D
Des
Guest
You claim to be an ex-Catholic yet you didn’t even know such a basic tenant of our faith? No offense but it’s obvious you were poorly Catechized mpjw2.
- Status
B
Beth_Martin
Guest
That is a completely different issue; we are speaking of what is the gospel and you stated Paul never wrote the complete gospel and you cannot admit your error. It is in almost if not all of his letters.
B
Beth_Martin
Guest
Numbered in or added to the 12 is the key concerning the Apostles chosen of God to replace Iscariot; the originals. Iscariot is in a class all by himself, ranked among the spiritually dead so that what was written would be fulfilled, just as the phrophecy concerning Matthias is fulfilled in ***Psalm 109 “Let his days be few; Let another take his office.” ***Paul came along later after the day of Pentecost. Are you really having a hard time understanding or just playing?
F
fxcc
Guest
mpjw2, if you’ve left the Catholic Church (correct me if you haven’t) how do you participate in the vital sacraments of the Eucharist and Reconciliation? I’m curious, because these sacraments are available validly only in the Catholic Church.
“When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:22-23)
mpjw2, how do you understand this passage of Scripture?
B
Beth_Martin
Guest
It is you that refuses to look closely at history; you are going by something many generations removed and coming from the revised history within the Church. It will not explain the use of Simeon and use of BarJona; I’m sure it would use that argument to debunk by ignoring or hiding the tru use of that name during those times. Try searching the secular and academic historians concerning the burial of Simon Bar-Jona and the history of Simeon Magnus. The secular historian you are referring to is completely biased toward Catholicism and I have read some on this topic and the weight of the evidence far exceeds the belief of your church. Like I said; this does not further the topic at hand but is a distraction from the topic which I am partially to blame and apologize; I doubt anyone could convince any Catholic that Simeon Magmus is the very one found under ST Peters Basillica. Beyond that one only has to put all the accounts of Acts, the commands to the Apostles, the Book of Romans and the lack of greetings that mention Peter together to debunk the Churches claim that not only was Peter not the Bishop of Rome, especially given the time periods that the revised history claims or that he was even in Rome.
This will not prove or profit anyone so let us agree to drop the subject or talk about it somewhere else…okay?
I
inkaneer
Guest
Well if an archangel suddenly and unexpectantly appearred to you wouldn’t you be afraid too? I think so. But one thing I know is that if such an archangel should appear to you it would not address you as 'full of grace" especially if that greeting was made, as in the case of Mary before the age of grace began. How could this young woman be filled with God’s grace when, because of Adam’s sin, mankind lost grace and didn’t regain it until after Jesus paid the price on Calvary? Here a full 33+ years before Jesus paid the price so mankind can again enjoy God’s grace Mary not only has God’s grace but is filled with God’s grace. Protestants have no answer for this so what they do is they change the scripture to say Mary was “highly favored” instead of “full of grace”. Just one of many ploys by protestants to deCatholicize the scriptures.
P
paul_c
Guest
I didn’t unequivically agree either. That’s becasue you have presented us with a series of half truths and partial understanding.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
Do you bother to investigate these claims before you write them? You can’t possibly prove that Peter wasn’t the bishop of Rome. Get familiar with the early church fathers. You will see that there is no question that Peter was at Rome. Start with Eusebius, " the History of the Church", written in 320AD. Its here for free: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm
Read books 2, chapters 13-14 to see the relationship between Simon Magnus and Simon Peter. Educate yourself… As for the burial of Simon Peter in Jerusalem, it lacks credibility and has never been taken seriously by scholars, secular or clerical.
“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).
The word “trophies” there means tombstones and not some bowling tournament trophy. Now here is your chance to produce the evidence that you claim is “the secular and academic historians concerning the burial of Simon Bar-Jona and the history of Simeon Magnus.” Who are these secular and academic historians you refer too and what did they write? And please give correct and full documentation so I can check them. I have learned that when dealing with protestants with an agenda such as you have that taking them at their word is a no, no. For people with an agenda are not confined to truth when truth contradicts their agenda
Originally Posted by paul c
Do you bother to investigate these claims before you write them? You can’t possibly prove that Peter wasn’t the bishop of Rome. Get familiar with the early church fathers. You will see that there is no question that Peter was at Rome. Start with Eusebius, " the History of the Church", written in 320AD. Its here for free: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm
Read books 2, chapters 13-14 to see the relationship between Simon Magnus and Simon Peter. Educate yourself… As for the burial of Simon Peter in Jerusalem, it lacks credibility and has never been taken seriously by scholars, secular or clerical.
No let’s not drop the topic. I was in Rome in Oct 2008 and viewed Peter’s tomb. And what about these accounts that you claim are “many generations removed”? We had accounts of eye witnesses that Peter was buried on Vatican hill and Paul was buried along the Ostian Way outside the walls of Rome. To wit:
“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’” (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).
