why st peter ?

[ahimsaman72]

Mickey:

Greetings my friend,

The Catholic Church teaches a unified doctrine. I’ve said this so many times, but I’ll say it again. Men don’t corrupt doctrine. Men corrupt men. Why do you continue to insist that since some individual Catholics refuse to follow certain teachings of the bride of Christ (the Church), that it is the Church teaching this? You see many protestant churches actually teach pro-choice, birth control etc. from the pulpit!

Correct me if I’m wrong but you were baptist, and then psuedo baptist buddhist and now you are noahist(sp?). You are searching my friend. Sometimes analyzing something to death can cause frustaration and confusion. Open your heart and let the grace of God lead you home. Ephphatha!

Yes, yes, I know, I know. I started from the present day faith and went back from there to the beginning religions and found Judaism to be the most tenable and closest to the actual truth. I was Southern Baptist for 30 years, then for the past 3 years have studied world religions.

Peace to you my brother…

 

[Tom]

bjcros:

the more I learn about the Catholic the more I disagree with it.

BJ, if this is true, I’d suspect you’re using anti-Catholic sources to do your research. I would not expect an anti-Catholic source to paint a true picture. If you want to really know what the Church teaches, try an approved Church source. To get a proper perspective read the Catholic side and the anti-Catholic side and with an open heart do your own research, especially in Scripture.

 

[adnauseum]

Tom:

BJ, if this is true, I’d suspect you’re using anti-Catholic sources to do your research. I would not expect an anti-Catholic source to paint a true picture. If you want to really know what the Church teaches, try an approved Church source. To get a proper perspective read the Catholic side and the anti-Catholic side and with an open heart do your own research, especially in Scripture.

There’s an old story about the former USSR where a peasant is reading a copy of PRAVDA. Seeing an SS agent nearby, he asks the agent for his source of authority of the obvious lies in the paper. The SS agent hands him another copy of PRAVDA.

Anti-catholic cults are no different. Self referential systems of evidence. Not good.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

Just creating a bridge between your claim that Jesus is the truth and said, X, Y and Z and the fact that you could say the same thing and it wouldn’t change anything…

No, you’re creating a strawman – a typical tactic for those who cannot debate on the real issues.

ahimsaman72:

I was a Christian for 32 years and studied that faith extensively over time. I’m not obsessive compulsive about authority myself. Many get overly excited about that idea, but I do not.

You’re obsessive compulsive about other things, though.

If you believe in God, how can you reject authority?

ahimsaman72:

And again you would be wrong partially. I know little of Mohammed and alot about Buddha. I studied Buddhism heavily and practiced it. Your supposed knowledge of me is incredibly arrogant. I have posted numerous times of Buddhist teaching and started a long thread about the teaching of Buddha, both of which you can easily look up…

In other words, you’re one of those lost souls, constantly seeking and never finding. And when you wer practicing Buddhism, you had the same attitude you had now – convinced you were right and everyone else was wrong.

Now, since you were wrong then (and have admitted it by no longer being a Buddhist) does it strike you you’re not likely to be right now?

ahimsaman72:

I am not a Jew. I am a Noahide. …

You seem to have a history of pursuing faddish belief systems.

ahimsaman72:

The only way I could be one is to convert to Judaism. Non-Jews are discouraged from converting because of the complexity of the conversion. Instead of following the 7 Noahide laws, one must follow the 613 laws and be an observant Jew. You do the math. G-d has declared that the one who follows the 7 Noahide laws is righteous in G-d’s eyes, so why burden oneself with further laws?

You say that now – let’s see what fad you’ve obsessed on six months from now.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

Susan,
The predictions that Christians cite for reference to Jesus can all be refuted, even the Isaiah passage. I refer you to www.jewsforjudaism.org and click on the e-book referring to the messiah on that front page. There are plenty of resources that will help explain. Also, a site I often refer to is: www.jewfaq.org

Torah is a term used differently by different people. In its broad usage it refers to the Pentateuch, Writings and Prophets which are similar to the Protestant OT, not the Catholic OT. In its narrow usage it refers to the Pentateuch only (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). The whole Jewish text is referred to as the Tanakh, which is comprised of Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim. Here is a link that briefly describes this: topicguide.com/Bible.html

I respect your gentle spirit and zeal for your faith, however it is a faith which I do not espouse. I have many wonderful Christian family members and friends whom I love very much. But, I must follow my own path in life as you must follow yours.

