If the Bible is a Catholic book...

[KiwiChristian]

To which I replied
Here's why:
Luke 11:27-28. "As he said this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!' But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'"

Two points

1.  Nowhere in those verses is the word adore or adoration. It says "blessed"

THATS THE POINT.

2. Jesus is not denying the blessedness of Mary. If he did he would be contradicting the word of God.

Oh, mary WAS blessed. There is no argument there. She was blessed AMONG women, not blessed ABOVE women. Remember Matthew 11:11 which shows that John the BAPTIST was greater than mary! "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:"

Also, mary is hardly even mentioned in the NT and Jesus never even recognized her as His mother.

Elizabeth said:
"Most blessed are you among women." (Lk 1:42)

Amen! Mary WAS blessed among women.

"And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord." (Lk 1:45)

Terrible translation. "And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord."

Again, i agree she was blessed.


Mary said "henceforth all generations will call me blessed" Lk 1:48)

Is that a comment or command?

And, yes, she was blessed. THATS NOT THE ISSUE!

[KiwiChristian]

KiwiChristian,

I would like to continue this discussion but I'm having a lot of problems with posting. I keep crashing out when I post or modify a post.

I've raised this in the "Forum Issues and User Help" section. But if it can't be sorted I'm giving up on this forum.

I have posted on other forums and have no problems so it's something to do with this one.

Thats fine, my friend.

I too have difficulty with this format or layout and prefer to examine one topic at a time.

[KiwiChristian]

Explain.

It is easy to equivocate on words without granting that we both know what we mean and ignoring the topic.


Those to whom Jesus Christ gave his teaching and the authority to do so, and those to whom they in turn passed on that teaching and authority.

Ahh, CHRISTIANS.


You can see how it works in Paul's letters to Timothy.

He says to Timothy Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (2Tim 1:13)
Paul has given Timothy sound teaching.

"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."

Yes, paul taught timothy. your point?


"Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us." (2Tim 1:14)
Timothy is to be a guardian of the truth that has been entrusted to him. He is to do this with the help of the Holy Spirit.


ALL Christians are to do this, though.

Then Paul instructs Timothy to pass this precious treasure of teaching on to others.
"You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus; and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well." (2Tim 2:1-2)

Of course, ALL Christians must present the gospel to others. Something, i might add i hardly see the rcc doing.


So Timothy in his turn is to entrust what he has been given to faithful people. Not just preaching to others but to pass on in trust this teaching to others he can be sure will guard it in their turn. Then they will be able to teach others as well.

Yes, ALL Christians should do this.


Thus we have four generations – Paul – Timothy – those to whom Timothy entrusts the teaching – those who they pass it on to in turn.

So? We see those directly taught by the apostles falling into apostasy and teaching false doctrines. Who is to say this "line" of yours is any different?

The Catholic Church came before the Bible.

Yes, but not the roman catholic "church" that you are a member of. The Roman Catholic "Church" was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.  The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire.  Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its false claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

The early church as described in the NT did the following: shared all things in common, relationships, support missionaries/ministers, teaching & preaching, praying, worshiping, reading of scripture, evangelism, fostering spiritual gifts. No where does the NT dictate fancy buildings, robes, repetitive prayer, a priesthood, Mary worship, sectarianism, or any order of service, etc.. all these are MAN MADE traditions ADDED ON.

The true church isn't catholic or protestant. It doesn't have a mailing address or a zip code. It is the body of believers in Jesus Christ the world over. Christ has written their names in the book of life. Christ knows who His friends are.


Jesus passed on his teaching to the apostles before a word of the NT was written. We don't START with the Bible.

But we DO start with what they left us! The Bible. And PLEASE dont lets get into the "the catholic "church" gave you the Bible" nonsense.

Remember, JESUS quoted the old testament.

[winsome]

Is that a comment or command?

And, yes, she was blessed. THATS NOT THE ISSUE!

The issue is that you claimed:

If the Bible is a Catholic book,

2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).

And Luke 11:27-28 does NOT teach against the adoration of Mary.

Your claim is FALSE

[winsome]

But we DO start with what they left us! The Bible. And PLEASE dont lets get into the "the catholic "church" gave you the Bible" nonsense.

