Author Topic: The Bible Proves the Papacy  (Read 3287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #35 on: Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 14:21:51 »
Unfortunately, you are a walking contradiction.  You jump from one camp to another.  Protestant teachings and 'some' Catholic teachings. You even have said to me that you don't believe that the protestant position is heretical while concurrently there is zero unity between protestants and Catholics. 

Galatians 1:7-9  Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.  As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

You are in complete opposition with Pope Gregory XVI.

Pope Gregory XVI 1844 Inter Praecipuas

Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction.

Among the special schemes with which non-Catholics plot against the adherents of Catholic truth to turn their minds away from the faith, the biblical societies are prominent. They were first established in England and have spread far and wide so that We now see them as an army on the march, conspiring to publish in great numbers copies of the books of divine Scripture. These are translated into all kinds of vernacular languages for dissemination without discrimination among both Christians and infidels.Then the biblical societies invite everyone to read them unguided. Therefore it is just as Jerome complained in his day:[l] they make the art of understanding the Scriptures without a teacher”common to babbling old women and crazy oldmen and verbose sophists,” and to anyone who can read, no matter what his status.  Indeed, what is even more absurd and almost unheard of, they do not exclude the common people of the infidels from sharing this kind of a knowledge.

2. But you know the aim of these societies. In his sacred writings, Peter, after praising the letters of Paul, warns that in these epistles “certain things are difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable distort just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, which also leads to their destruction.” He adds at once, “Since you know this beforehand, be on your guard lest, carried away by the error of the foolish, you fall away from your own steadfastness.”[2] Hence it is clear to you that even from the first ages of Christianity this was a skill appropriate for heretics. Having repudiated the given word of God and rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, they either interpolate “by artifice” into the Scriptures or pervert “its meaning through interpretation.”[3]Nor finally are you ignorant of the diligence and knowledge required to faithfully translate into another language the words of the Lord. In the many translations from the biblical societies, serious errors are easily inserted by the great number of translators, either through ignorance or deception. These errors, because of the very number and variety of translations, are long hidden and hence lead the faithful astray. It is of little concern to these societies if men reading their vernacular Bibles fall into error. They are concerned primarily that the reader becomes accustomed to judging for himself the meaning of the books of Scripture, to scorning divine tradition preserved by the Catholic Church in the teaching of the Fathers, and to repudiating the very authority of the Church.

3. For this end the same biblical societies never cease to slander the Church and this Chair of Peter as if We have tried to keep the knowledge of sacred Scripture from the faithful.

It seems that you refuse to see the distinction between the heaven in heaven and the heaven on Earth.  God chooses His ambassador, as leader, to sit on His throne in the heaven on Earth, just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Eliacim … Peter … > .  Its God's Throne because He promises infallibility from that throne.  But He also promises to punish for disobedience by casting away His people and church. 

In fact, we can even see this foreshadow with Joseph, son of Jacob, being given authority over the whole of Egypt by the Pharaoh.

Genesis 41:41-43  And again Pharao said to Joseph: Behold, I have appointed thee over the whole land of Egypt. [42] And he took his ring from his own hand, and gave it into his hand: and he put upon him a robe of silk, and put a chain of gold about his neck. [43] And he made him go up into his second chariot, the crier proclaiming that all should bow their knee before him, and that they should know he was made governor over the whole land of Egypt.

You are showing yourself to be obstinate and so I can not help you.  You choose your own understanding just like Pope Gregory XVI stated instead of the Catholic teachings of the Catholic church.

Thronethe chair of state of a sovereign or high dignitary (such as a bishop)

As usual Isaias, you make no attempt to refute what I actually say.

You just go off somewhere else. And you go off in the typical Protestant way by quoting Gal 1:7-9

You argument is basically.
You pervert the gospel.
Paul warned us that people would pervert the gospel (Gal 1:7-9)
There - proved from scripture. ::doh::

One more time. Try answering my actual argument

In 1Kings 9:3-8 God said to Solomon
The LORD said to him: “I have heard the prayer of petition which you offered in my presence. I have consecrated this temple which you have built; I confer my name upon it forever, and my eyes and my heart shall be there always. As for you, if you live in my presence as your father David lived, sincerely and uprightly, doing just as I have commanded you, keeping my statutes and decrees, I will establish your throne of sovereignty over Israel forever, as I promised your father David when I said, ‘You shall always have someone from your line on the throne of Israel.’ But if you and your descendants ever withdraw from me, fail to keep the commandments and statutes which I set before you, and proceed to venerate and worship strange gods, I will cut off Israel from the land I gave them and repudiate the temple I have consecrated to my honour. Israel shall become a proverb and a byword among all nations, and this temple shall become a heap of ruins.

