Where was Peter buried?

[zach_dunn]

You say you would like to add that Jesus and Mary were both born without original sin, but you cannot, for you can only show that Jesus was born without sin, unless you can show me where Mary was also born without sin. Ralph

Luke 1:28
"28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

The Greek word translated as “full of grace” shows that she has been full of grace since birth. I haven’t studied up on this so someone else has to give you the whole argument. But yes, she was born without original sin.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus is the Rock we build on. Ralph

Okay. But Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus built. There is no dispute about this except among the ignorant.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

---

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

---

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

I have a least a dozen quotes like this…the debate on this issue is OVER.

 

[ralphy]

Did you completely skip over all of Randy’s post?! You can see that both Jesus and Peter are the rock. You just keep ignoring the Bible when it doesn’t fit your little view of things don’t you?

Matthew 16:18
“18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

There is no way to get around it ralphy, not the Greek, not the sentence structure, not anything. You can’t get around the fact that Peter means rock. Your problem is thinking that it has to be one or the other, which it doesn’t. It’s both of them ralphy, it seems like you haven’t even read half of the posts on here.

I will rest my case on 1 Cor:10: 3-4, Jesus is the Rock. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will rest my case on 1 Cor:10: 3-4, Jesus is the Rock. Ralph

Ralphy-

I think I offered you this previously, but I will do so again because you clearly misunderstand the use of metaphors in the NT.

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrative are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

 

[brb2]

Okay. But Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus built. There is no dispute about this except among the ignorant.

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

.

What’s your assessment of these quotes Ralphy ?

Does this help you focus on the essential need for a Church structure that involves his select Apostle at its center ? After all, Christ desired it this way … why need you continue to ‘Kick against the Goads’ and fight against Christ & His Church ?

 

[paul_c]

My answer will be, “lord I have follow your word that you have left for me, I have recieved Jesus as my Savior and I am covered by His blood”. Then He will say to me, enter into My rest. Ralph

Or perhaps he will say to you, as one who advocates a theology that does not require action on the part of the saved:
21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’

Heed St. Peter’s warning: (2 Peter 3 10-18)
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, 8 and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out.
11 Since everything is to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought (you) to be, conducting yourselves in holiness and devotion,
12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved in flames and the elements melted by fire.
13 But according to his promise we await new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
14 Therefore, beloved, since you await these things, be eager to be found without spot or blemish before him, at peace.
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
18 But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)

I know you think you are saved, and perhaps you will be, but you have been decieved to think that you can sin and still be saved without sacramental repentance.

 

[ralphy]

Or perhaps he will say to you, as one who advocates a theology that does not require action on the part of the saved:
21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22
Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’
23
Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’

Heed St. Peter’s warning: (2 Peter 3 10-18)
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, 8 and then the heavens will pass away with a mighty roar and the elements will be dissolved by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be found out.
11 Since everything is to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought (you) to be, conducting yourselves in holiness and devotion,
12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved in flames and the elements melted by fire.
13 But according to his promise we await new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
14 Therefore, beloved, since you await these things, be eager to be found without spot or blemish before him, at peace.
15 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
17 Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.
18 But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory now and to the day of eternity. (Amen.)

I know you think you are saved, and perhaps you will be, but you have been decieved to think that you can sin and still be saved without sacramental repentance.

I don’t think I am saved, I KNOW that I am saved according to the word of God. If, and when I sin, I follow 1 John: 2 verses 1-2. I do not have to go to a priest (for there are none in the new teatament), I go to an advocate who is Jesus Christ, my savior. Praise His name. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Luke 1:28
"28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”

The Greek word translated as “full of grace” shows that she has been full of grace since birth. I haven’t studied up on this so someone else has to give you the whole argument. But yes, she was born without original sin.