Remember, JESUS quoted the old testament.

But we don't start with the Bible.

Jesus quoted from what we call the Old Testament. But remember that the Jews disagreed with what writings were canon and what were not. The Jews hadn't closed their canon in Jesus time. The Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch.

Jesus and the apostles left us more than what we now call the NT.
And it was the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible we have now, or least what Cathoilics have now. It was Martin Luther who gave Protestants the cut down version they use.

It took almost 400 years before the NT canon was finally agreed.

P.S. I know it's hard work on this forum but if you can't spend the time formatting replies properly I won't spend time commenting on your replies.

[winsome]

Thats fine, my friend.

I too have difficulty with this format or layout and prefer to examine one topic at a time.

One topic at a time?

Is that why you posted 14 false or misleading claims all at once in the OP?

[winsome]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

If the Bible is a Catholic book,

4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).

To which I replied:

It doesn't

Here's why:
(Gal. 4:9-11).  "but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and destitute elemental powers? Do you want to be slaves to them all over again? You are observing days, months, seasons, and years. I am afraid on your account that perhaps I have laboured for you in vain."

Paul is not condemning the observance of special days per se, but is condemning those who are Judaising by putting themselves back under the Law of Moses. Read chapter 3.

He addresses them in verse 21: "Tell me, you who want to be under the law...."

Paul tells us not to judge others and says:

"Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath." (Col 2:16)

And says:
"Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord." (Rom 14:6)

[winsome]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

If the Bible is a Catholic book,

8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).

To which I replied:

It doesn't

Here's why:

Matt 23:9 "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven"

Do you see the word 'address' there?
No. It says call.

If addressing men as father was forbidden then:
why did Jesus refer to "our fathers" and "your fathers" a few verses later (vs 30 &32)?
why does Jesus have the rich man address Abraham as "father" (Lk 16:24)?
why Stephen address "fathers" and refer to "father Abraham" (Acts 7:2)?
why did John address men as "fathers" (1Jn 2:13)?
And there are more examples I could give.

Another false claim exposed.

Perhaps you should read your Bible more - especially Exodus 20:16

[winsome]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

If the Bible is a Catholic book,

12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).

To which I replied:

It doesn't

Here's why:
Luke 22:24-27. "Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves."

The Bible doesn't oppose the primacy of Peter.
There are numerous Bible texts that clearly show the primacy of Peter.
This text condemns those who put themselves forward and claim greatness for themselves.

In the case of Peter, his primacy was bestowed on him by Jesus.

Jesus said to Peter
"You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Kephas (which is translated Peter)." (Jn 1:42)
To no other apostle did Jesus give a new name

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,..." (Mt 16:19)
To no other apostles did he give the keys to the kingdom of heaven

".....and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:19)
To no other apostle did he give individually the power of binding and loosing

"Feed my lambs.......Tend my sheep........Feed my sheep" Jn 21:15-17)
To no other apostle did he give that commission

"...strengthen your brothers." (Lk 22:32)
To no other apostle did he give that commission

Another false claim exposed.

Perhaps you should stop cutting and pasting from bigoted anti-Catholic web sites and do your own homework.

[KiwiChristian]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

To which I replied:

Here's why:
Luke 22:24-27. "Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves."

You really need to get a better translation.
"And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."
Now would of been an excellent time for Jesus to say that PETER was the head. And yet, He did not. Even PETER never referred to himself with any authority. In fact, who was the first person to refer to himself with a papal title? ( I have worded this question very deliberatly and carefully. Please read it slowly. )
The Bible doesn't oppose the primacy of Peter.

Of course it does.

There are numerous Bible texts that clearly show the primacy of Peter.

Really? Like when he NEVER referred to himself with any title or authority, actually saying the REVERSE?

This text condemns those who put themselves forward and claim greatness for themselves.

I need to go back and forth to see what you are referring to as it does not show up when quoting/replying. VERY annoying.

But, does your comment NOT pertain to your "holy father", "sweet Christ on earth", "God on earth", etc.?

In the case of Peter, his primacy was bestowed on him by Jesus.

