vote of the people; not based on facts obviously.

After this 312 AD date is where we see the emergence of the primacy and the actual use of the term Pope and the invention of the vicar of Christ emerging from the Holy Spirit and eventually to the office of the Pope. What would Jesus have to say?

There are many other things that emerged, but you have enough and I do not want to be overwhelming.

God bless you friend

 

[GottaGo12345678]

The Bible is a book, a very important book, but a book. In the beginning was the Word and ultimately in the end will be the Word…the Silence of God. There is danger in intellectualizing theology. It is about relationship where there is more than the printed page. At the end of St Thomas writing his Summa Theologica he wanted to burn it (and would have done so if it had not been for a friend who argued him out of it): There was so much more than what he had written.
For now, as in the case of St Thomas, we have our guides (the Bible and Church interpretation) Ultimately we only have God. He meets us in our need with food we are able to digest, be it milk or meat.

Hi Kevin; nice to meet you

Your post is very nice, but inaccurate. The Bible explicitly states how believers are to know the things of God and it ain’t the Roman Catholic Church interpretation. Just an FYI; you can search the Bible and easily verify what I just stated. You will not believe what you read because you are unable. No offense, just repeating what God has already said in John 8.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Gottago
Pleasure reciprocated!
Using the Bible to justify the Bible is circular argument: “The Bible is to be believed because the Bible tells me so.” A bit like saying “The Catholic Church is to be believed because the Catholic Church has it written somewhere as a doctrine of Faith.”
Conviction comes through a free gift of God, the Holy Spirit. For those who believe no argument is necessary; for those who don’t, no argument is ever enough.
If there were more bread broken and shared, there would be less war. On the road to Emmaus a stranger walked with the disciples, I guess with each of us a stranger is walking alongside.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Gottago
Pleasure reciprocated!
Using the Bible to justify the Bible is circular argument: “The Bible is to be believed because the Bible tells me so.” A bit like saying “The Catholic Church is to be believed because the Catholic Church has it written somewhere as a doctrine of Faith.”
Conviction comes through a free gift of God, the Holy Spirit. For those who believe no argument is necessary; for those who don’t, no argument is ever enough.
If there were more bread broken and shared, there would be less war. On the road to Emmaus a stranger walked with the disciples, I guess with each of us a stranger is walking alongside.

The Bible justifies itself; yes it is circular, but it is also the very voice of God. Do you believe the truth of the Word of God? If you do not, then we have no source of truth. Perhaps you believe it contains error?

Sola ekklesia would be the worst imaginable form of circular reasoning because in and of itself; it cannot interpret Scripture because Scripture say how God id to be understood on and through an individual believer.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Gottago,
By what you write I can see you are intelligent, persevering and a seeker of Wisdom and Truth:
3 books come to mind, I invite you to read these and get back to me with comment,

Catholicism & Fundamentalism, the attack on ‘Romanism’ by ‘Bible Christians’, Karl Keating
The usual suspects, answering anti-Catholic fundamentalism, Karl Keating
The Biblical basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza
Thanking you in anticipation

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The Bible justifies itself; yes it is circular, but it is also the very voice of God.

Just curious, is there a place in the Bible in which it states that it is the voice of God? More interested than anything.

Sola ekklesia would be the worst imaginable form of circular reasoning because in and of itself; it cannot interpret Scripture because Scripture say how God id to be understood on and through an individual believer.

I know of no Catholic who believes in sola ekklesia. One because it is not what the Bible, or the Church, teaches. Secondly, it makes no sense. Sola is Latin while ekklesia is Greek. You’re mixing languages.

God bless you

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

’Roman Catholic’
Be gentle with our friend. I too was once an evangelical Protestant; and Gottago may have issues not related to the subject at hand (perhaps control, or power): Our topic of debate may only be a vehicle to let off the steam of anger.
At the moment our Protestant friend needs to ventilate. God bless Gottago.
What people talk about, the presenting issue, is rarely the issue.
God bless you too 'Roman Catholic’

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

’Roman Catholic’
Be gentle with our friend. I too was once an evangelical Protestant; and Gottago may have issues not related to the subject at hand (perhaps control, or power): Our topic of debate may only be a vehicle to let off the steam of anger.
At the moment our Protestant friend needs to ventilate. God bless Gottago.
What people talk about, the presenting issue, is rarely the issue.
God bless you too 'Roman Catholic’

I thought I was gentle

What I posted was at least my third re-write.

God bless

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

‘Roman Catholic’, you were gentle. I was drawing attention to the churnings of my own mind…again.
Misunderstandings come when we cannot fully communicate…Here I go again! Attention-seeking vanity.:doh2:

 

[MarchOfThePigs]

The Bible establishes Peter as the head of the true Church. The Popes are the modern-day Peters. Please explain how you can deny this truth and still say you are “Bible-believing”.

Simple this goes back to the Protestant Refromation. Luther never planned on or intended to establish his own religion or to deny the primacy of the Pope. At that time I believe it was the King of France who was the head of the Holy Roman Empire, all other countries under him had to pay taxes to the Emperor as ordered by the Pope.

Germany hated this, they once were the head of the Empire but now France was getting the pay day. So the king of Germany hears of Luther’s anti-Catholic poliemics and decides to bring him over and let him live it up on the condition that he creates a new religion that, here is the kicker, denies the POPE. It’s all politics and economic reasons that the Refromation took on a life of it’s own and came up with the Bible based Christianity.

So now if Germany is no longer Catholic, they say screw the Emperor and the Pope, we aren’t paying a dime, it says here in the Holy Gospel according to Martin Luther, there is no papacy!

I may be an ex-Catholic but I’ll still stick up for it when the facts present itself, and the fact is Luther never planned on creating a new religion that is sola scriptura, and no pope and all that rubbish. He like the flawed man he was, was given an opportunity by the King of Germany and he took it, easy life all he had to do was lie about the Church and mislead people. Funny, sounds like Luther made a deal with the devil.

But I really don’t care, both Lutherans and Catholics are wrong.