take a step back and have a look

[SIA]

This is exactly why I left Protestantism.

The Catholic Church is the only one on earth that even has the remotest chance of being the Church. If it is not the one, then the Church does not exist at all.

Getting back to your business example: if a business goes on for several generations, there is a succession of the management, and each manager will have a different management style. Some of the managers might even be really bad at their job. But as long as the company remains in business, the manager is always the manager - even if he is bad at his job. When he gives an order, the employees might ask to have it overturned, but if it doesn’t get overturned, they still have to follow it in order to remain working at the company.

If they get fired from the company, or if they quit, they won’t participate in the rewards that the company offers. But if they stay, even through the times of bad management, they will be there to receive the rewards, when they come along.

If the reward is eternal life, it seems like a small price to pay, to put up with a few inconvenient rules that don’t seem to make a whole lot of sense - especially if nobody else can legitimately offer the same rewards.

You are wrong. You can’t twist everything to make it Catholicism. Paul warned us of those who will find teachers and leaders who will institute only what is wanted and not what is truth. Read the Bible and show me the immaculate conception, the assumption, purgatory, the popes etc. It’s not there because it’s not truth.

 

[jmcrae]

You are wrong. You can’t twist everything to make it Catholicism. Paul warned us of those who will find teachers and leaders who will institute only what is wanted and not what is truth. Read the Bible and show me the immaculate conception, the assumption, purgatory, the popes etc. It’s not there because it’s not truth.

Actually, there are many hints in Scripture about all of these things. They aren’t spelled out specifically, because that’s what the Church is for.

You agree that the first few Popes in the line of Succession were legitimate - well, they were preaching these things even in the late first century and early second century. Unless you want to say that the Church lost its divine authority even before the death of St. John, the last of the Apostles, you have to accept that these things are all Apostolic Church teachings, since they were around at least during his lifetime. The line “Born of the Virgin Mary” was part of the Apostles’ Creed very early on; it is not a “later invention”.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You are wrong. You can’t twist everything to make it Catholicism. Paul warned us of those who will find teachers and leaders who will institute only what is wanted and not what is truth. Read the Bible and show me the immaculate conception, the assumption, purgatory, the popes etc. It’s not there because it’s not truth.

How can anyone argue with a Bible believer? if the words are not there then they say it is not true. it is a waist of time to me.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[SIA]

Actually, there are many hints in Scripture about all of these things. They aren’t spelled out specifically, because that’s what the Church is for.

.

So then, where does the Church get it’s truth from? Don’t say Tradition either because that must also parallel Scripture as well.

 

[SIA]

How can anyone argue with a Bible believer? if the words are not there then they say it is not true. it is a waist of time to me.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

How would you know that it is true then?

 

[jmcrae]

So then, where does the Church get it’s truth from? Don’t say Tradition either because that must also parallel Scripture as well.

Tradition (which is to say, the oral transmission of the teachings of Christ) is the source of both the Church and the Bible. The Church came first, and then the Bible, but they both come from the Holy Tradition, which comes forth from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

 

[RobHom]

Problem is, nothing of what i said disagrees with Scripture, King James Version or otherwise.

Unfortunately my friend…what you say does disagree with scriptures. I’ll explain below.

Jesus founded the Church upon himself clearly. (Big rock). Such as I own a business and I hired a manager to manage it for me. I founded the business upon myself, not my manager. If it goes bankrupt, I pay the lawyers, not the manager. I could blame the manager for steering it wrong but ultimately, it is my problem.

This is from an official Greek government owned site that translates contemporary Greek or Ancient Greek to English:

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

English - Greek Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Instructions

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
Πέτρος ο = Saint Peter
Petros o**

Now, the other “cited” word…

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

English - Greek Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Instructions

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
πέτρα η = rock stone
petra **

The search for “big rock” translated into Ancient Greek…sadly returns no results. Here is the site: kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Now, here is the differentiation that appears… Christ did not declare himself to be a Big Rock… He addressed “Simon Barjona” as “Peter”…not “little rock”… Now, the point that I was making is this: If Christ said I am the Big Rock, therefore the “foundation of the Church”…and you are the little rock who is going to do the managing… Why, then do not all Bibles have the verbiage to reflect precisely that thought or provide verbiage to give proof to that thought?

The problem is that it doesn’t agree with what you and all other non-Catholics allege…and I have seen more “rationalizations” based on erstwhile translations than you can throw a rock at, but none of them come even close to "justifying what they claim, and certainly not against the test: If the original Greek, Aramic, Latin, Herbrew…or whatever, says what you say it says…Why have not all the Biblical Scholars over the last hundreds of years "justified adjusting the verbiage to read precisely that which you allege?

The answer is simple…Because the Holy Scriptures are very clear in what they say, and that is that Christ gave a very clear and specific commission and mission for the remainder of his life.

Peace!!

 

[Josh316]

You are wrong. You can’t twist everything to make it Catholicism. Paul warned us of those who will find teachers and leaders who will institute only what is wanted and not what is truth. Read the Bible and show me the immaculate conception, the assumption, purgatory, the popes etc. It’s not there because it’s not truth.

As far as the Immaculate conception goes, have you forgotten where it says in the bible that not all the books in the world could contain everything Jesus did or spoke of? In other words, how do you know Jesus never taught it? By the way, there are several gospels according to researchers (who weren’t even Catholic) that didn’t make it into the bible, such as the gospel of Mary, which explained her birth (Immaculate conseption) but didn’t make it in there because the writers of the time wanted the focus of the new testament to start with and be only about Jesus. The assumption only follows logically (again possibly in forgotten gospel) and purgatory is in The bible, just not kjv (2 Maccabees) Catholic edition. The popes can also be traced back to Peter with written documentation look it up with an OPEN mind.