Jesus said to Peter
"You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Kephas (which is translated Peter)." (Jn 1:42)
To no other apostle did Jesus give a new name

Again, a terrible translation. "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."

Just because peter was given certain tasks or abilities either first or only means nothing about his primacy. He was REBUKED by paul openly remember for teaching FALSE doctrine.

Every apostle had roles and tasks.

Sorry, i am going to leave this one here as trying to reply and quote on this forum is hard for me.

Perhaps you should stop cutting and pasting from bigoted anti-Catholic web sites and do your own homework.

Huh? Perhaps you should not listen to your anti-Christian pope and "priests"? Lets not stoop and play the "anti" label because i can say that catholicism is "anti-Christian". ok? it is very offensive to label something "anti" just because you dont agree with it. the mormons do the same thing.

[KiwiChristian]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

To which I replied:

Here's why:

Matt 23:9 "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven"

Do you see the word 'address' there?
No. It says call.

Really? You are equivocating on words?

If addressing men as father was forbidden then:
why did Jesus refer to "our fathers" and "your fathers" a few verses later (vs 30 &32)?
why does Jesus have the rich man address Abraham as "father" (Lk 16:24)?
why Stephen address "fathers" and refer to "father Abraham" (Acts 7:2)?
why did John address men as "fathers" (1Jn 2:13)?
And there are more examples I could give.

Sigh. You really are ignorant of Scripture, aren't you.

Those passages are using the word "father" in a descriptive sense, not as a TITLE as in "holy father". BTW: can you show me all those who ARE called "holy father" in the Bible? Do you dare?


Another false claim exposed.

Nope, not at all, another of your false, private interpretations of Scripture exposed.

Perhaps you should read your Bible more - especially Exodus 20:16

Perhaps you should read ALL the Bible IN CONTEXT, and not rely on your "holy father" or "priests" to interpret it for you?


Now you are really p'ing me off. Let us both stop with the snide personal attacks and ad hominems, ok?

[winsome]

Perhaps you should read ALL the Bible IN CONTEXT, and not rely on your "holy father" or "priests" to interpret it for you?


Now you are really p'ing me off. Let us both stop with the snide personal attacks and ad hominems, ok?

You p*ss me off!

You copy and paste some "list of Catholic errors" that probably took about 2 minutes to do. Then you expect a Catholic to spend hours researching answers.

And when I look up the references that your copy and paste effort gives they just don't show what they claim to show.

Then you can't even format your replies properly and expect me to try and make sense of them.

Then you continually make derogatory remarks about the Catholic Church without any evidence to back them up - contrary to rule 1.3

Then you complain about the translation I use. Are you a Greek expert?
Are you telling me which translation I have to use to converse with you?

[winsome]

Really? You are equivocating on words?

No I'm not the one equivocating on words.

Even your beloved KJV says CALL
"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven"
Perhaps you should read your Bible more closely.

[winsome]

In the case of Peter, his primacy was bestowed on him by Jesus.

Jesus said to Peter
"You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Kephas (which is translated Peter)." (Jn 1:42)
To no other apostle did Jesus give a new name

Again, a terrible translation. "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."

I've noticed that when Protestants argue with Catholics there is an imbalance in the rules that Protestants lay down:

If a Protestant puts forward (for example) 5 points or scriptures, the Catholic has to refute each one of them in detail.

If a Catholic puts forward 5 points or scriptures, the Protestant only has to make some sort of answer to one of them (no matter how weak) and all 5 are assumed to have been solidly refuted.

I gave you 5 examples of Jesus giving a special commission to Peter. You make a weak reply to one of them complaining it's a poor translation (when actually the KJV is the terrible one) and you think - that's it, all refuted.
RUBBISH! You haven't even started.

I've more on Peter's primacy.
Do you want to it  -or will you just ignore it or just make another fatuous comment ?

[winsome]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

If the Bible is a Catholic book,

7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).

To which I replied:

It doesn't

Here's why:
(Col2:12). "and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.."

Where does Col 2:12 teach Baptism is either by immersion or pouring?

Col 2 teaches us many things but none of them are about the method of Baptism.

There is only one place in the Bible that teaches about the method of baptism and that is Mt 28:19 where it tells us the form of words to be used in baptism.

