Peter the Rock?

[Illuminator]

If it were NOT for God’s own Example and Instruction…their would be NO Bible.

I'm still waiting for you to show, from the Bible, where "Word of God" refers to the written word alone.

God SAID…
Gen 1
[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
God SAID, Repeated numerous times, in Scripture.


Gods EXAMPLE…
EX 31:
[18] And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Gods INSTRUCTION…write AND oral.
Ex 17:
[14] And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

Make COPIES…
Deut 17
[18] And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

Distribute the COPIES.
Esth 3:
[14] The copy of the writing for a commandment to be given in every province was published unto all people, that they should be ready against that day.

IF the WRITINGS ARE DESTROYED….
REWRITE…
Jer 38:
[27] Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,
[28] Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Nothing new….
God spoke, God wrote, God taught men, Men taught men, Men spoke, Men wrote, Men copied writings, Men distributed writings, Men continue to speak, Men continue to copy, Men continue to distribute writings.
Men continue to READ, to HEAR, to VERIFY what they HEAR … IS or IS NOT TRUE according to the writings CALLED Scripture.

But you don't name any of these "men" you mention. Why? Because they were all Catholic.

Your PRETENSE that IF you can NOT FIND IN SCRIPTURE “the express language of being forbidden from MAKING UP your own “pseudo” SCRIPTURE” is ludicrous, on it’s face.

Another stupid baseless insult.

Your church has NOT “ADDED” their man-devised Doctrines, Letters, INTO the Literal Bible, but instead has a “SIDE BOOK”, from which is taught, “what God really meant”, but forgot to actually Inspire men TO WRITE in what God establish Is Scripture.

Another stupid baseless insult.

Ya think God does not NOTICE the deception? The opening of the Bible, citing some verses, but then TEACHING from a “man-devised” book of made up nonsense?

God without beginning, the creator and maker of Human manKIND has a Human mother, herself naturally born without sin?

Astounding.

Mary wasn't born naturally without sin, but by a special intervention of God, your ignorance is astounding. The anti-Catholic MUST insert "Mary" into any discussion when they are caught making fools of themselves.

Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…

When the POSITIVE is revealed, it is not necessary to speak or write an ‘exception”…
There is NO EXCEPTION to “reveal” !

You are quoting from a Catholic book and your anti-Mary animus is not biblical, which has nothing to do with the discussion in the first place. Let's get back to the topic "Peter is the Rock" upon which Christ builds the Church, if that's even possible with you.
Dozens of Protestant scholars have backed away from the prejudices of the middle ages, your myths about Peter are outdated.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well perhaps it would be better to put a higher emphasis on scripture itself. Yes, let’s do that,

Was Paul a Catholic? No
Paul was of the house of Judah of the tribe of Benjamin.

Philippians 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee

Paul was a a Jewish convert to the Church – the Catholic Church.

It was already being called, “The Catholic Church” by the end of the FIRST century -, as we read from Ignatius of Antioch, first century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107).

Paul never taught us to place divisions upon Christ, yet the opposite.

1 Corinthians
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment

We were told to not be Baptist, or Pentecostal, Lutheran or Seventh day, Mormons or Catholics.

We were told to simply pick up the cross…

Matthew16
24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

In all honesty, it seems like you believe the church was started on whatever religion you chose to be.

This is more an indictment of Protestantism with its tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering faction that ALL teach different doctrines, yet ALL believe that they were “led” to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

What a mess . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, "One new man" is the body of Christ.

No – the Body of Christ is His Church, made up of ALL members .

No ONE person is the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12).

But the Catholic church separately went their own way, as their own body, the body of another.

That’s hilarious, coming from a Protestant, whose ecclesial rebellion splintered the Body of Christ into tens of thousands of fractured and perpetually splintering sects based on the interpretational whims of their human founders.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, "later" was correct. The apostles were not filled with the Holy Spirit until came. He first came--then they were filled.

This happened at PENTECOST – the day they started preaching:

Acts 1-4
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

They preached to the people in their own tongues to the point that the people thought they were drunk because of the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:5-13).

In post #423 - YOU stated the following:
"No. Preaching by the apostles by the Holy Spirit came later. What occurred at Pentecost was general, not specific to the apostles, but general to those of many nations and tongues."