This happened when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem. They took away the last King of Judah and he died in exile. They destroyed the Temple.

However God had also promised that someone from David's line would sit on David's throne for ever. The promise was fulfilled in Jesus
And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Lk 1:30-33)

The Pope does not come from the line of David. Jesus did
The Pope does not sit on David's throne. Jesus does.

The promises were made and kept. There is no application to anyone else.
 
« Last Edit: Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 14:24:20 by winsome »

Offline Isaias

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #36 on: Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 16:04:22 »
As usual Isaias, you make no attempt to refute what I actually say.

You just go off somewhere else. And you go off in the typical Protestant way by quoting Gal 1:7-9

You argument is basically.
You pervert the gospel.
Paul warned us that people would pervert the gospel (Gal 1:7-9)
There - proved from scripture. ::doh::

One more time. Try answering my actual argument

In 1Kings 9:3-8 God said to Solomon
The LORD said to him: “I have heard the prayer of petition which you offered in my presence. I have consecrated this temple which you have built; I confer my name upon it forever, and my eyes and my heart shall be there always. As for you, if you live in my presence as your father David lived, sincerely and uprightly, doing just as I have commanded you, keeping my statutes and decrees, I will establish your throne of sovereignty over Israel forever, as I promised your father David when I said, ‘You shall always have someone from your line on the throne of Israel.’ But if you and your descendants ever withdraw from me, fail to keep the commandments and statutes which I set before you, and proceed to venerate and worship strange gods, I will cut off Israel from the land I gave them and repudiate the temple I have consecrated to my honour. Israel shall become a proverb and a byword among all nations, and this temple shall become a heap of ruins.

This happened when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem. They took away the last King of Judah and he died in exile. They destroyed the Temple.

However God had also promised that someone from David's line would sit on David's throne for ever. The promise was fulfilled in Jesus
And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Lk 1:30-33)

The Pope does not come from the line of David. Jesus did
The Pope does not sit on David's throne. Jesus does.

The promises were made and kept. There is no application to anyone else.

Oh! so the temple was not rebuilt and there were no leaders over the rebuilt temple and that the rebuilt temple in the book of Machabees was not profaned and defiled by King Antiochus, with false altars over and against the true altar of God, just like in the days of the past. 

Ecclesiasticus 49:15 "And let Nehemias be a long time remembered, who raised up for us our walls that were cast down, and set up the gates and the bars, who rebuilt our houses."

Matthew 1:11-16 [11] And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. [12] And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. [13] And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. [14] And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. [15] And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob.  And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Edras 2:1-2 [1] Now these are the children of the province, that went out of the captivity, which Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Juda, every man to his city. [2] Who came with Zorobabel, Josue, Nehemia, Saraia, Rahelaia, Mardochai, Belsan, Mesphar, Beguai, Rehum, Baana.

Wow!  At this point, I choose not to dance with someone like you. 

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 14076
  • Manna: 333
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #37 on: Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 16:35:54 »
Wow!  At this point, I choose not to dance with someone like you.
That is probably a wise move  --  at least until you take a few dance lessons.  ::smile::

Offline Isaias

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #38 on: Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 16:41:30 »
That is probably a wise move  --  at least until you take a few dance lessons.  ::smile::

Ah! but not from protestants though.  Just a little levity. ::smile::

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7005
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #39 on: Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 19:01:10 »
Yes, the bible does prove the papacy. It proves that she is BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Offline Isaias

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #40 on: Fri Feb 23, 2018 - 19:47:34 »
Yes, the bible does prove the papacy. It proves that she is BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

No, you are still confused.  In the end times, which is now, Rome becomes pagan again.  St. Peter gives a clue to this, for the end times, its like a secret prophecy. 

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.

The buildings are taken over by faithless men of the vatican II sect, in Rome, St. Peter's Basilica.  St. Jude and St. John allude to this.

Jude 1:4  For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 10:1-2,10  Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. [2] But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. … The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

Offline Amo

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7005
  • Manna: 76
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #41 on: Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 04:48:49 »
No, you are still confused.  In the end times, which is now, Rome becomes pagan again.  St. Peter gives a clue to this, for the end times, its like a secret prophecy. 

1 Peter 5:13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.

The buildings are taken over by faithless men of the vatican II sect, in Rome, St. Peter's Basilica.  St. Jude and St. John allude to this.

Jude 1:4  For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

John 10:1-2,10  Amen, amen I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. [2] But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. … The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

No, you are confused. Once Rome amalgamated apostate "Christianity" and paganism she never departed from the same. The Protestant Reformation was about her rejection of all attempts to reform her paganized doctrines and practices and bring her back to bible teaching. Today she is simply expanding her relations with all the kings and religions of the earth to regain the power she lost in the past on a global scale. Her deadly wound is being healed and all the world will once again wonder after the beast which is ridden by the Harlot of the book of Revelation, which is the Church of Rome.

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.



Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #42 on: Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 09:05:05 »
Oh! so the temple was not rebuilt and there were no leaders over the rebuilt temple and that the rebuilt temple in the book of Machabees was not profaned and defiled by King Antiochus, with false altars over and against the true altar of God, just like in the days of the past. 

Ecclesiasticus 49:15 "And let Nehemias be a long time remembered, who raised up for us our walls that were cast down, and set up the gates and the bars, who rebuilt our houses."

Matthew 1:11-16 [11] And Josias begot Jechonias and his brethren in the transmigration of Babylon. [12] And after the transmigration of Babylon, Jechonias begot Salathiel. And Salathiel begot Zorobabel. [13] And Zorobabel begot Abiud. And Abiud begot Eliacim. And Eliacim begot Azor. [14] And Azor begot Sadoc. And Sadoc begot Achim. And Achim begot Eliud. [15] And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob.  And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Edras 2:1-2 [1] Now these are the children of the province, that went out of the captivity, which Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Juda, every man to his city. [2] Who came with Zorobabel, Josue, Nehemia, Saraia, Rahelaia, Mardochai, Belsan, Mesphar, Beguai, Rehum, Baana.

Wow!  At this point, I choose not to dance with someone like you.

And once again the slippery Isaias avoids answering the points I made.

The Pope does not come from the line of David. Jesus did
The Pope does not sit on David's throne. Jesus does.

The promises were made and kept. There is no application to anyone else.
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 11:02:32 by winsome »

Offline Isaias

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
  • Manna: 0
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #43 on: Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 18:14:46 »
And once again the slippery Isaias avoids answering the points I made.

The Pope does not come from the line of David. Jesus did
The Pope does not sit on David's throne. Jesus does.

The promises were made and kept. There is no application to anyone else.


You don't have any points!!

Here are the fruits of your counterfeit catholic church!

Chileans lose faith as Vatican scrambles to contain sex abuse scandal   February 23, 2018
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/chileans-lose-faith-vatican-scrambles-contain-sex-abuse-040738050.html

Jude 1:4,7,8  For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, … As Sodom and Gomorrha,… having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh,… In like manner these men also defile the flesh,

Prophecy of Osee [Hosea] 4:14 I will not visit upon your daughters when they shall commit fornication, and upon your spouses when they shall commit adultery: because themselves conversed with harlots, and offered sacrifice with the effeminate, and the people that doth not understand shall be beaten.

Prophecy of Isaias 3:8-9  For Jerusalem is ruined, and Juda is fallen: because their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty.  The shew of their countenance hath answered them: and they have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it: woe to their souls, for evils are rendered to them.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/23_Seminaries.pdf
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/22_SScandal.pdf
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 24, 2018 - 19:01:02 by Isaias »

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #44 on: Sun Feb 25, 2018 - 06:06:27 »
You don't have any points!!

Here are the fruits of your counterfeit catholic church!

Chileans lose faith as Vatican scrambles to contain sex abuse scandal   February 23, 2018
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/chileans-lose-faith-vatican-scrambles-contain-sex-abuse-040738050.html

Jude 1:4,7,8  For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, … As Sodom and Gomorrha,… having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh,… In like manner these men also defile the flesh,

Prophecy of Osee [Hosea] 4:14 I will not visit upon your daughters when they shall commit fornication, and upon your spouses when they shall commit adultery: because themselves conversed with harlots, and offered sacrifice with the effeminate, and the people that doth not understand shall be beaten.