Peace…

Wow!

There are so many errors in this post, one hardly knows where to begin.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Wow!

There are so many errors in this post, one hardly knows where to begin.

Then please enlighten us. Begin somewhere and we will go from there or simply stop the rhetoric.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

No, you’re creating a strawman – a typical tactic for those who cannot debate on the real issues.

Just using your beloved logic.

You’re obsessive compulsive about other things, though.

If you believe in God, how can you reject authority?

I am a bit of a control freak, I admit. I don’t reject authority. I reject the priority given to it by your denomination.

In other words, you’re one of those lost souls, constantly seeking and never finding. And when you wer practicing Buddhism, you had the same attitude you had now – convinced you were right and everyone else was wrong.

Now, since you were wrong then (and have admitted it by no longer being a Buddhist) does it strike you you’re not likely to be right now?

I’m one of those who seeks the truth honestly wherever it is to be found instead of sticking my head in the sand with what knowledge I have by being raised a certain religion. At least I’ve had the open-mindness to look beyond the rim of my own rose-colored glasses.

I don’t believe traditional Buddhism is wrong, for the traditional wisdom teachings of Buddha are very truthful. The later sects that sprung up brought in practices that are not compatible with Judaism and Christianity. If you ever have read some of the Buddha’s writings (such as the Dhammapada) you would see there’s no contradiction in his wisdom teachings and your Catholic faith.

You see, the beautiful thing about Judaism is that all people are considered God’s children. Israel is the only one (given the opportunity) to accept the Torah from G-d (according to Rabbinic Sages) while the other nations rejected it. That doesn’t mean they are all doomed to hell. They must abide by the seven laws of Noah to be considered righteous. Therefore, Muslims and any other persons can be considered righteous in G-d’s eyes. Even if a Buddhist abided by the seven laws, he also is righteous.

You seem to have a history of pursuing faddish belief systems.

Faddish belief systems? :bigyikes: Well, considering Judaism, Paganism and Buddhism all predate Christianity, I would say that your faith is the faddish belief system.:whacky:

You say that now – let’s see what fad you’ve obsessed on six months from now.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

If evidence suggests another one, then by all means, I must follow it. Anyone who would not make their decisions based on reason and evidence is quite a fool.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

Then please enlighten us.

By your own admission, you have pursued “enlightenment” for a long time, and have not found it.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

By your own admission, you have pursued “enlightenment” for a long time, and have not found it.

quote from vern:
"There are so many errors in this post, one hardly knows where to begin."

2nd request: Please enlighten us as to the many fallacious errors in my post.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

By your own admission, you have pursued “enlightenment” for a long time, and have not found it.

please show where “enlightenment” has been part of the discussion.

 

[DianJo]

bjcros:

I don’t know what my question is I’m confused. I don’t believe the Pope has ultimate authority and I was trying to understand how he got that in catholic understanding, and other things about the catholic faith. maybe I have misconceptions about the faith but the more I learn about the Catholic the more I disagree with it.

As I understood it, you questioned why the Pope has the authority he has. The Pope has “ultimate” authority BECAUSE of the OFFICE he holds. Ultimate authority extends to his teaching on matters of faith and morals although his thoughts on many subjects are thought to carry much weight because of his “holiness” (for lack of a better term) or better, his devotion to God, his years of theologic study, and his scholarly mind and true heart demonstrated by his actions as Pope. We see him as a true role model and someone to emulate.

This ultimate authority has been held from very early in the church as evidenced in the early church writings. Sorry, I’m at work and don’t have access to these. Maybe someone else can post a few for you. Augustine was one who deferred to the Church / Pope and his position and authority.