This is absolutely FALSLE.- not the crowds. The power of the Holy Spirit was on the Apostles.
They understood them in their own languages BECAUSE of the Holy Spirit working through the preaching of the Apostles.

 

[Truthnightmare]

Paul was a a Jewish convert to the Church – the Catholic Church.

It was already being called, “The Catholic Church” by the end of the FIRST century -, as we read from Ignatius of Antioch, first century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107).

Paul was a a Jewish convert to the Church – the Catholic Church.

It was already being called, “The Catholic Church” by the end of the FIRST century -, as we read from Ignatius of Antioch, first century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107).

This is more an indictment of Protestantism with its tens of thousands of perpetually-splintering faction that ALL teach different doctrines, yet ALL believe that they were “led” to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

What a mess . . .

I really don’t like to discuss the Bible in this fashion, it leads to proposals of men who are considered to be the prevailing scholar on matters regulated by one’s self instead of the Holy scriptures.

However within your own writings you contradict the timeline of the church.

 

[Truthnightmare]

AD 29 - 590 The beginning Christian churches are scattered without a central head, but through the influence of the Holy Spirit of God, Christianity continues to grow and spread at a geometric rate.
AD 37 Joseph of Arimathea establishes first above ground church in the world at Glastonbury, in Britain.
AD 41 Term "Christian" first used in Antioch.
AD 43 Edict of Emperor Claudius to exterminate Christian Britain.
AD 49 First Christian Council, in Jerusalem.
AD 52 Caractacus taken prisoner to Rome along with Bran, his three sons, and daughters -- including Linus and Claudia of { 2 Tim. 4:21}.
AD 53 Pudens and Claudia (Gladys) of { 2 Tim. 4:21} marry.
AD 60 The Boadicean War.
AD 65 Paul and Peter executed. Tradition has it that Paul was beheaded - not recorded in the Bible; and that Peter was crucified upside down - not recorded in the Bible, but perhaps prophesied in [John 21:17-19].

Tradition has it that Peter, upon learning that he would be crucified, felt himself unworthy to die in the same manner as the Lord Jesus Christ; and thus as a dying request, he asked to be crucified with his head down and his feet up (upside-down).

AD 69 Titus of Rome sacks and destroys Jerusalem. This same Jerusalem would once again become a part of the new Jewish state in 1967. This Jewish State Israel would become a Nation once again in 1948 in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. (see further on below).
AD 156 Good King Lucius, by edict, proclaims Britain the first Christian nation.
AD 290 The Diocletian persecution (290-300).
AD 306 At Britain, at his father's death, Constantine declares himself Emperor of Rome.
AD 407 Jerome translates the Latin Vulgate, the early Catholic Bible.
AD 411 Rome withdraws troops from Britain.
AD 449 Angles, Saxons and Jutes invade Britain for the next two centuries driving the British Culdee Celts to the extreme west.
AD 570 Mohammed born (founder of Islam, the Muslim religion). The Muslim religion began about AD 611.
AD 590-604 The first real Pope*, Gregory I (who in fact turned down the title!). The Catholic Church formed. (the term 'Catholic' simply means 'universal').

* Some claim that the first Pope was (Leo I in 440-461). But either way it lays bare the current fable that the Papacy traces all the way back to Peter, one of the Twelve Apostles.

AD 1054 The Eastern Orthodox church is formed. They split from the Roman Catholic Church over the dispute of the power and authority of the Pope.

Roman Catholic Church:

AD 1215 The 4th Lateran Council of the Roman Catholic church, held in the Lateran Palace, Rome, endorses Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

This is the blasphemy that states that the Catholic Priest transforms the Sacraments of the bread and wine into the ACTUAL LITERALbody and blood of Jesus Christ. Thus along with symbolic cannibalism, they crucify our Lord anew every Sunday.

 

[Taken]

I'm still waiting for you to show, from the Bible, where "Word of God" refers to the written word alone.

Scripture was not written according to YOUR decree.
You obviously do not comprehend the difference between the Concept of Positive and Negative in the Construct of Law or Scripture.

When you were a little boy and told to keep your hands to yourself and not hit your sister;
Did that mean (because it wasn’t SAID) it was okay to hit your sister with a stick, a rock, a broom, a flyswatter, a whatever other than your hand?

According to Gods Word, revealed IN Scripture, Scripture is sufficient to verify Gods Word that a person HEARS, being purported it is according to God.

It is not my JOB to “understand” FOR YOU.
It is not my JOB to “read” FOR YOU, whereby Scripture reveals WHAT IS acceptable, WHAT IS pleasing to God for a man to BELIEVE, to DO, to SAY on Gods behalf…
* And “IF” a man DOES….”then” the consequence is Also Revealed in Scripture.
* And “IF” a man DOES NOT DO….”then” the consequence is Also Revealed in Scripture.

You want some List from Scripture that DOES NOT EXIST…
Saying:
You can not believe this…
You can not believe that…
You can not do this…
You can not do that…
AND if THOSE demands according to YOU, are not met……You can believe, do whatever the hell you want.

WELL DUH….you can believe, say, do whatever you WANT! It’s CALLED FREEWILL.

You have been given, shown, pointed out Scriptures whereby the INVISIBLE God Himself DECIDED How He would Teach manKIND His Word, and Give manKIND a WAY to test, verify, IT was according to God.

But you don't name any of these "men" you mention. Why? Because they were all Catholic.

“Catholic” men DID NOT Hear the Word of God, nor Write the Word of God.

God spoke to His Chosen Prophets.
They Heard, they Repeated, they wrote, they copied, they Distributed.
God sent His SON, who Chose His Disciples.
They Heard, they Repeated, they wrote, they copied, they Distributed.

Another stupid baseless insult.

Another stupid baseless insult.

Not a big Secret, Men calling themselves Catholic, have counseled together, have degreed, have spoken, have written, have bound in books, have added, and written more, have distributed what they claim is According to God, and is on behalf of Gods Word…..
And the ONLY way to verify what “THEY” have degreed, IS TO “read, “THEIR OWN WORDS”…. LOL…how convenient and utterly ridiculous.

Mary wasn't born naturally without sin, but by a special intervention of God, your ignorance is astounding. The anti-Catholic MUST insert "Mary" into any discussion when they are caught making fools of themselves.

You obviously do not know the difference between “WHAT” and “HOW”.
You saying “HOW”, does not make Catholic teaching of Mary being naturally born without sin, any less of a false teaching.

Even a Child can read in Scripture that Mary was a Grown Woman on the Day she received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit….
(If she was “supposedly already “sinless””, she would have had not need to AGAIN receive the Holy Spirit.)

You are quoting from a Catholic book and your anti-Mary

Your silly pretense that you are psychic is a fail. I don’t own a Book that Says written or published or distributed by Catholics!

And your unfounded accusation about me being “anti-Mary”, is just as ridiculous and ludicrous as any Catholic accusing others of being “anti-Catholic’….

Even a child can comprehend ANTI IS AGAINST “every thing Mary” and “every thing Catholic”…. Which if one WAS…. It would be their place to say so and IF one was, so what? You think Freewill only Applies to YOU?

Are you so dense, you do not comprehend the WIDE use of the TERM “Catholic’…?
Catholic Church, Catholic People, Catholic Doctrine…..and in your ignorance think disagreement with this point or that point means Completely AGAINST, every Catholic Church, Catholic Person, Catholic Doctrine?
LOL…

Even people who by their own MOUTH claim to be “Catholic” are not IN Agreement with “EVERY” other person who is Catholic….
The absurdity …. According to your reasoning and accusations….would mean some Catholics are anti-Catholic….. LOL

Your circular claims, and accusations are amusing to stir a laugh, but utterly insignificant in a discussion regarding Gods Word.

 

[Taken]

Let's get back to the topic "Peter is the Rock" upon which Christ builds the Church, if that's even possible with you.
Dozens of Protestant scholars have backed away from the prejudices of the middle ages, your myths about Peter are outdated.

Fact is … Jesus was gathered with His Disciples.

Fact is…. Jesus was challenging His Disciples with Questions.

Fact is …..Question(S).

None of the Disciples of their own volition could ANSWER Jesus’ Last Question…

Aw….:-(

End of story, Right?

Oh, no, wait…..God Himself gave one of the Disciples the ANSWER to Jesus’ Last Question.

Oh, Oh, Oh, wait Jesus….God just gave Disciple SIMON BARJONA, the Answer….

Oh, Oh, Oh…..Disciple Simon Barjona SPEAKS ALOUD what God TOLD him was the ANSWER to……..Jesus’ Last Question.

Did you already FORGET, Jesus was asking Questions and Wanted to SEE “IF” any of His Disciples “COULD” answer the Question?

Did you already FORGET, NONE of the Disciples could correctly of their own volition Answer the Last Question Jesus Asked?

Did you NOT Comprehend the IMPORTANCE of WHAT Jesus was asking His Disciples?

Are you so corruptly indoctrinated with speech and words of men outside of Scripture…..that you do not KNOW….Christ Jesus IS building HIS Church upon the BELIEF and ACCEPTANCE for members of His Church …to Accept and Believe;
Exactly what God revealed….
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God” ?

What you preach is so absurd, and in direct contrast to Scripture, it hangs between laughable and sad that you have been duped by the counsels, and words, and writings of men, rather than the revelations of God.

The OT clarifies WHO is the “PERFECT”Rock of Creation, of Israel, of Salvation…
And it is NOT the Created!


Deut 32:
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
[13] He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
[15] But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
[18] Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
[30] How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?

[31] For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
Sounds Like….Would ^ that be you ?

 

[Illuminator]

Scripture was not written according to YOUR decree.

I never said it was. Another stupid, baseless insult.

You obviously do not comprehend the difference between the Concept of Positive and Negative in the Construct of Law or Scripture.

When you were a little boy and told to keep your hands to yourself and not hit your sister;
Did that mean (because it wasn’t SAID) it was okay to hit your sister with a stick, a rock, a broom, a flyswatter, a whatever other than your hand?

According to Gods Word, revealed IN Scripture, Scripture is sufficient to verify Gods Word that a person HEARS, being purported it is according to God.

Scripture is materially sufficient, not solely sufficient. "Bible alone" theology was invented by Luther who was mentally ill and angry with the Pope. You base everything on a self defeating non-biblical theory.

It is not my JOB to “understand” FOR YOU.
It is not my JOB to “read” FOR YOU, whereby Scripture reveals WHAT IS acceptable, WHAT IS pleasing to God for a man to BELIEVE, to DO, to SAY on Gods behalf…
* And “IF” a man DOES….”then” the consequence is Also Revealed in Scripture.
* And “IF” a man DOES NOT DO….”then” the consequence is Also Revealed in Scripture.

You want some List from Scripture that DOES NOT EXIST…
Saying:
You can not believe this…
You can not believe that…
You can not do this…
You can not do that…
AND if THOSE demands according to YOU, are not met……You can believe, do whatever the hell you want.

WELL DUH….you can believe, say, do whatever you WANT! It’s CALLED FREEWILL.

You have been given, shown, pointed out Scriptures whereby the INVISIBLE God Himself DECIDED How He would Teach manKIND His Word, and Give manKIND a WAY to test, verify, IT was according to God.



“Catholic” men DID NOT Hear the Word of God, nor Write the Word of God.

God spoke to His Chosen Prophets.
They Heard, they Repeated, they wrote, they copied, they Distributed.
God sent His SON, who Chose His Disciples.
They Heard, they Repeated, they wrote, they copied, they Distributed.

Not a big Secret, Men calling themselves Catholic, have counseled together, have degreed, have spoken, have written, have bound in books, have added, and written more, have distributed what they claim is According to God, and is on behalf of Gods Word…..
And the ONLY way to verify what “THEY” have degreed, IS TO “read, “THEIR OWN WORDS”…. LOL…how convenient and utterly ridiculous.

Then make a list of all the non-Catholic Christians before the canon of Scripture was completed, excluding the obvious heretics. I'll do that for you as well:

You obviously do not know the difference between “WHAT” and “HOW”.
You saying “HOW”, does not make Catholic teaching of Mary being naturally born without sin, any less of a false teaching.

Even a Child can read in Scripture that Mary was a Grown Woman on the Day she received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit….
(If she was “supposedly already “sinless””, she would have had not need to AGAIN receive the Holy Spirit.)

Your silly pretense that you are psychic is a fail. I don’t own a Book that Says written or published or distributed by Catholics!

And your unfounded accusation about me being “anti-Mary”, is just as ridiculous and ludicrous as any Catholic accusing others of being “anti-Catholic’….

Even a child can comprehend ANTI IS AGAINST “every thing Mary” and “every thing Catholic”…. Which if one WAS…. It would be their place to say so and IF one was, so what? You think Freewill only Applies to YOU?

