Split: Prot/Cath stance on Mary : Church Authority

  • Thread starter Thread starter believers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry… Let me clarify that. The Bible is the only Word of God.
And,** the Bible can speak for itself**.
You claim to speak for the Bible. Therein lies the difference. You would have to have been given the charism of infallibility by the Holy Spirit in order to interpret the Word of God without error. Is that what you are claiming, that you are infallible on matters of faith and morals?
 
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So you’re saying that the Word of God IS NOT sufficient for reproof, or correction, or good enough for instruction in righteousness? I know that can’t be right.
What if it is right? Even the KVJ says profitable (Greek: ophelimos (helpful)), not the final authority. 1 Timothy 3:15 says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Use the writings of the Early Church to find out how they worshiped and what they believed in.

Lukelion
 
He became the first Pope at the same time he became “Peter”.
How? Peter DID NOT know that Jesus was going to die on the cross. Which means he did not know the Gospel to the gentiles (the death, burial, & resurrection)

Mar 9:31
For [Jesus] taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Mar 9:32
But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
 
How? Peter DID NOT know that Jesus was going to die on the cross. Which means he did not know the Gospel to the gentiles (the death, burial, & resurrection)

Mar 9:31
For [Jesus] taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

Mar 9:32
But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
Peter did not nominate himself, he was chosen by Jesus. Are you saying Jesus had no idea what He was doing? It’s the foreknowledge of Christ you need to look at, not the foreknowledge of the man Simon-Peter.
 
What if it is right? Even the KVJ says profitable (Greek: ophelimos (helpful)), not the final authority. 1 Timothy 3:15 says the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Use the writings of the Early Church to find out how they worshiped and what they believed in.

Lukelion
Hi, You’re free to believe what you want. Are you guys aware of this

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] **he that hateth **reproof shall die.
 
Peter did not nominate himself, he was chosen by Jesus. Are you saying Jesus had no idea what He was doing? It’s the foreknowledge of Christ you need to look at, not the foreknowledge of the man Simon-Peter.
Where is your proof? You’re not quoting scripture on purpose now.

If that’s true then…
  1. How did Peter become Pope if he didn’t even know Jesus was going to die on the cross.
  2. And, Peter did not know that Jesus was going to be raised from the dead.
  3. And, He didn’t know the saving Gospel to the Gentiles. (Which was the death, burial, & resurrection)
  4. And, Peter did not receive the Revelation of the preaching of the cross. Paul did! Paul confronted Peter about the Gentiles being saved too.
  5. And, Peter was not the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was.
  6. So, where in the Bible does it ever say that Peter was in Rome?
  7. Peter was married.
 
Where is your proof? You’re not quoting scripture on purpose now.
If I were to quote all of the evidence from scripture, it would not fit into the word count constraints for one post. But the people at scripturecatholic.com have it all in one concise webpage:

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
If that’s true then…
  1. How did Peter become Pope if he didn’t even know Jesus was going to die on the cross.
  2. And, Peter did not know that Jesus was going to be raised from the dead.
  3. And, He didn’t know the saving Gospel to the Gentiles. (Which was the death, burial, & resurrection)
Again, you are placing the emphasis on what Peter knew and when. I’ve already answered this by saying that Jesus knew what Peter’s purpose would be after His death and resurrection.
What Peter knew and when was not the question. Your question was “When did Peter become Pope?” The answer is, when Jesus made Simon, “Peter”. I can see that you think this is a “gotcha” kind of question, but it simply isn’t.
  1. And, Peter did not receive the Revelation of the preaching of the cross. Paul did! Paul confronted Peter about the Gentiles being saved too.
  2. And, Peter was not the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul was.
You are second-guessing Jesus’ choice to build the Church on Peter.
  1. So, where in the Bible does it ever say that Peter was in Rome?
In his first epistle, Peter tell his readers that he is writing from “Babylon” (1 Pet. 5:13), a first-century code-word for the city of pagan Rome.
  1. Peter was married.
Yes, he was.
 
Hi, You’re free to believe what you want. Are you guys aware of this
40.png
Lukelion:
Thanks. I think I will believe in what the bible actually says.
Believers believes he is infallible when interpreting the Bible.
 
Yes, it does. Then why don’t you post your verses and prove that the Roman Catholic church has the authority? I’m interested in the truth.

Notice that it says ALL scripture. Meaning all of the Word of God and absolutely no mention of traditions.
Your proof text has nothing in it that deals with authority…it deals specifically with inspiration, which is not at all contested by the Catholic Church. However, the historical fact is that the Catholic Church is the church that excercised its God-given authority to discern which writings were inspired and to canonize them.