The word “trophies” there means tombstones and not some bowling tournament trophy. Now here is your chance to produce the evidence that you claim is “the secular and academic historians concerning the burial of Simon Bar-Jona and the history of Simeon Magnus.” Who are these secular and academic historians you refer too and what did they write? And please give correct and full documentation so I can check them. I have learned that when dealing with protestants with an agenda such as you have that taking them at their word is a no, no. For people with an agenda are not confined to truth when truth contradicts their agenda
P
paul_c
Guest
Actually, you brought this up to discredit St. Peter and the Catholic Church. I pointed out contemporary proof that shows both the story of Simon Peter and Simon Magnus and now you want to drop the subject. Okay. I assume this means that you can’t prove your point. correct?
I
inkaneer
Guest
Peter says, quoting Psalm 109 “let another take his office.” The KJV, that great protestant Bible, has as its translation, “…and his bishoprick let another take.” So no games are being plaued here by me at all the question becomes exactly which office did Matthias succeed to. Was it the office of Apostle as you claim or the office of bishop as the KJV claims.
As we have seen the word Apostle, from the Greek word apostolos has both a broad meaning as well as a narrower meaning. In its narrower meaning it is specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ while in its broad meaning it could be applied to other eminent Christian teachers such as the disciples Barnabas, Timothy and Silvanus. I say that Judas and Matthias fit into the broader application of the word while Paul fits within the narrower application. To say that Judas and Matthias fit the narrower application creates a contradiction in scripture with Revelation 21:14 and we both know that there is no contradiction in scripture, RIGHT?
F
fxcc
Guest
Scripture says, *"For wisdom ** will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.” Wisdom 1:4
When people say that the Virgin Mary was an “ordinary girl” (oh yeah, a sinner just like you and me
) what they’re saying is that God did indeed dwell, quite literally, for nine months, in a womb that was subject to sin!Reveals a lot about some people’s idea of the All Holy One of Israel, doesn’t it?
Perhaps they should read again with what detailed care God had the Ark of His Covenant built, how it was housed and veiled and protected from defilement, who was allowed to even approach it, how often, and following what routine.
Perhaps they should read about what happened to poor Uzzah, who touched the Ark, even with the noblest of intentions (to save it from toppling over). God does make a point most dramatically at times, for our eternal understanding, doesn’t He?
Perhaps they should read again what God said to Moses about the ground around the burning bush as Moses blithely approached it, and what God had him do!
Now this God, this same God, this unchanging God, who was always so particular about the sanctity of His dwelling place, suddenly makes His dwelling in the womb of a sinner, in a body tainted by sin, no problem. Or so we’re told.
Blasphemers, heretics, and blinded Christians who are sucked in by their lies, NO THANK YOU!
Father, forgive them for they know not **what **they so shrilly proclaim about Thee and Thy Most Favoured Daughter, The Mother of Thy Son and the Spouse of Thy Holy Spirit.
(Now we’ll promptly have that quote from St Paul about “all have sinned” hurled at us!
)*
I
inkaneer
Guest
Scripture says, "For wisdom ** will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.” Wisdom 1:4
When people say that the Virgin Mary was an “ordinary girl” (oh yeah, a sinner just like you and me
Reveals a lot about some people’s idea of the All Holy One of Israel, doesn’t it?
Perhaps they should read again with what detailed care God had the Ark of His Covenant built, how it was housed and veiled and protected from defilement, who was allowed to even approach it, how often, and following what routine.
Perhaps they should read about what happened to poor Uzzah, who touched the Ark, even with the noblest of intentions (to save it from toppling over). God does make a point most dramatically at times, for our eternal understanding, doesn’t He?
Perhaps they should read again what God said to Moses about the ground around the burning bush as Moses blithely approached it, and what God had him do!
Now this God, this same God, this unchanging God, who was always so particular about the sanctity of His dwelling place, suddenly makes His dwelling in the womb of a sinner, in a body tainted by sin, no problem. Or so we’re told.
Blasphemers, heretics, and blinded Christians who are sucked in by their lies, NO THANK YOU!
Father, forgive them for they know not **what **they so shrilly proclaim about Thee and Thy Most Favoured Daughter, The Mother of Thy Son and the Spouse of Thy Holy Spirit.
(Now we’ll promptly have that quote from St Paul about “all have sinned” hurled at us!