Are you so dense, you do not comprehend the WIDE use of the TERM “Catholic’…?
Catholic Church, Catholic People, Catholic Doctrine…..and in your ignorance think disagreement with this point or that point means Completely AGAINST, every Catholic Church, Catholic Person, Catholic Doctrine?
LOL…

Even people who by their own MOUTH claim to be “Catholic” are not IN Agreement with “EVERY” other person who is Catholic….
The absurdity …. According to your reasoning and accusations….would mean some Catholics are anti-Catholic….. LOL

Your circular claims, and accusations are amusing to stir a laugh, but utterly insignificant in a discussion regarding Gods Word.

Fact is … Jesus was gathered with His Disciples.

Fact is…. Jesus was challenging His Disciples with Questions.

Fact is …..Question(S).

None of the Disciples of their own volition could ANSWER Jesus’ Last Question…

Aw….:-(

End of story, Right?

Oh, no, wait…..God Himself gave one of the Disciples the ANSWER to Jesus’ Last Question.

Oh, Oh, Oh, wait Jesus….God just gave Disciple SIMON BARJONA, the Answer….

Oh, Oh, Oh…..Disciple Simon Barjona SPEAKS ALOUD what God TOLD him was the ANSWER to……..Jesus’ Last Question.

Did you already FORGET, Jesus was asking Questions and Wanted to SEE “IF” any of His Disciples “COULD” answer the Question?

Did you already FORGET, NONE of the Disciples could correctly of their own volition Answer the Last Question Jesus Asked?

Did you NOT Comprehend the IMPORTANCE of WHAT Jesus was asking His Disciples?

Are you so corruptly indoctrinated with speech and words of men outside of Scripture…..that you do not KNOW….Christ Jesus IS building HIS Church upon the BELIEF and ACCEPTANCE for members of His Church …to Accept and Believe;
Exactly what God revealed….
Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God” ?

Then why did Jesus change Simon bar John's name to "Rock"? To change his status or to set a fashionable trend???

What you preach is so absurd, and in direct contrast to Scripture, it hangs between laughable and sad that you have been duped by the counsels, and words, and writings of men, rather than the revelations of God.

The OT clarifies WHO is the “PERFECT”Rock of Creation, of Israel, of Salvation…
And it is NOT the Created!


Deut 32:
[4] He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
[13] He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
[15] But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
[18] Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
[30] How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up?

[31] For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
Sounds Like….Would ^ that be you ?

"Rock" for God and "Rock" for Peter are different kinds of metaphors for different subjects. If Jesus was pointing to Himself when He said "upon this rock", Jesus would be flipping to a different metaphor in a single sentence. That's confusing. The Apostles were not confused, Peter's leadership is well documented in Scripture, that you deny. He was well understood by everyone within earshot and not seriously challenged until the so called reformers stepped in with their man made traditions. That's what this thread is about.

I'm not talking about copies of the law, I'm talking about how "Word of God" is all over the place, and where does it apply to the written word alone? I spoon-fed you a link, and you still haven't dealt with the matter. There is much more to "Word of God" than mere ink and paper. You brought it up first, and you ramble on about copies of the law and more stupid insults.

 

[Taken]

I never said it was. Another stupid, baseless insult.

LOL…your whining about being “insulted” while “accusing” stupidity and baseless is Comical.

Scripture is materially sufficient, not solely sufficient.

Teaching what is NOT in Scripture as if it were, is Deceptive.

Bible alone" theology was invented by Luther who was mentally ill and angry with the Pope.

LOL…Luther did not INVENT anything.
Luther challenged the Catholic Church’s ACTS of False Teaching, and then Lying about it.

You base everything on a non-biblical theory.

On it’s face that is a ludicrous claim…
I’m in support of Scripture being the Supreme Writings to verify Gods Word…

While you support….any Tom, Dick, or Harry’s speech, writings…..on the Condition…they are identifying themselves as a Catholic……..or more ridiculous YET….IF your Church (unbekown) to a DEAD person, the Catholic Church has Degreed “they” were a Catholic….

Christ Jesus did not identify His Church as catholic….None of the Apostles identified themselves as catholic….I have never identified myself as catholic or anti-catholic…

You thinking you have some authority to SPEAK for others, is laughable.