Another false claim exposed.

[winsome]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

If the Bible is a Catholic book,

13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).

To which I replied:

It doesn't

Here's why:
(Luke 16:26). "And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.' "

What has that to do with Purgatory?

Answer:- Absolutely NOTHING.

Another false claim exposed.

[RB]

The Bible says scripture is useful (or profitable) - 2Tim 3:16. It does not say it is solely sufficient. No Catholic doctrine (properly understood) contradicts scripture (properly interpreted).

You are wrong on both statements.

If the Bible is a Catholic book...

No, it is neither Catholic, EOC, Baptist, Church of Christ, or any other sect under heaven~the scriptures are the words of the Living God given to his elect:

2nd Timothy 3:17~"That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Man of God, meaning ALL of God's children.

It does not say it is solely sufficient.

It most certianly is, that is your added intrepretation.

I will add this: I DO believe that God's has children in many different groups of believers JUST AS the Devil has sown his tares among the wheat.

Btw, believers outside of Catholicism are NOT Protestants~since true believers have NEVER protested any truths but they ALONE defend them.

I'm posting NOT to defend any person who have posted above in this thread, but here to defend God's word, which believers alone live by per Jesus' words from Matthew 4:4

I too miss Andre~a good man that loves God who happens to be a Catholic, just needs to be converted more perfectly, much like Nicodemus. Pride does not allow men to judge men righteously, but rather if they believe as "I DO"!

[winsome]

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:16-17)

Let's look at this in more detail
   
"All scripture is inspired by God".
This does not say that scripture is the only thing that is inspired by God.

"and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,".
This says that scripture is useful not solely sufficient.
 
"so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work"
Scripture is a good tool to help us to live out the gospel but it does not say nothing else is useful or necessary.


(Or do I have to use the KJV?)

[winsome]

RB,

Can I also point out that you are taking 2Tim 3:16-17 out of context.

Firstly when Paul refers to a man of God he specifically means Timothy. In 1Tim 6:11 he writes "But as for you, man of God...". You need to be very careful about generalising.

Secondly when he refers to scripture he is referring to the Old Testament. Paul writes "how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writing ". And who did he learn them from? "I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you." (2Tim 3:5). This is the Jewish sacred writing - the Old Testament.

Paul also writes "You then, my child, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus;  and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well." (2Tim 2:1-2)
and
Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me (2Tim 1:13)

What Timothy know about Jesus Christ he has learned from Paul- orally - Sacred Tradition. And he is to pass all that oral Tradition on to others; entrust it to them. No mention of writing it down.

So when Paul tells Timothy  "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. he cannot mean that scripture alone (in Timothy's case the OT alone) is solely sufficient. It wasn't sufficient for Timothy. He needed Paul's "sound teaching" as well.

Can I remind you what you once said on this forum:

There is a rule that we cannot over look, and that is: Our interpretation must agree with the context. We must remember this law: A text used out of context is a pretext. We cannot violate this law; and we must learn to spot it.

A.  A text: Is a word, clause, verse, paragraph, chapter, or a book you are seeking to interpret.

B. Context: Is the surrounding information, which shows the writer's meaning by the text.

C. Out of context: Is using words and their sound contrary to the surrounding information.

C.  A pretext: Is false and incorrect impression designed to hide or disguise the real intent.

Using a verse contrary to its context gives a misleading and deceitful sound of words to teach something the writer did not intend and/or is not true.  We should hate this abuse of words!

I thought that was good - so I kept it.

[KiwiChristian]

The issue is that you claimed:

And Luke 11:27-28 does NOT teach against the adoration of Mary.

Your claim is FALSE

No, your personal interpretation of the passage is the thing that is FALSE.

[KiwiChristian]

Let's look at another of your false claims in the OP

To which I replied:

Here's why:
Luke 22:24-27. "Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves."

The Bible doesn't oppose the primacy of Peter.

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.


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

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.

[KiwiChristian]

You p*ss me off!

Ditto

You copy and paste some "list of Catholic errors" that probably took about 2 minutes to do.

Yes, because others have done the work and it is much easier to do that than to type it out myself. Its like you have NEVER quoted ANYONE before, have you? Just because you don't like the information, you attack the messenger or source.

