The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[Phoneman777]

Brother, do you have eyes?

Not a trick question or sarcastic question...do you have eyes?

I'm assuming you have't plucked them out when they cause you to sin?

Jesus does at times use hyperbole to hammer home strong points.

Not everything is to be taken literal and as I pointed out earlier, there are usually exceptions to the rule.

God bless you

Just pointing out that Mary was not "spared from all stain of original sin". She called God "my" Savior because she knew she needed saving.

 

[StanJ]

The apostolic Church, which was Catholic then and still is now, existed and gave you the bible.

Acts 1:25 is the only mention of apostolic succession and it was to replace Judas an apostle with another who had already been with them all that time as an apostle. There is no Apostolic church and there was no Apostolic succession other than that. You can claim all you want that the RCC is that but you can't prove it or support it and as you do here you fail to address any of the questions I posed. This is typical of most RC's of your ilk that come on to the site.
The RCC did not give us the Bible, God did. Of course as the RCC always sets itself up as God's representative when the Bible tells us that the only representative of God on Earth is Jesus, it's not surprising that adherents like you believe this garbage and spout it.

 

[Phoneman777]

Most protestant scholars, the good ones, don't even hold to petras/petros argument any longer.

Of course Jesus is not going to call Peter by a feminine name.

Objective, fluent Spanish speakers know what I am saying. But probably wont be admitted to on this forum.

God bless

Unless you haven't noticed, Protestantism is no longer protesting. Protestant bookstores are filled with prophecy books that argue either for Jesuit Alcazar's Preterism or Jesuit Ribera's Futurism, the latter overshadowing the former. What you won't find is anything depicting the historic position of Protestantism regarding prophecy. The "Petros vs. Petra" argument is a solid today as it was when it was used to expose the errors of Popery in Luther's day.

Feminine or not, the word was "Petros", which is not the "Petra" upon which Christ's church was established. Besides, how could Peter be the first "pope" when Peter was married? Peter also never claimed to be anything more than a man, most profusely to Cornelius, yet the pope, who claims to trace his authority back to Peter, is claimed to be "God on Earth" and "Jesus Christ hidden under veil of flesh". How do you explain that?

Blessings for Holy Spirit discernment,
Phoneman777

 

[StanJ]

Sir, I find you to be extremely rude and abrasive and so rather then leave this site, or get down into a mudslinging battle with you, I will answer this post for the benefit of readers and then place you on ignore.
Sola scriptura leads to selective scriptura.
You might want to read the passages that clearly point towards a VISIBLE and authoritative church like Matthew 18:17. Just that passage in and of itself makes no sense if Jesus only intended a abstract body of believers.
Have a nice day and good bye.
P.S don't forget to report all my new posts as you seem to receive some gratification from doing that.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

The church in Matthew 18:17 is the local congregation and if you understood the Greek you know that.
The following is what the Bible says about Jesus and the church, it is found in Col 1:15-18
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

You might want to read all the Bible so that you know what it says in its entirety and not cherry-pick individual versus out of context that still don't mean what you imply. Only people that want to spread false gospel and false teaching find me rude. So I guess we know what you're trying to spread here.
As far as reporting you as concerned I'll do it every time you break the rules. I take no joy in it but I am zealous of CB and its reputation and that it sticks to the true word of God and not any one denomination, especially one that thinks and states it is the only true church when Jesus clearly taught differently.
Put me on ignore all you want but if you make false statements I will address them. I really don't care if you agree with me or not but others will know the truth.

 

[StanJ]

Most protestant scholars, the good ones, don't even hold to petras/petros argument any longer.
Of course Jesus is not going to call Peter by a feminine name.
Objective, fluent Spanish speakers know what I am saying. But probably wont be admitted to on this forum.

