A ârockâ that a building is set upon IS the foundation. Note the metaphorical nature of the wordsâŚ"thou art Rock and on this rock I will build my churchâŚI have no problem with peter being a rock,the fact is that Jesus is the firm foundation. Peter builds on the Lords foundation.Enough said.
If you have seen me youve seen the Father. Jesus is God in the Flesh. Nice try.
Yes, it is founded by a Man, the Man Christ Jesus.
if you are suggesting that Catholics donât already hold this doctrine that the Holy Spirit leads the Church, you are wrong. Why would you accuse us of not believing this? It is the Holy Spirit who came like flames upon the Apostles at Pentacost, we celebrate at every Mass particularly at Pentacost. The Holy Spirit is who guides the vicar of Christ, and the rest of the Church. It is blasphemy to ignore that Jesus chose Simon Peter to be the rock of his Church,** of course not replacing Jesus**. but you really have to ignore huge chunks of Scripture to hold the beliefs you do. I think you need to read the Bible, particularly all the Scripture I quoted in earlier posts in this thread. Are you ignoring all of that? Do you pick and choose what sounds good to you and leave the rest behind? You are taking the Scripture you quoted out of context. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the refusal to repent and accept forgiveness, **not **accepting the Pope as the successor of Peter, whom Jesus chose to lead His Church (clearly stated in Scripture I mentioned before) If you have a problem with this you disagree with Scripture, if you donât like the system Jesus set up, complain to Him about it. Likewise, if you have a problem believing in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, complain to Him about it⌠it was HIs idea. I canât think much more blasphemy than refusing to take a direct command from Jesus because its too hard for you to believe. If the Holy Spirit is all you need to interpret the Bible, and you donât need Sacred Tradition to help explain it, then why are there thousands of Protestant denominations all interpreting the Bible in so many contradictary ways⌠even within their own denominations? The Holy Spirit is not a Spirit of confusion. The Scriptures were written out of Apostolic Tradition, so there could be no conflict. There is nothing in Sacred Apostolic Tradition contradictory with Sacred Scripture. Inform yourself on actual Catholic beliefs before you start accusing people of not knowing scripture and blasphemy. You only sound ignorant, and it is frustrating to well-meaning people on this site when members come on and start accusing Catholics of things that are inaccurate because they arenât educated on official Catholic doctrine. know what you are protesting before you protest.
All of your âFactual pointsâ are posed as questionsâŚquestions are not facts.
I thought your arguement was that Peter founded the churchâŚwhich is it?
Your proud that youâve chased her off?BTW, truth. Latisha has completely dissapeared from this site since I posted my facts.
I wonder why?
boppysbud said:
With all due respectâŚif the evidence is so obvious, where is itâŚI mean independant verifyable evidence. Not catholic church documents or teaching INDEPENDANT VERIFYABLE FACTS!!!
not goneâŚjust not online everydayâŚhave a jobâŚfamilyâŚfriendsâŚother activites i participate inâŚwhy would you think that someone would spend their every moment on this message board? i do have a life off of the computer, which i enjoy a LOTâŚso just because iâm not responding right after your post? umm okâŚbut anyways and iâm hereâŚand what you postedâŚyou can assume and find all your want about whateverâŚmy response will never satsify you. iâve posted my reasonâs iâve said what iâve needed to say, and given my reasons and point blank laid down everything i needed toâŚand you want to provoke what out of me? love the great attitudeâŚgreat display of Christian loveâŚ[sarcasm]BTW, truth. Latisha has completely dissapeared from this site since I posted my facts.
I wonder why?
Iâm up for your game. First though, what type of evidence are you looking for? What would you accept?
Is something the lines of below acceptable...
1. Even secular scholars acknowledge that the gospel's have some value as historical documents.And this is relavent because? Some people still believe the earth is flat and itâs a grand conspiracy covering up this fact. So if I point them to proof and they ârefuteâ it, does that make me wrong? In many (not all) cases, one side is right and one side is wrong. The facts if brought to light should bear that out. If youâd read all the posts in this thread youâd see that at the very least using logic, reason, and the best evidence available, Catholics have made their case quite well. HoweverâŚ
âŚitâs difficult to converse with someone who makes the above response to even secular sources on church history. No matter what facts you provide them, they simply say well I have âdifferentâ facts. They donât provide those facts, they wonât discuss the facts youâve provided, they just say, well maybe their not accurate. It makes one throw up ones hands and itâs why folks have begun losing charity with some other folks.
OK, letâs see 'em?
There is nothing there that is really independant, youâve just given the RCC line on how to convince people of the RCCs position. Your arguement isnât clear, it isnât concise, and it isnât logical, there are too many other scriptures that DIRECTLY REFUTE what you are saying. Of course you will interpret them the way that the RCC tells you too because if you donât then the puzzle pieces donât fit togetherâŚand you canât have that cause then your religion wouldnât be superior to all the others rightâŚthat is what all the bickering is about who is superior.
And it couldnât be that since the scriptures are interpretable different ways that in fact, this could be a case where no one is wrongâŚ
Youâve hit the nail on the headâŚâbest evidence availableââŚbased on the best evidence available I can tell you what WE THINK happened to the dinosaursâŚand you can tell me WHAT YOU THINK Jesus was sayingâŚbut letâs face the factsâŚyou CANâT BE SURE!!!
That should make you wonderâŚa lot of smart people donât see the logic of what you are sayingâŚmaybe that means its not a logical as you believe it is. There are a lot of biblical references that refute what you are saying as wellâŚthat creates confusion, and ultimately leads one to believe that the RCC has disregarded the other references because they do not meet its needs.
You can start with the baal, the Pallium, and Shamash, the pine cone, amosgst a ton of other Pagan Symbols embraced and celebrated by the RCCâŚ
First of all, you donât know me, so you donât know why or what I believe, so letâs leave the generalizations aside for the time being and at least try to discuss the issue as objectively as possible. For the record, I am a former evangelical protestant (anti-catholic at that), turned agnostic, who has studied most world religions fairly in depth and came to the acceptance of the Catholic positions only grudgingly because I felt they indeed do contain by far the strongest arguments.
Of course in matters of faith we canât be SURE in the way you describe, butâŚwe can use reason and our God given intellect to evaluate the likelihood of certain claims. I am not interested in telling you WHAT I THINK Jesus was saying. We both know what he said. It was âŚ
Maybe their not that smart, maybe I am not, maybe I donât make the arguments very well, but since you havenât actually seen me make them yet, I wonder if you can make any kind of judgement yet?
The pine cone? What are you talking about? This is far to vague to deal with. Pick one pagan issue at a time, and give your âevidenceâ that a real Catholic doctrine is rooted in it, and maybe we can have a real discussion about it.