You abviously hold to an authority - Calvin. You believe what he taught. What’s the difference? You believe in his principles. We choose to hold to the established teachings of the Apostles and those teachings have been handed down from them and from Peter - the first Pope - to the one who holds his office now and the other bishops who succeed the other Apostles. I guess I just don’t see that you should have a problem with this since you hold to Calvin’s authority (however erroneously perceived). Why would you have more of a problem with the Pope’s authority than Calvin’s. The Pope’s authority was commissioned by God Himself, Calvin’s was not. The principles taught by Calvin were never taught by Jesus or the Apostles or the early church fathers. Why would you hold to those teachings and not the ones taught directly by Jesus and the Apostles?

Are you just rejecting the Pope’s authority outright because you just don’t think he ought to have it? As I stated in a previous post, he has the authority because of the office he holds - that of Peter.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

please show where “enlightenment” has been part of the discussion.

Laddy-buck, you’ve been around the horn looking for something, and you have yet to find it.

You come up with things like this:

"Torah is a term used differently by different people. In its broad usage it refers to the Pentateuch, Writings and Prophets which are similar to the Protestant OT, not the Catholic OT."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

You advance arguments like this:

“Well, considering Judaism, Paganism and Buddhism all predate Christianity, I would say that your faith is the faddish belief system.”

You’re looking for something, and you seem frustrated that other people don’t have your rootless compulsion to flit from fad to fad.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Laddy-buck, you’ve been around the horn looking for something, and you have yet to find it.

You come up with things like this:

"Torah is a term used differently by different people. In its broad usage it refers to the Pentateuch, Writings and Prophets which are similar to the Protestant OT, not the Catholic OT."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

This info is straight from www.jewfaq.org, paraphrased of course. And it is wrong how?

You advance arguments like this:

“Well, considering Judaism, Paganism and Buddhism all predate Christianity, I would say that your faith is the faddish belief system.”

Again, show me the error. I was responding to your erroneous and arrogant view that other religions are somehow faddish belief systems - to which I am still confounded about. Show me where the argument you have now quoted from me is wrong. Is Christianity historically later than those other religions or not?

You’re looking for something, and you seem frustrated that other people don’t have your rootless compulsion to flit from fad to fad.

Others can do what they will. I become frustrated with people who don’t know me but deride me for my beliefs which differ from theirs. You continue to give empty rhetoric with your inflated ego. That’s too bad, because I sense that you are indeed an intelligent fellow who is certainly stuck on himself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

This info is straight from www.jewfaq.org, paraphrased of course. And it is wrong how?.

Get a Protestand version of the Old Testament and a Catholic version, and read the Pentateuch side-by-side. Same books, only difference would be in the translation – and translation varies between Protestant versions, too.

Silly argument.

ahimsaman72:

Again, show me the error. I was responding to your erroneous and arrogant view that other religions are somehow faddish belief systems - to which I am still confounded about. Show me where the argument you have now quoted from me is wrong. Is Christianity historically later than those other religions or not?

The fadishness is in YOU. You dash from one religion to the next, taking up the fad of the day. No doubt you will soon dabble in Wicca or Druidism.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

ahimsaman72:

Others can do what they will. I become frustrated with people who don’t know me but deride me for my beliefs which differ from theirs.

In a forum like this, one stands or falls on his own words.

ahimsaman72:

You continue to give empty rhetoric with your inflated ego. That’s too bad, because I sense that you are indeed an intelligent fellow who is certainly stuck on himself.

When one turns to name calling in gentlemanly debate, one has lost the argument.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Get a Protestand version of the Old Testament and a Catholic version, and read the Pentateuch side-by-side. Same books, only difference would be in the translation – and translation varies between Protestant versions, too.

Silly argument.

I’m not speaking of the Pentateuch. I was speaking of the Tanakh (which I referred to) as being different from the Catholic OT, which it certainly doesn’t contain Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, etc. It’s not silly.

The fadishness is in YOU. You dash from one religion to the next, taking up the fad of the day. No doubt you will soon dabble in Wicca or Druidism.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Glad to see you dodged my question on the historical nature of the world religions. Thanks - it proved my point just as well.