Well maybe you should name and cite them. This is nothing but denial with no validity whatsoever.
The juxtaposition that Jesus used was Peter and Rock referring to Peter's confession of Jesus. That rock of confession is what HIS church is built on to this day and it includes ALL who have made that confession, regardless of what denomination they are in.
Latin and Spanish have nothing to do with the original Greek texts. You thinking that they do is a rather sad commentary on what you think you know.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Catholicism cannot trace it's roots to Christ for two reason:

1. The ROCK upon which Jesus said He would establish His church was not "Petros",

Jesus made Peter the head of the Church because Peter listened to God-- who told him that Jesus was the Messiah. "Blessed are you, Peter, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father"




"Thou art Peter and on this rock, i will build My Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18)

 

[ScaliaFan]

Yes, newer Catholic as I was protestant(non denom) for a long time.

Yes, the Church has problems for certain.

One of the main problems is homosexuality within the priesthood. Many priests are dying of AIDS, some actually living with their boyfriends. They come into the priesthood with homosexual attraction and are not properly vetted. Because if they admit to being homosexual they will not be ordained. So they deceive in order to become a priest. Personally i don't care about people's sexual preference, but woe to anyone who causes other's to stumble in their walk with Christ. And often times that is what they are doing as men of the cloth.

And I wish the Pontiff would stay out of political matters. Like calling out Trump for wanting a walled off border when the Vatican has walls of it's own.

There are others but those are most bothersome.

But we know the Church won't fall apart because Jesus said it would not in Matthew 16. If it's doctrine or dogma, we can trust in it.

God bless

dont be deceived by Trump. He is a con artist/LIAR

you can't trust one thing that comes out of his mouth. He supported liberal baby killers for 40 years and now he wants to call himself a Republican. LIAR

i can't stand him

he is not a Christian by any stretch, and you know by his "fruits"

 

[Phoneman777]

Jesus made Peter the head of the Church because Peter listened to God-- who told him that Jesus was the Messiah. "Blessed are you, Peter, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father"




"Thou art Peter and on this rock, i will build My Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18)

"Thou art (Petros) and on this (Petra) I will build My church..." Notice that Jesus referred to Peter as an "unstable pebble", but to Peter's confession as the "boulder of immense proportion", which is in stark contrast to what Peter was. Can you see that Jesus wasn't declaring that He was building His church on Peter, but on the truth of what Peter said?

 

[StanJ]

Jesus made Peter the head of the Church because Peter listened to God-- who told him that Jesus was the Messiah. "Blessed are you, Peter, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father"
"Thou art Peter and on this rock, i will build My Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18)

Jesus did not make Peter the head of the church. Paul teaches very clearly that Jesus is the head of the body of Christ / the church. Col 1:18

Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep.

 

[Beloved212]

do you realize how utterly ridiculous this sounds???


believe what u want.. believe your own interpretaton. I will beleve the Church Christ founded.. The rosary is what made me a practicing Christian. Nothing else worked. Rosaries are used in exorcisms (and everyone needs one of those on a regular basis).

The rosary is the exact opposite of what you say here:

There is no request repeated over and over.. because

There is no request PERIOD. It is a focus on Jesus Christ, His life, His ministry, His suffering and death and Resurrection


:mellow:

Have a blessed day.

 

[Beloved212]

Lots of discussion here. Thank you.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Jesus did not make Peter the head of the church. Paul teaches very clearly that Jesus is the head of the body of Christ / the church. Col 1:18

Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep.

that's your interpretation.

Why should i accept your interpretation?

Is it infallible?

 

[ScaliaFan]

"Thou art (Petros) and on this (Petra) I will build My church..." Notice that Jesus referred to Peter as an "unstable pebble", but to Peter's confession as the "boulder of immense proportion", which is in stark contrast to what Peter was. Can you see that Jesus wasn't declaring that He was building His church on Peter, but on the truth of what Peter said?

I didn't know Jesus was into making STATEMENTS the recipients of "keys" to the Kingdom. What can a statement do with them? :)

again i ask: Why should anyone accept your interpretation?

1 or 2 Peter says not to go by any private interpretation of the Word. That means we are to go by the public Church's interpretation, the Church He founded. And those who know history know that the RCC was the only Christian church in the world for 1521 years..