Then make a list of all the non-Catholic Christians before the canon of Scripture was completed, excluding the obvious heretics.

LOL…I don’t know ALL Christians before the canon of Scripture was completed….they have all been DEAD and buried hundreds of years before I was born….
LOL….what a ridiculous demand!

Then why did Jesus change Simon bar John's name to "Rock"?

He didn’t.
John 1:
[42] 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.

To change his status or to set a fashionable trend???

LOL
Did you miss the REVEALING of Jesus causing the MAN-MADE stone Temple to FALL, and that He would Build His SPIRITUAL Church, with a membership of MEN, “unseen to human EYES”….as “stone upon stone” UPON the secure ROCK FOUNDATION of…the Lord God Almighty?

“Rock" for God and "Rock" for Peter are different kinds of metaphors for different subjects. If Jesus was pointing to Himself when He said "upon this rock", Jesus would be flipping to a different metaphor in a single sentence. That's confusing. The Apostles were not confused, Peter's leadership is well documented in Scripture, that you deny. He was well understood by everyone within earshot and not seriously challenged until the so called reformers stepped in with their man made traditions. That's what this thread is about.

Blah, blah, blah…and of course AGAIN, you attempt to speak for me. I do NOT deny any works Peter did, nor any works the Prophets, the Disciples, the Apostles did.

I simply DO NOT agree with your made up history of events, and claims and interpretations….of elevating the Status of ONE over an other…when Scripture itself does not.

I'm not talking about copies of the law, I'm talking about how "Word of God" is all over the place, and where does it apply to the written word alone? I spoon-fed you a link, and you still haven't dealt with the matter. There is much more to "Word of God" than mere ink and paper. You brought it up first, and you resort to irrelevant topics and more stupid insults.

I am not interested IN shuffling through extra-biblical nonsense, which is exactly how the Devil operates to Distract from Gods Word, and ponder, and consider, and appease You.

I Have copies of Scripture. I am content with what God has Approved. If I Want MORE Knowledge from God that IS NOT written IN Scripture, or Want Gods Understanding of His Word……The Lord Himself has Revealed “WHO” and “HOW” that “WHO” can receive one on one, FROM God Himself…..without a single mention of “catholic” or any other human man, or any writings of a human mans own volition.

So…no, I am not interested in your “links”.
I have already chosen Jesus’ “WAY”, and choose to spend my time, according to Jesus’ WAY, rather than waste my time on a mans “way”.

May God bless you to find His way.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Waiting on him]

I never said it was. Another stupid, baseless insult.

Scripture is materially sufficient, not solely sufficient. "Bible alone" theology was invented by Luther who was mentally ill and angry with the Pope. You base everything on a self defeating non-biblical theory.

Then make a list of all the non-Catholic Christians before the canon of Scripture was completed, excluding the obvious heretics. I'll do that for you as well:
View attachment 40516


Then why did Jesus change Simon bar John's name to "Rock"? To change his status or to set a fashionable trend???

"Rock" for God and "Rock" for Peter are different kinds of metaphors for different subjects. If Jesus was pointing to Himself when He said "upon this rock", Jesus would be flipping to a different metaphor in a single sentence. That's confusing. The Apostles were not confused, Peter's leadership is well documented in Scripture, that you deny. He was well understood by everyone within earshot and not seriously challenged until the so called reformers stepped in with their man made traditions. That's what this thread is about.

I'm not talking about copies of the law, I'm talking about how "Word of God" is all over the place, and where does it apply to the written word alone? I spoon-fed you a link, and you still haven't dealt with the matter. There is much more to "Word of God" than mere ink and paper. You brought it up first, and you ramble on about copies of the law and more stupid insults.

View attachment 40517

One thing I’ve always wanted to know is this concept of the thick literal curtain in the temple of Jerusalem being split in to at the crucifixion of Christ. Is this something that was born out of Catholic doctrine?

 

[Taken]

One thing I’ve always wanted to know is this concept of the thick literal curtain in the temple of Jerusalem being split in to at the crucifixion of Christ. Is this something that was born out of Catholic doctrine?

No it is Scriptural.

Matt 27:
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Marymog]

Your shallowness is becoming increasingly more apparent the more your post. Nowhere in scripture, either old testament or New, is there any evidence for a change in the 4th Commandment from the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday. And your own church admits as much. But I think you already know this. Sunday is based solely on church tradition. Not scripture.