I will wait for the “someone else” to give me the answer, thanks. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t think I am saved, I KNOW that I am saved according to the word of God. If, and when I sin, I follow 1 John: 2 verses 1-2. I do not have to go to a priest (for there are none in the new teatament), I go to an advocate who is Jesus Christ, my savior. Praise His name. Ralph

Of course there are priests in the New Testament.

Jesus commanded the Apostles to “do this in rememberance of me” at the last supper. The mass is a sacrifice, and only priests can offer sacrifices. Therefore, Jesus had to ordain them.

And, of course, the word “priest” is simply an English word derived from “presbyter”…a word I’m sure you’ve seen in the NT.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[ralphy]

Ralphy-

I think I offered you this previously, but I will do so again because you clearly misunderstand the use of metaphors in the NT.

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrative are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

I do believe that you do “infringe” on the honour due Christ alone, when you call the pope “Holy”, and “infallible”. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

I do believe that you do “infringe” on the honour due Christ alone, when you call the pope “Holy”, and “infallible”. Ralph

Why do we dishonor God by simply recognizing that through the Holy Spirit, the Pope is prevented from teaching error? The honor in that is God’s not man’s.

As for “holy”:

Holy Father – is he holy?
By Steve Ray

The young man stood up at my conference and parroted the Fundamentalist mantra: “The Pope is a sinner like everyone else; why do you call him ‘HOLY Father’?”

I leaned into the microphone and said to the young man, “You should really read your Bible more carefully and do your homework before you stand up and embarrass yourself in front of 2,000 people.” I then explained why we call the Pope our Holy Father.

There are several meanings for the word “holy” and that is what the young man did not understand. If *holy *simply means without sin, it is hard to see why “things” are called holy. For example, the HOLY OF HOLIES is a place. Is it called holy because it has not sinned?

And what about HOLY GROUND? God told Moses to remove his sandals — he was standing on HOLY GROUND. I guess that means that this dirt had not sinned but the dirt in the next gully had sinnned. HUH?

The word HOLY in Hebrew is kodesh and means apartness, holiness, sacredness, consecration, separateness. Holiness can mean without sin. It can also means dedicated or set apart for God.

So, is the Pope holy in the sense of being completely sinless? Of course not. But the Pope is set apart for God in a special way as the HOLY Father, the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter.

Bottom line, he is the HOLY FATHER and this fits perfectly with the Bible.

So much for a dumb challenge at a conference.

PS Remember that even WE are called holy. Paul considered all of us saints (literally “holy ones” with a small “s”). He writes, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 1:1-2).

 

[ralphy]

Why do we dishonor God by simply recognizing that through the Holy Spirit, the Pope is prevented from teaching error? The honor in that is God’s not man’s.

As for “holy”:

Holy Father – is he holy?
By Steve Ray

The young man stood up at my conference and parroted the Fundamentalist mantra: “The Pope is a sinner like everyone else; why do you call him ‘HOLY Father’?”

I leaned into the microphone and said to the young man, “You should really read your Bible more carefully and do your homework before you stand up and embarrass yourself in front of 2,000 people.” I then explained why we call the Pope our Holy Father.

There are several meanings for the word “holy” and that is what the young man did not understand. If *holy *simply means without sin, it is hard to see why “things” are called holy. For example, the HOLY OF HOLIES is a place. Is it called holy because it has not sinned?

And what about HOLY GROUND? God told Moses to remove his sandals — he was standing on HOLY GROUND. I guess that means that this dirt had not sinned but the dirt in the next gully had sinnned. HUH?

The word HOLY in Hebrew is kodesh and means apartness, holiness, sacredness, consecration, separateness. Holiness can mean without sin. It can also means dedicated or set apart for God.

So, is the Pope holy in the sense of being completely sinless? Of course not. But the Pope is set apart for God in a special way as the HOLY Father, the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter.

Bottom line, he is the HOLY FATHER and this fits perfectly with the Bible.

So much for a dumb challenge at a conference.

PS Remember that even WE are called holy. Paul considered all of us saints (literally “holy ones” with a small “s”). He writes, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in the whole of Achaia: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 1:1-2).

My friend, God is the only one that is Holy, it is to blaspheme to say that the pope is holy and infallible, and to call him father. I really believe that the RCC has another gospel, and scripture has a warning about that. Ralph

 

[zach_dunn]

My friend, God is the only one that is Holy, it is to blaspheme to say that the pope is holy and infallible, and to call him father. I really believe that the RCC has another gospel, and scripture has a warning about that. Ralph

Ralphy, this is clear proof that you don’t read posts AT ALL. Randy gave you a perfect explanation. Holy does not only mean sinless. And Paul does in fact call us holy, the Greek word ἁγίοις (or agiois) means “holy ones.” That is what Paul calls us, holy ones, why do you claim to go by scripture when you contradict it?

Regarding the bit about father. I’m sure you’re referring to Matthew 23:9:

“9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.”

It’s obvious that Jesus is using hyperbole, His words weren’t meant to be taken literally. If that were so you could not call your own biological father “father” which is just silly. The NT uses the word father and they aren’t breaking Jesus’ command.

Hebrews 12:7-11
“7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”

As you can see, it’s ok to use father for your biological father, lets look at this verse:

1 Corinthians 4:15
“15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers.** For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel**.”

Here we see father used in a spiritual sense. Which is why we call our priests father. It is a completely biblical practice. You just refuse to see what ALL of scripture has to say.

 

[brb2]

My friend, God is the only one that is Holy, it is to blaspheme to say that the pope is holy and infallible, and to call him father. I really believe that the RCC has another gospel, and scripture has a warning about that. Ralph

Find that scripture and quote it to us Ralph. You have got this one wrong too.

Hang in there … we will s l o w l y get your misconceptions cleared up about Catholics.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t think I am saved, I KNOW that I am saved according to the word of God. If, and when I sin, I follow 1 John: 2 verses 1-2. I do not have to go to a priest (for there are none in the new teatament), I go to an advocate who is Jesus Christ, my savior. Praise His name. Ralph

This statement demonstrates both your misunderstanding of what it means to be saved adn also your arrogance in believing that you are one of the saved. Where in the Bible does it say that you personally are saved?

As for 1 John 2, did you bother to read beyond the first two verses?
1 My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
2 He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
3 The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his command ments.
4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
6 whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.
7 Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.
8 And yet I do write a new commandment to you, which holds true in him and among you, for the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.
9 Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness.
10 Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall.
11 Whoever hates his brother is in darkness; he walks in darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Notice that if you don’t keep his commandments, you are a liar and the truth is not in you.
And notice that you only know you are in union with God, if you keep his word. Lets move onto 1 John 3:
1 See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
3 Everyone who has this hope based on him makes himself pure, as he is pure.
4 Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 **No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him.
7 Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. **8 Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God.
10 In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother.
11 For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another,
12 unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother. Why did he slaughter him? Because his own works were evil, and those of his brother righteous.
13 Do not be amazed, (then,) brothers, if the world hates you.
14 We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. Whoever does not love remains in death.
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him.
16 The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
17 If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him?
18 Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth.

This chapter completely obliterates your argument. You see, if you sin, you belong to the evil one and are not saved. and this includes your future sin. So you can not be sure of your slavation until the point that you die, because you can not be sure that you will remain sinless (i.e., in the state of Grace).

These two chapters convey Catholic Theology 101 very well. To be saved, we must follow the commandments and love God and each other. and we must persevere in doing so to be saved. How can yo udeny this after reading the above?

 

[zach_dunn]

My friend, God is the only one that is Holy,

Ralphy, do you have any biblical basis for saying that God alone is holy? No, that’s not in the Bible and is, in fact, against the teaching of the Bible.

it is to blaspheme to say that the pope is holy and infallible, and to call him father. I really believe that the RCC has another gospel, and scripture has a warning about that. Ralph

You do not understand the meaning of holy or infallible. Randy has explained the many definitions of holy and I’m sure many people have tried to explain infallibility to you, but I’ll try now.