Prophecy of Isaias 3:8-9  For Jerusalem is ruined, and Juda is fallen: because their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty.  The shew of their countenance hath answered them: and they have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it: woe to their souls, for evils are rendered to them.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/23_Seminaries.pdf
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/22_SScandal.pdf


Of course I have made points. You just can't answer them because they destroy your false claims.

So you resort to irrelevant scripture quotations.

The Pope does not come from the line of David. Jesus did
The Pope does not sit on David's throne. Jesus does.

The promises were made and kept. There is no application to anyone else.

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #45 on: Mon Feb 26, 2018 - 01:02:28 »
Of course I have made points. You just can't answer them because they destroy your false claims.

So you resort to irrelevant scripture quotations.

The Pope does not come from the line of David. Jesus did
The Pope does not sit on David's throne. Jesus does.

The promises were made and kept. There is no application to anyone else.
The Pope reigns in Rome on Peter's throne, right? Like Isaias, I am confused about this. The line of royal succession went from David to Jesus to Peter ? It is not likely that Peter was also of the bloodline of David, but maybe Jesus passed a different throne on to Peter, an earthly throne, more like David's, and then Peter passed it on ... but no, that's not the way it works. The Cardinals elect whoever sits on Peter's throne. I will admit, I am thoroughly confused.

Offline RB

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11050
  • Manna: 424
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #46 on: Mon Feb 26, 2018 - 03:29:15 »
The Pope reigns in Rome on Peter's throne, right? Like Isaias, I am confused about this. The line of royal succession went from David to Jesus to Peter ? It is not likely that Peter was also of the bloodline of David, but maybe Jesus passed a different throne on to Peter, an earthly throne, more like David's, and then Peter passed it on ... but no, that's not the way it works. The Cardinals elect whoever sits on Peter's throne. I will admit, I am thoroughly confused.
Brother you NOT confused, your reasoning has you going toward truth, NOT away from the truth. ALL are living under chains of darkness that believe and teach that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built upon.

The church is built upon the DIVINE REVELATION that Jesus said was given TO PETER from heaven so that he KNEW Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and sent by Him

Let it be said in all boldness that all are badly deceived by their own hearts whoever believes that God's holy temple is built by human hands, how great are they deceived who believe this lie! Selah.
Quote from: Jesus, the Son of the living God
Matthew 16:13-19"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
The two but's are worthy of our attention and even more so the phrase~"this rock"....THIS referring back to what Jesus had said to Peter.....
Quote
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven
The Godhead has from the beginning of time built God's holy temple without hands or any means thereof by divine revelation from heaven~ And to THIS CHURCH the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. They alone have the two keys of TRUTH and to them has been given the power to lose and to blind.

So with that understanding, we who know the truth blind all who believes that the church is under the control/leadership of any man other than the written word of God and its Author, the Spirit of the living God.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 26, 2018 - 03:31:23 by RB »

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #47 on: Mon Feb 26, 2018 - 04:06:57 »
The Pope reigns in Rome on Peter's throne, right? Like Isaias, I am confused about this. The line of royal succession went from David to Jesus to Peter ? It is not likely that Peter was also of the bloodline of David, but maybe Jesus passed a different throne on to Peter, an earthly throne, more like David's, and then Peter passed it on ... but no, that's not the way it works. The Cardinals elect whoever sits on Peter's throne. I will admit, I am thoroughly confused.

I think you are confused because Isaias is confusing you.

You are right, the royal line of David went from David to Jesus.

Peter, and his successors, are the vicars of Christ. They are the head of the Catholic Church on earth, under Christ.

They have a seat or chair (latin sedes). Another latin term for chair is cathedra. (from which we get Cathedral)

When a Pope gives an authoritative, infallible pronouncement it said they give it ex-cathedra, 'from the chair'. It doesn't mean he actually sits in a literal chair but it represents their position and authority.

The Pope does not reign, only a Monarch does that. The Pope is not a monarch although some claim that the structure has some monarchical characteristics.

Groups like the one Isaias belongs to (and there are others) claim that there is currently no valid Pope. They are known as sedevacantists - the chair (sedes) is vacant. As they are not in communion with the Pope (Francis), they are not members of the Catholic Church.

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #48 on: Mon Feb 26, 2018 - 23:56:49 »
So the Pope is not considered a monarch and does not have a throne. I get you. I think I have heard or read where Peter's seat is referred to as a throne, but I will take your word as being accurate. Thanks.