Then you expect a Catholic to spend hours researching answers.

No, i expect people to not be so brainwashed and programmed and robotic to label it a lie or "anti" this or "anti" that or to automatically dismiss it like a good little cultist. mormons do it, jw's do it. Of course, if your heart is already hardened like Pharaohs, there is nothing i can do.


And when I look up the references that your copy and paste effort gives they just don't show what they claim to show.

Yes, i COPY AND PASTE! is that a mortal or venial sin to quote someone else? YOU HYPOCRITE. Of course, i dont know you, but i am 99% certain you have quoted someone else at least ONCE in your life.

If you are referring to Scripture, of course unless i quote the 0.01% of the Scriptures that your "church" has officially interpreted, then all you do is place your personal interpretation on it!


Then you can't even format your replies properly and expect me to try and make sense of them.

Because you are all over the place.

Then you continually make derogatory remarks about the Catholic Church without any evidence to back them up - contrary to rule 1.3

Oh, they certainly deserve "derogatory remarks", especially with its' history with Christians, but no, i dont make derogatory remarks. I back them up. Just because YOUR personal interpretation of the Scriptures doesnt line up with the context and words of the passages does not mean it is not evidence.



Then you complain about the translation I use. Are you a Greek expert?
Are you telling me which translation I have to use to converse with you?

Yes, the translation that you use is not good.

No, i am not telling you which translation to use. I cannot tell you ANYTHING.

I am suggesting you look into the history of your translation.

It is probably from the alexandrian text line through westcott and hort.

You really need to read up on those two!

God bless you.

[RB]

RB, Can I also point out that you are taking 2Tim 3:16-17 out of context.

Firstly when Paul refers to a man of God he specifically means Timothy. In 1Tim 6:11 he writes "But as for you, man of God...". You need to be very careful about generalising.

Greetings winsome, I'll post later to answer your words to me...have a good day in my mother's land! You are from England, correct? My father's people are Luther's people, I think you know Martin Luther...the old monk who saw the LIGHT and he opened his mouth and NEVER shut up until death.

[winsome]

No, your personal interpretation of the passage is the thing that is FALSE.

No interpretation is required.

You claimed that Luke 11:27-28 teaches against the adoration of Mary but Luke 11:27-28 only refers to the blessedness of Mary.

And you admitted in post#35 "Oh, mary WAS blessed. There is no argument there."

So why are you arguing?
Your claim is clearly FALSE

[winsome]

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.


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

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.

Typical Protestant! Loses the argument and so move on the something else to try and pretend the issue was about something else all the time.

I've given you five examples of the primacy of Peter and you haven't refuted any of them. So now you try and divert onto other issues.

Your claim that Luke 22:24-27 opposes the primacy of Peter is FALSE

Perhaps you should stop copy and pasting from anti-Catholic web sites and do a bit research yourself. If you did you might discover the truth about the Catholic Church instead of all the lies you seem to have been feeding on.

P.S. There are answers to your points above, but as they aren't relevant to this discussion, and I'm going away for Christmas in a couple of days, I'm not addressing them now.

[winsome]

Greetings winsome, I'll post later to answer your words to me...have a good day in my mother's land! You are from England, correct? My father's people are Luther's people, I think you know Martin Luther...the old monk who saw the LIGHT and he opened his mouth and NEVER shut up until death.

Greetings RB,
I'll look out for your reply, though as I've commented to KiwiChristian I'm going away for Christmas in a couple of days and I'll be away for a week.
Oh! what peace!

Yes, I'm English and living in the North West at the moment, in the wonderful city of Liverpool.

Luther - is that the guy that brought chaos into Christendom so that we now have 30,000+ denominations protesting against each other as well as the Catholic Church? 

[winsome]

Yes, the translation that you use is not good.

No, i am not telling you which translation to use. I cannot tell you ANYTHING.

I am suggesting you look into the history of your translation.

It is probably from the alexandrian text line through westcott and hort.

You really need to read up on those two!

God bless you.

I can see that you are a KJV fanatic. All translations have their flaws but the KJV is very poor - IMO of course.
But arguing about translations is another huge topic.