As for your implied assertion concerning tradition, there are several relevent New Testament passages. For instance:
Matthew 2:5-6
5: They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:
6: `, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel.’” Verse 6 is not in the Old Testament. It’s actually Jewish traditional writings. :eek:

Matthew 2:23
23: And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” This verse is alos not in the Old Testament, and is also taken from Jewish tradaitional writings. :eek:

Acts 20:35
35: In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.’" Can you locate that for me in the Gospels? Don’t ruin yourself trying…it’s not there, but it certainly follows along with John 21:25 which says not everything that Jesus said and did is written down which points out that even at this point oral Sacred Tradition existed.

1st Corinthians 10:4
4: and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Can you find where the Old Testament says that the rock “followed them”? No you cannot. This is more Jewish Tradition accepted by the apostles. :eek:

1st Corinthians 11:2
2: I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. Oops, Paul passed on traditions and commeded Timothy for maintaining them. :eek:

2nd Thessalonians 2:15
15: So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Look! Traditions to stand firm in taught by the apostles either in letters or by word of mouth. (emphasis mine) :eek:

2nd Thessalonians 3:6
6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (emphasis mine) :eek:

2nd Timothy 3:8
8: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; Find me these two guys named in the old Testament. You can’t…it’s not there. It’s Jewish Tradition. :eek:

Jude 1:9
9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” Please show me this in the Old Testament? What? You can’t find it? Possibly because it it a quote from the Assumption of Moses. A Jewish Traditional writing that Jude obviously thought inspired enough for him to quote into an inspired epistle. :eek:

Jude 1:14-15
14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Same as above, except this is from the Book of Enoch.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,
 
Believers believes he is infallible when interpreting the Bible.
I believe the Word of God to be true.

Hbr 4:12
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.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof SHALL DIE.

My dear Catholic brothers, Do these verses mean anything to you? The Word of the God is the ONLY Authority not the Roman Catholic Church and certainly not the pope. These verses mean exactly what they say.
 
Your proof text has nothing in it that deals with authority…it deals specifically with inspiration, which is not at all contested by the Catholic Church. However, the historical fact is that the Catholic Church is the church that excercised its God-given authority to discern which writings were inspired and to canonize them.

The Rock was, is, and ALWAYS will be Jesus. He is the Petra not Petros. He is the Spiritual Rock (Petra) that we should drink from.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros = movable stone), and upon this rock (petra - large massive rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Greek text does not teach that Peter is the rock. The rock is either Peter’s confession of Christ, or Christ Himself, in Peter’s answer to Jesus’ earlier question “Who do men say that I the Son of man am?”
Mat 16:18

Mat 7:24 ¶
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a (rock = Petra):

Mat 7:25
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a (rock = Petra)

Luk 6:48
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a (rock = Petra): and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded

1Cr 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (Petra) that followed them: and that (Rock = Petra) was Christ
 
I believe the Word of God to be true.
There is a difference between the Word of God being perfect and true and the reality that your interpretation as a fallible man is subject to error. We as people are fallible, but Christ entrusted the deposit of faith to the apostles and His Church. So, we as Catholics can be assured that, although we are fallible, the teachings that have been passed down to us for 2,000 years are not in error. They have been protected by the Holy Spirit. You truly do not understand the distinction being made here? When the Word of God is filtered through your mind, the interpretation that comes from you is fallible - capable of error, unless you are infallible. It seems from your answers that you believe the Holy Spirit has given you the gift of infallibility.
 
The Rock was, is, and ALWAYS will be Jesus. He is the Petra not Petros. He is the Spiritual Rock (Petra) that we should drink from.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros = movable stone), and upon this rock (petra - large massive rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
AHH MAAN! Just when I thought you were a good anti catholic apologist…

this is the flimsiest argument against peter being the rock. You really aught to consider another one because this one will make you look like an amateur.

really this is a very weak argument. you’ll see shortly i am sure.
 
Jesus spoke Aramaic. When Jesus spoke these words, He did not use the Greek distinctions that you posted.

"These critics (and the poster called “believers”) also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910frs.asp
 
I believe the Word of God to be true.

Hbr 4:12
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.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding.

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof SHALL DIE.

My dear Catholic brothers, Do these verses mean anything to you? The Word of the God is the ONLY Authority not the Roman Catholic Church and certainly not the pope. These verses mean exactly what they say.
Reproof is good but It does not say ONLY.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top