Are there now 60,000??

no, there is only one church. And all those "churches" that disagree w/ the Original one in any significant way are that much further away from absolute Truth. That is not good. Jesus said that few make it to Heaven (Mt 7, Lk 13). There is another psg that says even the just are barely saved. so it would seem to me it is important to adhere to all that Jesus commanded, not just the things we like.. He spoke of His Church (singular, not plural). It was important to Him.. so why is it not important to some humans?



:blink:

 

[ScaliaFan]

Jesus did not make Peter the head of the church. Paul teaches very clearly that Jesus is the head of the body of Christ / the church. Col 1:18

Jesus told Peter to feed his sheep.

so why didn't Jesus say "Blessed is this statement of yours, Peter.."


?

 

[Phoneman777]

I didn't know Jesus was into making STATEMENTS the recipients of "keys" to the Kingdom. What can a statement do with them? :)

again i ask: Why should anyone accept your interpretation?

1 or 2 Peter says not to go by any private interpretation of the Word. That means we are to go by the public Church's interpretation, the Church He founded. And those who know history know that the RCC was the only Christian church in the world for 1521 years..

Are there now 60,000??

no, there is only one church. And all those "churches" that disagree w/ the Original one in any significant way are that much further away from absolute Truth. That is not good. Jesus said that few make it to Heaven (Mt 7, Lk 13). There is another psg that says even the just are barely saved. so it would seem to me it is important to adhere to all that Jesus commanded, not just the things we like.. He spoke of His Church (singular, not plural). It was important to Him.. so why is it not important to some humans?



:blink:

I'm very happy you are willing to discuss this, but if you are going to be successful in convincing others that Peter was granted authority above all else, you need to explain the following contradictions:

• You claim Jesus handed to Peter the absolute authority of the "keys to the kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose" sheep. In Revelation 3:7 KJV, decades after Jesus gave Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose, Jesus Himself claimed to actively possess the "key of David" - the right to the throne of His Father - and the power to "open" and "shut" which obviously refers to the doors of heaven.

• The disciples contended as to who would be the greatest in the kingdom well after they'd all witnesses Jesus hand the "keys" and power to bind and loose to Peter. This contention is proof positive that none of them understood the "keys to the kingdom" as elevating Peter above anyone else, especially in light of the fact that Paul had to chastise Peter with a pimp slap, and that Peter himself declared the entire body of church believers are "a holy nation of priests" including you and I.

Can you explain the above contradictions? If not, then consider:

The only explanation that harmonizes with Scripture is that the "keys to the kingdom" are the Gospel to which Peter - and the rest of us - was handed equally, and that "binding and loosing" refers not to the absolute power that rests with Jesus in declaring who is righteous or lost, but declarative authority to Peter - and the rest of us - of spreading the Gospel keys to the kingdom in the execution of the mission of the church.

 

[ScaliaFan]

I'm very happy you are willing to discuss this, but if you are going to be successful in convincing others that Peter was granted authority above all else, you need to explain the following contradictions:

• You claim Jesus handed to Peter the absolute authority of the "keys to the kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose" sheep. In Revelation 3:7 KJV, decades after Jesus gave Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose, Jesus Himself claimed to actively possess the "key of David" - the right to the throne of His Father - and the power to "open" and "shut" which obviously refers to the doors of heaven.

• The disciples contended as to who would be the greatest in the kingdom well after they'd all witnesses Jesus hand the "keys" and power to bind and loose to Peter. This contention is proof positive that none of them understood the "keys to the kingdom" as elevating Peter above anyone else, especially in light of the fact that Paul had to chastise Peter with a pimp slap, and that Peter himself declared the entire body of church believers are "a holy nation of priests" including you and I.