Jesus paid the price for sin on the cross not in the womb. It never fails to amaze me why protestants will claim that they, as sinners, can pray to God and He will answer their prayer. They cite Matthew 7:9-11 where Jesus says:
“9 Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”
Yet these very same protestant will deny that The Father would give His only begotten Son the best mother He could. According to protestants God the Father gives bread or a fish to sinners but to His perfect Son, God the Father gives a stone or a serpent. If that is not the height of hypocrisy and mocking God then someone tell me what is.
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Paul uses the word “gospel” some 69 times in his epistles. He preached and wrote the most complete gospel found anywhere in the Bible. While the 12 preached the gospel of the kingdom , that gospel did not include our LORD’S death, burial and resurrection [Luke 18:31-34]. Luke clearly states that they did not know what our Lord was telling telling them and that the meaning was hid from them. Even after our LORD’S resurrection the 11 did not know that He would be resurrected [John 20:9]. So it is clear that the 12 [later 11] were not preaching the gospel of the grace of God that was revealed to Paul. Paul preached and wrote the good news of the cross, while Peter, on the day of Pentecost [addressing Israel] preached the cross as bad news in that he accused Israel of murdering their Messiah. Often, men will claim that the 10 commandments constitute the gospel. Nonsense! The commandments were given to show man how sinful he truly is. It took the death, burial and resurrection to settle the sin question. Our LORD Jesus Christ paid the FULL penalty for sin
QC
P
paul_c
Guest
QuickCat,
You are badly misinformed. Let’s go through your post in some detail…
You are badly misinformed. Let’s go through your post in some detail…
Paul was a missionary, an apostle,and a theologian. His epistles reflect that. But be careful when you try to pull Paul apart from the Church. Isn’t that what he explicitly warned about in 1Corinthians1?
P
paul_c
Guest
As discussed above, St. Paul never preached what you claim either. and St. Paul preached the same gospel as the others. In fact, in Galatians 2 he says;
1 Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
2 I went up in accord with a revelation, and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.
He is clearly saying here that he checked with the apostles ( those of repute) to make sure he was preaching the correct gospel.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But what Paul preached is not the issue. I say Paul preached the gospel but did not write ithe full gospel in his letters. You are trying to put words in my mouth that Paul did not preach and write the full gospel. That is not what I said Nor is it what you said initially either. Your exact words were:
“If you claim as you did that the writings of Paul do not contain the full gospel, then you are spiritually appraised and know not the gospel.”
Now you want to back off of that statement and try to say that he preached the full gospel. This is not about what Paul preached, its about what he wrote. I stand by my original sttaement which is that the writings of Paul are remedial in nature and do not contain the full gospel. Now if you are so vain that you cannot admit you are in error then further discussion with you by anyone is an exercise in futility.
Originally Posted by inkaneer
But what Paul preached is not the issue. I say Paul preached the gospel but did not write ithe full gospel in his letters. You are trying to put words in my mouth that Paul did not preach and write the full gospel. That is not what I said Nor is it what you said initially either. Your exact words were:
“If you claim as you did that the writings of Paul do not contain the full gospel, then you are spiritually appraised and know not the gospel.”
Now you want to back off of that statement and try to say that he preached the full gospel. This is not about what Paul preached, its about what he wrote. I stand by my original sttaement which is that the writings of Paul are remedial in nature and do not contain the full gospel. Now if you are so vain that you cannot admit you are in error then further discussion with you by anyone is an exercise in futility.
Okay I get it. According to you if I say the word Gospel then I preached it. Okay, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel, Gospel. There I just preached the gospel ten times. Sixty more and I will have preached the Gospel more times than Paul did. Does that sound ludicrous? You bet it does but that is what you are saying. Paul was a missionary. He preached the Gospel in one city and moved on to the next. He only wrote to those cities where he preached when he heard of problems that arose. That is why his epistles are remedial.
Q
QuickCat
Guest
Did the so called church fathers believe that Peter was the “rock” that our LORD would build His church on? I don’t think so. Catholic historians have written about the “fathers” believing that our Lord was either speaking of Himself or the Peter’s confession.Huh? Jesus didn’t say that? Every Bible I’ve read says that’s pretty much exactly what He did say!
What do **you **imagine Jesus said? Wait! I know! He said, “You are Peter and **on your faith **I will build my Church.” That’s what Jesus is supposed to have said, right? Or that’s what you reckon He meant, right?
So … shall we have a look at what Jesus **actually **said and from that try to conclude what He actually **meant **and did? Shall we?
Firstly, Jesus changed Simon Bar Jonah’s name to “Peter”. Actually He changed it to “kepha”. He used that word, “kepha” or “Cephas”, in Aramaic (the language in which He spoke). Now in Aramaic, the word “kepha” means rock.
So Simon got renamed “Peter” = “kepha” = “rock”, right?