In a forum like this, one stands or falls on his own words.

When one turns to name calling in gentlemanly debate, one has lost the argument.

Conversely, when one turns to rhetoric in a gentlemanly debate, one has lost the argument.

Farewell old chap.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

I’m not speaking of the Pentateuch. I was speaking of the Tanakh (which I referred to) as being different from the Catholic OT, which it certainly doesn’t contain Maccabees, Judith, Baruch, etc. It’s not silly…

You were talking about the Pentateuch.

In any case, just what do the Deutrocanonical Books detract from the Bible?

ahimsaman72:

Glad to see you dodged my question on the historical nature of the world religions. Thanks - it proved my point just as well…

Glad to see you’re advancing the idea that age = validity.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

ahimsaman72:

Conversely, when one turns to rhetoric in a gentlemanly debate, one has lost the argument.

Farewell old chap.

Do I take this to mean you will not longer advance shallow arguments and personal attacks?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Tom]

The Deuterocanonicals were used extensively by Jesus and His Apostles, but we wouldn’t expect a non-christian to put credence into works, which support the claims of Jesus to be the messiah would we? The Deuterocanonicals were widely used mainly in Alexandria and are a part of the Septuagint. There are teachings of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, which are only found in these books. Many Jews of Jesus’ time didn’t believe in the resurrection, however you’ll find Jesus teachings in Maccabees, His teachings of marriage being a covenant blessed by God is nowhere in the other books of the OT, to find His teachings we need to look to Tobit, the list goes on and on.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

You were talking about the Pentateuch.

In any case, just what do the Deutrocanonical Books detract from the Bible?

Glad to see you’re advancing the idea that age = validity.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Do I take this to mean you will not longer advance shallow arguments and personal attacks?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

Wrong. Here is my direct quote:

**Torah **is a term used differently by different people. In its broad usage it refers to the Pentateuch, Writings and Prophets which are similar to the Protestant OT, not the Catholic OT. In its narrow usage it refers to the Pentateuch only (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). The whole Jewish text is referred to as the Tanakh, which is comprised of Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim. Here is a link that briefly describes this: topicguide.com/Bible.html

And again, you change the subject to make up for your lack of insight.

Glad to see you still dodged my question.

And again, farewell old chap means farewell. G-dspeed.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Tom:

The Deuterocanonicals were used extensively by Jesus and His Apostles, but we wouldn’t expect a non-christian to put credence into works, which support the claims of Jesus to be the messiah would we? The Deuterocanonicals were widely used mainly in Alexandria and are a part of the Septuagint. There are teachings of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, which are only found in these books. Many Jews of Jesus’ time didn’t believe in the resurrection, however you’ll find Jesus teachings in Maccabees, His teachings of marriage being a covenant blessed by God is nowhere in the other books of the OT, to find His teachings we need to look to Tobit, the list goes on and on.

I enjoy reading books such as Tobit. It is a fascinating story.

Peace…

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

Wrong. Here is my direct quote:

**Torah **is a term used differently by different people. In its broad usage it refers to the Pentateuch, Writings and Prophets which are similar to the Protestant OT, not the Catholic OT. In its narrow usage it refers to the Pentateuch only (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy). The whole Jewish text is referred to as the Tanakh, which is comprised of Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim. Here is a link that briefly describes this: topicguide.com/Bible.html

And again, you change the subject to make up for your lack of insight. .

Since you say “Torah,” and since you point out that PROPERLY, “Torah” is the Pentateuch, you’re wrong.

Further, if you say “Torah” is the whole of the Old Testament, you’re still wrong.

ahimsaman72:

Glad to see you still dodged my question…

Not at all – I just don’t plan to spend hours untangling your version of Von Dannikin’s “Chariots of the Gods.” One error like the one you keep harping on here is sufficient to show the whole fabric is false.

ahimsaman72:

And again, farewell old chap means farewell. G-dspeed.

Apparently not, when you say it – because you’re still back here pestering us.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif