Apostolic succession can be had for a thousand bucks anymore. It is meaningless. No early bishop of Rome taught or believed what you guys emphasize. Did Peter venerate images? No. Did he tell the man to stand up when he bowed down? Yes. Did he talk about some magical laying on of hands from one bishop of Rome to the next? Of course not. Did he teach the real presence and the Mass as being the center of worship? Of course not. Did he say a single word about Mary? Not one. He would not even recognize your church as having anything remotely like the church he belonged to.
So Iam to suppose you were there in the first century to prove your accusations. When the Roman Catholic church and scripture proves the sacramental belief system including the true presence. It is easy for you to argue safely 2000 years later after the fact. When the first 30 Popes including Peter were martyred for the Catholic faith. Where are your martyrs that bring your christianity 2000 years later, you should give God thanks for the Catholic church that brings you your bible and christianity from her Saints and Martyrs.
Can you name 3 of your christian martrys who died for not believing in the true presence, or the blessed Virgin, or the Mass as you reject them today? from the first and second centuries please provide dates eyewitness to the martyrdom. How is that the Roman Catholic church can do all this from the first century on… and your Christian beliefs are no where to be found until 1500 years later?
The LXX cannot be proven to contain the deuterocanonical books! Did you just skip right over the quotes I gave. Are you saying that the NT quotes the deuterocanonical books. I have read the fanciful and absurd quotes from scripturecatholic. With one or two exceptions they take a string of words from the KJV and the Apocrypha, same translators, and ignore the exact same words in the OT. It is a complete snowjob. Tell you what, if you think the deuterocanonical books have more than 2 or 3 references in the NT, I would be happy to go over them
one at a time. One at at time. I will grant you 2 or 3 references, but not direct quotes. You guys have got to lay off your doctorates in Google studies and read Catholic scholars who say there are 3 deuterocanonical references AT MOST.
I will provide a link that addresses a couple of them:
confrontingcatholicism.com/apocrypha_21.html
One scripture would be enough to discredit your argument about the NT containing a DC reference. When there are 300 references. Hint; understanding the content of the scriptural teaching as well as wording from both references Just as Jesus revealed himself in all the scriptures to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. But then you were not there to recieve these apsotolic Traditional teachings only the Catholic church existed as you already proven.
There is not a council of Jamnia. No one believes that anymore. Heck even Catholics do not believe that.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp
**You are refusing to believe a Council of Rabbis of the school in Jamnia never took place?. Maybe you should have a talk with St. Jerome, or maybe you and your catholics disagree with this Icon of a Catholic who followed the Pope. What point is it to prove this when you cant make out When and where the Catholic church saints, martyrs, popes put together the bible. For your information we have two Catholic saints who argued the Catholic faith, and scriptures with the Rabbis in the first century.
**
I am sick of arguing with people who get their information from the University of Google.