ONCE AGAIN brakelite, you have given your opinion and nothing else to back it up. However, you did inadvertently refer to Scripture. And by using that reference you added more credence to my facts and less credence to your opinions: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

[Marymog]

Are you aware of the Catholic church ever selecting a leader from outside the Catholic church? Is that even a practice...or is it rather not the practice? Is that the case or not?

In other words, the Holy Spirit (and the spiritual gifts including leadership) being poured out at Pentecost was upon those of many nations and tongues, not just Catholics. Thus, selecting from anything less than the full scope of the Holy Spirit, makes the Catholic church guilty of practicing in "private interpretation."

Hey Scott.

If a person (Protestant church leader) doesn't believe or practice what The Church teaches, adhere to Church dogma or doctrine, why would The Church select that person as a leader of The Church? That make no sense. Since The Church is adhering to Apostolic Succession, choosing someone from outside The Church would break that chain of Succession.

I don't know what you mean by the Holy Spirit was poured out upon many nations, not just Catholics, on the day of Pentecost. That makes no sense and doesn't seem to line up with what Scripture says.

At Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out onto the Apostles who were in the house. Since they had just named Matthias to replace Judas (end of Acts 1), he was probably in the house also.

Nothing in Acts 2 says that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon many nations. It says AFTER the Apostles received the Holy Spirit in the house that Peter stood up along with the 11 other Apostles and said they weren't drunk and preached to the diverse crowd which included 'devout men from every nation under heaven'. In his sermon Peter told the crowd that if they repent and are baptized, they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. There was no 'spiritual gift of leadership being poured out at Pentecost'.

 

[Marymog]

That is not at all true.

I rarely operate based on what I "believe", but rather what I know.

As for Apostolic Succession, I do not "believe" in it, but know it to be true, as "He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”...And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Ephesians 4:8-13

The problem is that many, including the Catholic church, have presumed to privately select apostles, etc. of their own choosing rather than as given by the Holy Spirit--which is totally against Christ and the scriptures.

Scott, you are confusing me.

You say you know that Apostolic Succession is true, yet you deny that The Catholic Church leadership is a result of Apostolic Succession.

Since you KNOW that Apostolic Succession is true, provide your evidence of it.

Thank you in advance.....Mary

 

[Waiting on him]

No it is Scriptural.

Matt 27:
[51] And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Glory to God,
Taken

Well, Paul in Hebrews says that the vail rent was the flesh of Christ, and Jesus referred to his body as the temple.
I see @Marymog likes your response so I’ll take that as a confirmation

Thanks!

 

[Taken]

Your shallowness is becoming increasingly more apparent the more your post. Nowhere in scripture, either old testament or New, is there any evidence for a change in the 4th Commandment from the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday. And your own church admits as much. But I think you already know this. Sunday is based solely on church tradition. Not scripture.

In brief, it is Scriptural….Gentiles, learning about God and Christ the Lord, according to Christ’s Church, gathering on the First Day of the week.

Scripture reveals Jesus rose up ON the First Day of the Week.

Scripture reveals Paul preaching ON the First Day of the Week.

Paul was appointed to Preach to the Gentiles.



Mark 16:
[9] Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Acts 20:
[7] And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It was not a “TRADITION”, it was a “REVEALING”….and once “REVEALED”, is has become “COMMON” for Gentile Lord God Believers to meet on the First Day of the week, as they did in Paul’s day.

 

[Waiting on him]

In brief, it is Scriptural….Gentiles, learning about God and Christ the Lord, according to Christ’s Church, gathering on the First Day of the week.

Scripture reveals Jesus rose up ON the First Day of the Week.

Scripture reveals Paul preaching ON the First Day of the Week.

Paul was appointed to Preach to the Gentiles.



Mark 16:
[9] Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

Acts 20:
[7] And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

It was not a “TRADITION”, it was a “REVEALING”….and once “REVEALED”, is has become “COMMON” for Gentile Lord God Believers to meet on the First Day of the week, as they did in Paul’s day.

I really like Paul. I believe as Jesus was the image of the invisible God, Paul was the image of the resurrected Christ.

 

[Waiting on him]

By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
— Hebrews 10:20

 

[Philip James]

that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment

Hello Truthnightmare,

yes, thats what 'catholic' means

The Church is One!

Pax et Bonum