Can you explain the above contradictions? If not, then consider:

The only explanation that harmonizes with Scripture is that the "keys to the kingdom" are the Gospel to which Peter - and the rest of us - was handed equally, and that "binding and loosing" refers not to the absolute power that rests with Jesus in declaring who is righteous or lost, but declarative authority to Peter - and the rest of us - of spreading the Gospel keys to the kingdom in the execution of the mission of the church.

you know, i can barely decipher your sentences here. But it hardly matters anyway. That is b/c well, while i have my issues with Catholic persons, i have NO issues with the Church's teachings.. none, zip. I understand them all. At one time i didn't u/stand the RCCs stand on the death penalty but as time has gone on, i understand.. (many are put to death who are not guilty and etc..). So anyway, i agree w/ all the Church teaches. I used to cringe when Mary was referred to as Mother of God, and yet Jesus is God and she was His mother (still is), so, i came to u/stand that also. I love that the RCC holds that human life is sacrd from cnception to natural death. Other "churches" are caving on that and now most protestant churches accept abortion. They think that is OK since they only accept the murder of SOME children!!!

It IS (i have to admit) very, very SAD (and evil) that many Catholics do not treat ea other as though their lives were sacred.. do not treat ea other as Jesus said to ("Whatever you do to the least of My brethren, you do unto Me")

Anyway, I cannot "explain" as you say.. many things. But you know.. That is why it is called Faith. We are not required to u/stand absolutely everything vis a vis Jesus and His Church. I have been in that Real Presence, which is in His Churches 24/7. No one will ever be able to take that away from me.. It has helped me.. nothing else really HELPED me.. (long, convoluted story as to what i needed help with but.. suffice it to say, the RCC helped me spiritually etc.. when no one else would or could)

 

[StanJ]

that's your interpretation.
Why should i accept your interpretation?
Is it infallible?

Actually it's already interpreted if you know how to read the English but in any event it conveys exactly what I said, which by the way is the majority of view.

 

[StanJ]

so why didn't Jesus say "Blessed is this statement of yours, Peter.."?

Again if you read the English without your RCC colored glasses you would see that Jesus said 'this' was not revealed to you. That 'this' was his confession of who Jesus was.

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

 

[tom55]

The Importunate Woman parable does not depict the woman appearing before the judge and repeating the same request over and over and over, like in the case of the Rosary, but rather she continually comes to him over and over and over with the same request. There's nothing wrong with asking God for the same request each time we kneel in prayer. What Jesus is condemning is the practice of vainly repeating the SAME request or SAME words in the SAME prayer session - just like the heathen would do. Why would God bless a practice that He condemned when He lived and walked among us?

I find it hard to believe and it is not logical or biblical that God would not want us to repeat "the SAME request or SAME words in the SAME prayer session". We were given the Lords Prayer and if anyone was to repeat it over and over again I don't think God would be mad at us. If a loved one is near death and I kept praying for their healing, like we do at church or next to their hospital bed, I don't think God would call me a heathen or condemn me. If I have been taken hostage and the gunman has a gun to my head and I kept praying that I don't get shot...God isn't going to call me a heathen.


I suspect those of you on this forum who say you are anti-repetitive prayer are probably more anti-Catholic. If the Catholic Church teaches it, it has to be wrong seems to be the motto on this subject.

I guess Jesus is a heathen and has been condemned right along with the Catholics? (Mark 14:39)

 

[tom55]

Acts 1:25 is the only mention of apostolic succession and it was to replace Judas an apostle with another who had already been with them all that time as an apostle. There is no Apostolic church and there was no Apostolic succession other than that. You can claim all you want that the RCC is that but you can't prove it or support it and as you do here you fail to address any of the questions I posed. This is typical of most RC's of your ilk that come on to the site.
The RCC did not give us the Bible, God did. Of course as the RCC always sets itself up as God's representative when the Bible tells us that the only representative of God on Earth is Jesus, it's not surprising that adherents like you believe this garbage and spout it.

I may be misunderstanding your statement "There is no Apostolic church and there was no Apostolic succession other than that."

Why would they appoint someone to replace Judas but then not appoint other men to succeed them after they die? Did they not appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel? And then those men appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel? And then those men appoint other men to go out and spread the gospel?

If the RCC didn't give us the bible, then who did? Don't get me wrong! I am not saying they did I just want to know who YOU think gave us the bible (table of contents)?

Why is what our Catholic brothers and sisters post on here (a Christian website) garbage?

Respectfully, Tom55