[Isaias]

I agree and this is widely known, only Catholics are Christian! 

Acts 11:16 [26] And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.

St. Ignatius of Antioch; Letter to the Smyrnaeans [ca. A.D. 110]

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles.  Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God.  Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the Bishop.  Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one who he appoints. [2] Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church [10]".  "The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William A. Jurgens; Vol. I, Pg. 25

Followers of Martin Luther and the church of man are apostates and reprobates.  Their church of man is 500 years old.  It did not exist before the year 1517.  Something that protesters should consider, and that is from the institution of the Catholic church in Acts ch. 2 all the way to the Apocalypse, the members, holding the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, will reduce to a tiny remnant. 

Luke 18:8 I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

The Catholic church is a society of believers, the buildings are the place of worship.  Indefectibility, is found in a faithful remnant, not in a building.

2 John 1:2 For the sake of the truth which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.

It is so clear that we are in the end times right now and so, it was only 500 years ago that there was a great apostasy from the Catholic faith, that began with a revolting Catholic priest named Martin Luther, on October 31, 1517, [Halloween] the day before the Feast of All Saints, the 33-year-old Martin Luther posted his theses [feces] on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. 

And even worse, now, starting in 1958, began the world wide apostasy from the Catholic Faith.  Human history must correspond with Revelation.

[4WD]

I agree and this is widely known, only Catholics are Christian! 

You should perhaps be very careful here.  That statement may well be a direct violation of Forum Rules. If not, it comes very close to violating Forum Rules.

Besides that it is absolutely wrong.  What may be said is that some Catholics are Christian too.

[AVZ]

I agree and this is widely known, only Catholics are Christian! 

Acts 11:16 [26] And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.

St. Ignatius of Antioch; Letter to the Smyrnaeans [ca. A.D. 110]

"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles.  Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God.  Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the Bishop.  Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one who he appoints. [2] Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church [10]".  "The Faith of the Early Fathers" by William A. Jurgens; Vol. I, Pg. 25

Followers of Martin Luther and the church of man are apostates and reprobates.  Their church of man is 500 years old.  It did not exist before the year 1517.  Something that protesters should consider, and that is from the institution of the Catholic church in Acts ch. 2 all the way to the Apocalypse, the members, holding the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, will reduce to a tiny remnant. 

Luke 18:8 I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

The Catholic church is a society of believers, the buildings are the place of worship.  Indefectibility, is found in a faithful remnant, not in a building.

2 John 1:2 For the sake of the truth which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.

It is so clear that we are in the end times right now and so, it was only 500 years ago that there was a great apostasy from the Catholic faith, that began with a revolting Catholic priest named Martin Luther, on October 31, 1517, [Halloween] the day before the Feast of All Saints, the 33-year-old Martin Luther posted his theses [feces] on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. 

And even worse, now, starting in 1958, began the world wide apostasy from the Catholic Faith.  Human history must correspond with Revelation.

Can you imagine how the Pharisees felt.
For thousands of years their Jewish faith existed and they all followed the great examples of Abraham, Moses and the Prophets. Their high priest being the leader of the pack.
And suddenly there is this guy from Nazareth who tells otherwise.

Who does he think he is? Lets kill him!

[winsome]

You should perhaps be very careful here.  That statement may well be a direct violation of Forum Rules. If not, it comes very close to violating Forum Rules.

Besides that it is absolutely wrong.  What may be said is that some Catholics are Christian too.

ALL Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics.

[4WD]

ALL Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics.

What is a Catholic? I would posit that not all "Christians" are Christians.  But we probably shouldn't go there; that borders on judgment which is not really within our purview.

[winsome]

What is a Catholic? I would posit that not all "Christians" are Christians.  But we probably shouldn't go there; that borders on judgment which is not really within our purview.

A Catholic with a capital "C" is a member of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, normally contracted to Catholic Church.  (IMO of course)

[Texas Conservative]

A Catholic with a capital "C" is a member of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, normally contracted to Catholic Church.  (IMO of course)

All upstanding Catholics, part of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church might be Catholics, with a capital "C."  I will give you that one.

But....not all of those "Catholics" are Christians.

[AVZ]

ALL Catholics are Christians ...

Are you sure about that?