 

[RobHom]

Unfortunately my friend…what you say does disagree with scriptures. I’ll explain below.

This is from an official Greek government owned site that translates contemporary Greek or Ancient Greek to English:

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

English - Greek Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Instructions

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
Πέτρος ο = Saint Peter
Petros o**

Now, the other “cited” word…

**Greek - English Dictionary

Ancient Greek

English - Greek Dictionary

Ancient Greek

Instructions

Το λεξικό βρήκε 1 λέξη.
The dictionary found 1 word.
πέτρα η = rock stone
petra **

The search for “big rock” translated into Ancient Greek…sadly returns no results. Here is the site: kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Now, here is the differentiation that appears… Christ did not declare himself to be a Big Rock… He addressed “Simon Barjona” as “Peter”…not “little rock”… Now, the point that I was making is this: If Christ said I am the Big Rock, therefore the “foundation of the Church”…and you are the little rock who is going to do the managing… Why, then do not all Bibles have the verbiage to reflect precisely that thought or provide verbiage to give proof to that thought?

The problem is that it doesn’t agree with what you and all other non-Catholics allege…and I have seen more “rationalizations” based on erstwhile translations than you can throw a rock at, but none of them come even close to "justifying what they claim, and certainly not against the test: If the original Greek, Aramic, Latin, Herbrew…or whatever, says what you say it says…Why have not all the Biblical Scholars over the last hundreds of years "justified adjusting the verbiage to read precisely that which you allege?

The answer is simple…Because the Holy Scriptures are very clear in what they say, and that is that Christ gave a very clear and specific commission and mission for the remainder of his life.

Peace!!

SIA!!! I can’t believe this… You have “FAILED” to answer my question!!

 

[fbl9]

You are wrong. You can’t twist everything to make it Catholicism. Paul warned us of those who will find teachers and leaders who will institute only what is wanted and not what is truth. Read the Bible and show me the immaculate conception, the assumption, purgatory, the popes etc. It’s not there because it’s not truth.

“you shall be hated by all”

 

[SIA]

In other words, how do you know Jesus never taught it?

How do we know that he did? Can you show me where he taught this? Not a good argument, sorry.

 

[fbl9]

How do we know that he did? Can you show me where he taught this? Not a good argument, sorry.

the gospel according to St. John 5:12-14"Many things I have yet to say to you,but can not berar them now.13…" you can look the rest up yourself.

 

[jmcrae]

How do we know that he did? Can you show me where he taught this? Not a good argument, sorry.

Because it’s in the Deposit of the Faith; that’s how. The Deposit of the Faith is specifically protected from error by Christ Himself, when He said, “and the gates of Hell shall not prevail …” (Matthew 16:19)

 

[Josh316]

How do we know that he did? Can you show me where he taught this? Not a good argument, sorry.

Did you read the rest of my post on the missing gospels? And please don’t say that if they were meant to be in there they would be, because first off, they might not be in there because they weren’t necessary for salvation, but that doesn’t make their contents any less truthful. And second, what about the fact that there are now 8 different versions of the kjv? But that doesn’t stop most protestants from reading each edited version as if it were true. And lastly, please do not quote only part of my posts, as it takes my entire post to get my point and quoting only portions of it makes me look unintelligent. Thanks

 

[RobHom]

SIA!!! I can’t believe this… You have “FAILED” to answer my question!!

“SIA”… "Am I to take it that you are abdicating on the point of the question I posed to you? Or is that you are unable to refute the simple logic behind the facts? Seems easy enough to answer…

Can any “non-Catholic Christian” answer the questions as it is posed? Please spare the hyperbole and just answer the question as it is posed.

Thanks.

Peace!

 

[TriuneUnity]

“SIA”… "Am I to take it that you are abdicating on the point of the question I posed to you? Seems easy enough to answer…

Can any “non-Catholic Christian” answer the questions as it is posed? Please spare the hyperbole and just answer the question as it is posed.

Thanks.

Peace!

Which question?

 

[RobHom]

Which question?

My post in this thread… #47. The question itself appears in red.

Hope your weather up there is better than down here!

 

[TriuneUnity]

My post in this thread… #47. The question itself appears in red.

Hope your weather up there is better than down here!

Bleah, it’s hot.

You’re asking why translators did not translate Christ as the rock instead of Peter as the rock? Sorry, I wasn’t following the convo at length so am only able to get part of the gist of your question.

 

[jmcrae]

Bleah, it’s hot.

You’re asking why translators did not translate Christ as the rock instead of Peter as the rock? Sorry, I wasn’t following the convo at length so am only able to get part of the gist of your question.

I think he is asking why St. Matthew didn’t name him “Lithos” instead of “Peter” if the intent was to mean that St. Peter was a “small pebble”, but Christ was really the Peter upon which the Church is being built.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think he is asking why St. Matthew didn’t name him “Lithos” instead of “Peter” if the intent was to mean that St. Peter was a “small pebble”, but Christ was really the Peter upon which the Church is being built.

Oh okay. Thanks for clarifying that, jm.

He didn’t call him Lithos because He didn’t call him a small pebble. I guess that’s the easiest answer LOL