Now we’ll see a bit later why this name (“rock”) which Jesus chose for Simon wasn’t just any old name, but one that was very significant. In fact, we’ll also see that the word itself gives us a powerful clue about Jesus’ intention and action! But bear with me for a moment.
Jesus’ exact words to Peter were “You are kepha (Peter) and upon this kepha (Peter) I will build my church”.
Now some people claim that by these words Jesus meant “You are Peter and **on your profession of faith in me **I will build my church”. But how could Jesus mean this when He didn’t use any word for faith, or make any reference to it, in His sentence at all?
As every serious Catholic knows, this idea - this notion that Jesus was referring to the **faith **of Peter and not to Peter himself - is just a desperate (and scripturally unprovable) interpretation, which Christians who simply don’t **want **to accept the God-given authority of the Vicar of Christ (and his infallible teachings) have devised, to try to justify their disobedience.
The **hard **fact of the matter is this: there is **no **reference **at all **in these words of Jesus, to the faith of Peter. None whatsoever! Nor is such a meaning attributable to them because of some other complementary or supplementary passage of Scripture. Rather, the **parallelism **in Jesus’ words, of **you **are rock’ and ‘on **this rock **I will build’ clearly shows that the second rock can **only **be the same one as the first (Peter). Jesus is not referring to Peter’s **faith **(or talking about any other quality or virtue of his!), Jesus is referring to **Peter himself **- Peter, to whom He has just given the wonderful name “Rock” - a word loaded with deep and powerful Biblical meaning, as we shall soon see.
Now there is a **second **parallelism in these words of Jesus, which sheds further light on them. “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ.” As if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, now I will tell you who **you **are.” And that’s exactly what Jesus does! He tells Peter: You are Peter… you are rock … indeed, the rock on which I will build my Church!
But wait, there’s more!
There is a **third **Biblical parallel to help us understand what Jesus was saying/doing when He uttered those important words. He was **paralleling **Simon Peter to Abraham! Abraham too stood at the beginning of the people of God. He too had his name changed (from Abram to Abraham, meaning “father of many nations”). That’s right! Father … papa … pope … you get the drift!!! Is this really a rational parallel - between Abraham and Peter? You decide! Abraham **too **is referred to in Scripture as … guess what?
All this paralleling and stuff besides (some people don’t get these things, especially among those who rely solely on private interpretations of Scripture), Jesus puts the fact of Peter’s (and his successors’) leadership and authority over His Church **way **beyond all dispute when straight after renaming him, he promises to **Peter **- to Peter **specifically **- the keys of His Kingdom (the spiritually restored Davidic Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, the Church) along with the ministerial power to “bind” and “loose” in that Kingdom.
*“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *(Matt 16: 19)
What was the power of the keys Jesus promised to Peter? What were the keys which Jesus was referring to anyway? What comes with these keys? Have a careful read of Isaiah’s prophecy in the matter:
*“I will place the key of the **House of David ***on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open”( Is 22:22)
(continued in next post…)
Check out von Dollinger [The Pope and The Council. London, 1869, p. 74] and de Rosa Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of The Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, pp. 24-25.
B
Beth_Martin
Guest
None of these are speaking of the “Roman Catholic Church” and on the quote above you cited is not only circular reasoning it violates the very words of Jesus. Jesus specifically said that salvation is from the Jews. We did He not say salvation is from the Catholics?
***Joh 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. ***
Joh 6:45 "It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. -------- This eliminates the notion of the magisterium being one on protecter of the truth for God the Father, by the Trinity, teaches the individual not the “Church”. He may lead one to a church to hear the gospel and from that remove the blindness, but He could just as easily have someone pick up the Bible and begin reading for themselves and give them sight to see.
***And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” ***
Joh 10:29"My Father, who has given {them} to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch {them} out of the Father’s hand.
***Joh 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. ***
***Joh 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.” ***
The reason I said that the cited quote is curcular is because Catholics claim their authority comes from the Bible and they also claim they are the authority to put the Bible together and to interpret that Bible. That is having it both ways and is a fallaous argument. Also, the passages above are among a few of the many that can be cited that salvation is outside the walls that men build.
You hold onto your belief that salvation is found in the Catholic Church, for God can use that wall and transend it as well as any other wall for there will be saints from all backgrounds regardless of the barriers men try to erect. We all should be thankful for that.
M
mpjw2
Guest
by the way I am curious,
I have been nothing short of being what i believe to be true with you.
Since I am not a practicing catholic, does anyone believe that the only way for me to enter heaven is to come back to the catholic church?
I have been nothing short of being what i believe to be true with you.
Since I am not a practicing catholic, does anyone believe that the only way for me to enter heaven is to come back to the catholic church?
D
davidv
Guest
If you are not a practicing Catholic you are failing to live up to your baptismal vows. Will a vow breaker enter heaven?
- Status