As I’m sure you’ve been told, you are confusing infallibility and impeccability.

Impeccability

1. 
   *]Not capable of sin or liable to sin.
   *]Free from fault or blame.
   
   Infallibility [papal]
   1. 
      *]The Roman Catholic doctrine that the pope cannot err when speaking ex cathedra in defining a doctrine of Christian faith or morals.
      
      As you can see, they are not the same thing. We do not believe that the pope is sinless, that is just ridiculous. We do believe that the pope, with the help of the Holy Spirit, when speaking ex cathedra (“from the chair” or with authority) and defining a doctrine of faith and/or morals, he cannot be wrong. All of these requirements must be met for infallibility to take effect. So, encyclicals, or books, etc. written by the pope aren’t guaranteed to be without error. This was all guaranteed the pope in Matthew 16:18. One of your favorite passages of scripture ralphy!

 

[emma411]

Ralph,

I think it’s time to throw in the towel on this one. So many people are telling you what the truth is. What the meaning is. You don’t seem to want to except that. I have to say it this way. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. You have the truth before you, except it or don’t.

May God Bless you Abundantly

 

[SF3CHURCH]

Hi everyone,

Recently I’ve been discussing the Papacy with an anti-Catholic, and their last message put me in somewhat of a bind, but I have faith in the Catholic Church and continue to believe she is the one faith established by Christ.

Now to my problem, I haven’t read the whole thing yet but I was wondering what you guys make of this article (I think that’s what it is)

aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

I thought St. Peter was buried under the Basilica?

Thanks for the help!
Zach

Getting back to the OP, this has already been debunked:

uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/

 

[zach_dunn]

Getting back to the OP, this has already been debunked:

uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/

Thanks for the link!

 

[ralphy]

This statement demonstrates both your misunderstanding of what it means to be saved adn also your arrogance in believing that you are one of the saved. Where in the Bible does it say that you personally are saved?

As for 1 John 2, did you bother to read beyond the first two verses?
1 My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one.
2 He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.
3 The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his command ments.
4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him. This is the way we may know that we are in union with him:
6 whoever claims to abide in him ought to live (just) as he lived.
7 Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.
8 And yet I do write a new commandment to you, which holds true in him and among you, for the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.
9 Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness.
10 Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall.
11 Whoever hates his brother is in darkness; he walks in darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Notice that if you don’t keep his commandments, you are a liar and the truth is not in you.
And notice that you only know you are in union with God, if you keep his word. Lets move onto 1 John 3:
1 See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God. Yet so we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we shall be has not yet been revealed. We do know that when it is revealed we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
3 Everyone who has this hope based on him makes himself pure, as he is pure.
4 Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.
5 You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
6 **No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him.
7 Children, let no one deceive you. The person who acts in righteousness is righteous, just as he is righteous. **8 Whoever sins belongs to the devil, because the devil has sinned from the beginning. Indeed, the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot sin because he is begotten by God.
10 In this way, the children of God and the children of the devil are made plain; no one who fails to act in righteousness belongs to God, nor anyone who does not love his brother.
11 For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another,
12 unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother. Why did he slaughter him? Because his own works were evil, and those of his brother righteous.
13 Do not be amazed, (then,) brothers, if the world hates you.
14 We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers. Whoever does not love remains in death.
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him.
16 The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
17 If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him?
18 Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth.

This chapter completely obliterates your argument. You see, if you sin, you belong to the evil one and are not saved. and this includes your future sin. So you can not be sure of your slavation until the point that you die, because you can not be sure that you will remain sinless (i.e., in the state of Grace).

These two chapters convey Catholic Theology 101 very well. To be saved, we must follow the commandments and love God and each other. and we must persevere in doing so to be saved. How can yo udeny this after reading the above?

I am the “whosoever” in John 3:16. Ralph