AVZ

  • Guest
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #49 on: Tue Feb 27, 2018 - 03:36:53 »
So the Pope is not considered a monarch and does not have a throne. I get you. I think I have heard or read where Peter's seat is referred to as a throne, but I will take your word as being accurate. Thanks.

Actually the Pope is a monarch, he is king of Vatican City which is a sovereign state.
He also has a throne, the same way the other kings and queens have a throne.
Since the Pope is elected, and the king is all powerful, the Pope is an elected absolute non-hereditary monarch.

You can find all info here: https://youtu.be/OPHRIjI3hXs
Really entertaining clip that explains it all in a few minutes.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #50 on: Tue Feb 27, 2018 - 05:06:22 »
So the Pope is not considered a monarch and does not have a throne. I get you. I think I have heard or read where Peter's seat is referred to as a throne, but I will take your word as being accurate. Thanks.

I've looked up throne up a bit more.
According to the Collins Dictionary it says:

1. A throne is a decorative chair used by a king, queen, or emperor on important official occasions.

Under throne in British it says:
 1. the ceremonial seat occupied by a monarch, bishop, etc on occasions of state

Under throne in American it says:
1. the chair on which a king, cardinal, etc. sits on formal or ceremonial occasions: it usually is on a dais, covered with a canopy, and highly decorated

So, it can be used for a ceremonial seat for a bishop (and the Pope is the bishop of Rome) but that is not a normal usage.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the derivation is:
   Middle English: from Old French trone, via Latin from Greek thronos 'elevated seat'.

According to the online etymological dictionary the origin is given as
c. 1200, trone, "the seat of God or a saint in heaven;" c. 1300 as "seat occupied by a sovereign," from Old French trone (12c., Modern French trône), from Latin thronus, from Greek thronos "elevated seat, chair, throne," from suffixed form of PIE root *dher- "to hold firmly, support" (source also of Latin firmus "firm, steadfast, strong, stable," Sanskrit dharma "statute, law"). From late 14c. as a symbol of royal power. Colloquial meaning "toilet" is recorded from 1922. The classical -h- begins to appear in English from late 14c.

You probably didn't want to know all that but I found it interesting.  ::smile::

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #51 on: Tue Feb 27, 2018 - 08:36:27 »
Actually the Pope is a monarch, he is king of Vatican City which is a sovereign state.
He also has a throne, the same way the other kings and queens have a throne.
Since the Pope is elected, and the king is all powerful, the Pope is an elected absolute non-hereditary monarch.

You can find all info here: https://youtu.be/OPHRIjI3hXs
Really entertaining clip that explains it all in a few minutes.
Good video done with restraint and good taste.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #52 on: Tue Feb 27, 2018 - 12:17:13 »
Good video done with restraint and good taste.
 

 
 I have AVZ on ignore.
 
 The video is funny but not accurate. In order to try and pretend the Pope is king they have to invent a unique new category of "non-hereditary monarch"
 
 A sovereign state does not mean it has a king. USA is a sovereign state but it doesn't have a king.


Moreover Vatican City only became a sovereign state in 1929. So did the Pope suddenly become a king then?
The whole thing is absurd but typical of AVZ.
 
 The official titles of the Pope are:

Papal Titles:
- His Holiness The Pope;
- Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
- Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
- Supreme Pontiff Of The UniversalChurch;
- Patriarch Of The West;
- Servant Of The Servants Of God;
- Primate Of Italy;
- Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The RomanProvince;
- Sovereign Of Vatican CityState;
(courtesy EWTN)

here is a link to the website of the Vatican state
http://www.vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en.html
Can you find where the Catholic Church says the Pope is a king?

KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #53 on: Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 04:37:46 »
In the Greek there is not just a distinction between the masculine and feminine, but in the meanings themselves. Rock and stone or pebble. Read it from Matthew 15 on, it is obviously saying that the truth that Jesus is Christ will be the rock that the church is built on. It is a manipulation, trying to redefine the meaning of the excerpt by saying there is no distinction in the language it was written in, to redirect the conversation away from what the passage actually says.

If Peter was Bishop of Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD according to RCC, why did Paul write the letter to the Romans? Read Romans 1:7.

If Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, how could he meet Paul in Jerusalem in 42 AD, and then back in Jerusalem again in 43 AD, and in 56 AD have a dispute with Paul in Antioch about 800 miles from Rome, it appears Peter was not in Rome when RCC declare he was, Can you say that RCC is in error over the time Peter supposedly was in Rome, or has the Bible got it all mixed up?

If Peter was in Rome during those years, why when Paul was greeting 27 eminent people in Rome and greet them by name, did he not once mention Peter ~ Romans 16.

Peter is not the rock, because the 12 disciples, knowing well the OT, recognised the Rock as a description or name for God. Duet32:4,Psalms18:2,Psalm18:31

If Peter has the Power to forgive sins as the RCC declares, why did Peter not use this power to forgive Simon the Sorcerer, but told him to Repent and pray to God for forgiveness Acts 8: 18-24.


No mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this fact. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church.   There is no evidence for the Papacy from Peter himself.


To err is human, to be infallible is divine (Romans 3:23). Peter deserted Christ in His passion, and did not assist Him in Golgotha. Peter described himself as an elder, witness and partaker, servant, and apostle (1 and 2 Peter) but never the first Pope, Prince of the apostles, or Head of the Church. Jesus Christ, not mortal and sinful man, is the only head of His Church (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians.1:18).

"you are petros ( a small pebble) and upon this petra ( a massive rock) I shall build My church....." Christ built His church upon Himself, upon the faith Peter had and upon our faith in Christ. Not Peter the person.

Christ asks Simon who He was and he replies "you are the missiah the Christ" and Christ responds by saying well done Simon for this truth did not to you from men but from God. You will be called (in Greek) petros (a pebble) and on this Petra (rock) I will build my church. what Christ was saying is that He is the foundation, He is the corner stone to the Church.

He is also the stone that the builders reject as useless that turned out to be the most important of all and nobody can lay any other.

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,which is Jesus Christ."1 Corinthians 3:11

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:19-20

"Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," 1 Peter 2:6-7,

"This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:11

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [Jesus referring to Himself and NOT to Peter] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

"And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

Jesus himself said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). In Matt. 16:13-20, Jesus asked his disciples a very important question, “Who do you say that I am?” Jesus is asking the key question of the Bible: he is asking us to correctly identify him. This is the question that inspects the very foundation of the Christian faith. If we do not now who the real Jesus is, then we can not be saved. We can not get to the true Heaven with a false Jesus. The real Jesus of the Bible is the true foundation (rock) of the Christian faith. He is the rock of salvation. Even Peter claimed that Jesus is the rock, the cornerstone that the builders rejected (Acts 4:10 & 1 Peter 2:1-6). Paul says, “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ... ‘the rock was Christ.’”(1 Cor. 3:11 &10:4).



Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #54 on: Tue Apr 17, 2018 - 06:25:47 »

If Peter was Bishop of Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD according to RCC, why did Paul write the letter to the Romans? Read Romans 1:7.

If Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, how could he meet Paul in Jerusalem in 42 AD, and then back in Jerusalem again in 43 AD, and in 56 AD have a dispute with Paul in Antioch about 800 miles from Rome, it appears Peter was not in Rome when RCC declare he was, Can you say that RCC is in error over the time Peter supposedly was in Rome, or has the Bible got it all mixed up?

If Peter was in Rome during those years, why when Paul was greeting 27 eminent people in Rome and greet them by name, did he not once mention Peter ~ Romans 16.


No mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this fact. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church. 

There is a good explanation for this but as you are not interested in explanations, only in ranting against the Catholic Church, there is no point in wasting time giving it.



KiwiChristian

  • Guest
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #55 on: Thu Apr 19, 2018 - 04:02:14 »
Who was the first person to REFER TO HIMSELF with a papal title?


Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5612
  • Manna: 94
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #56 on: Thu Apr 19, 2018 - 08:53:26 »
Who was the first person to REFER TO HIMSELF with a papal title?

As you have me in ignore there is no point in answering this silly question.

Offline TheMatrixHasU71

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 41
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Female
  • Quo Vadis Domine
Re: The Bible Proves the Papacy
« Reply #57 on: Sat Jun 02, 2018 - 09:24:25 »
FRiend your bible posts do nothing AT ALL to prove the papacy. Nor do they even prove that Peter, a JEW who would never adopt a pagan title, was ever anywhere near Rome. The only true Vicar of Christ is the Holy Ghost not ever any man