Where does the Pope get his authority?

[BreadOfLife]

The pope must be on DOPE... when one considers all the foolish extra biblical doctrines
he believes in and teaches and still claims to be speaking in behalf of God.... what a DOPE View attachment 42249

Funny how you always complain about the Pope and his "Extra-Biblical" doctrines - but you never seem to be able to name one . . .

 

[Illuminator]

The trinity is their flag ship. I use it as a gauge that tells me if they believe it then it's probably wrong.

The Holy Trinity is the flagship for 99% of all of Christendom. So everybody is wrong except you; a pope unto yourself in a church of one. It must be lonely at the top.

The ban on The Holy Trinity is eating away at the integrity of this "Christian" form.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And still... catholics cannot explain why praying to mary is not in the bible

If it was a thing, Jesus would have told us... "you fellas need to do a seance
and git in touch with my momma and see if she'll put in a good word for you"

Ummmm, at least asking Mary and the saints in Heaven to pray FOR us isn't a doctrinal matter for Catholics.
However - you Protestants have a LOT of 'splainin' to do with the following false doctrines . . .

Show me where the Bible teaches that the Bible is our "SOLE Authority" (Sola Scriptura). MY Bible says:
James 2:26
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also FAITH APART FROM WORKS IS DEAD.

Show me where the Bible teaches that justification is by "Faith Alone" (Sola Scriptura). MY Bible says:
James 2:24
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, that';s the obvious one and it's the one almost all catholic quickly get mad
about since they have all made an idol out of mary and are guilty of the sin of idolatry

I've OPENLY-challenged you on several posts to produce the teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that says we are to "worship" Mary or anybody OTHER than God.

So, if you can't do that - you're not only a LIAR - but you're also a failure . . .

Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Funny how you posted THIS particular verse.
However, I underlined the part that pertains directly to YOU . . .

 

[The Learner]

Funny how you always complain about the Pope and his "Extra-Biblical" doctrines - but you never seem to be able to name one . . .

 

[The Learner]

The Holy Trinity is the flagship for 99% of all of Christendom. So everybody is wrong except you; a pope unto yourself in a church of one. It must be lonely at the top.

The ban on The Holy Trinity is eating away at the integrity of this "Christian" form.

 

[Augustin56]

And I think the same of you.

I'm not surprised. The real difference between us is, you think you have to reinvent the theological wheel yourself. I rely on the 2000 year-old, never changing teachings of Christ given to us through His Apostles and their successors, the bishops. I don't have to invent anything.

 

[Augustin56]

And still... catholics cannot explain why praying to mary is not in the bible View attachment 42383

If it was a thing, Jesus would have told us... "you fellas need to do a seance
and git in touch with my momma and see if she'll put in a good word for you"

I'm surprised no one has explained this to you yet.

1. Mary may very well have been alive when the New Testament was written. It would have been inappropriate to pray to her before she was united with her Son. (Note: Not all prayer is "worship.")
2. Not everything we are to know and do is IN the Bible, according to the Bible. (John 21:25 says that NOT everything Jesus did and taught is IN the Bible. Matt. 28:20 has Jesus commanding the Church (the Apostles, at the time) to teach ALL that He had taught them.)

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a (one) Church to do so. That Church has been around since He founded it. It contains the majority of Christians today, who have access to the fullness of truth given us by Jesus vs. some group of yahoos coming along 16 centuries later and trying to reinvent everything based on their personal opinions, and all ending up with differing and opposing opinions.

 

[Peterlag]

I'm not surprised. The real difference between us is, you think you have to reinvent the theological wheel yourself. I rely on the 2000 year-old, never changing teachings of Christ given to us through His Apostles and their successors, the bishops. I don't have to invent anything.

The problem with that is that the Catholics high-jacked the Christian church early on and I think it was around 60 or 80 AD. Right after all Apostles were gone and I would not be surprised if it was Catholics that helped to kill them.

 

[Augustin56]

The problem with that is that the Catholics high-jacked the Christian church early on and I think it was around 60 or 80 AD. Right after all Apostles were gone and I would not be surprised if it was Catholics that helped to kill them.

Since the Catholics existed from the beginning of Chrstianity, and there was no other Church then, from whom did they "hijack" it? LOL The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. Before that if one was Christian, one was Catholic, since that's all there was.

 

[Peterlag]

The Holy Trinity is the flagship for 99% of all of Christendom. So everybody is wrong except you; a pope unto yourself in a church of one. It must be lonely at the top.

The ban on The Holy Trinity is eating away at the integrity of this "Christian" form.

My point was the Catholics founded it. Probably around the 3rd to 5th century.

 

[Peterlag]

The Son’s FLECH had a beginning.
The Son ALWAYS existed – prior to becoming flesh.

Paul tells us that the Son was also a Rock that followed the Israelites in the desert (1 Cor. 10:4). According to YOU – the Son only came into being when He was manifested as flesh.

In Genesis, when God created man – He is described as a plurality of Persons, but ONE Being:
Gen, 1:26
Then God said, "Let US make mankind in OUR image, in OUR likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

John echoes this truth ion John 1:1

John 1:1
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."

If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.

 

[Peterlag]

Since the Catholics existed from the beginning of Chrstianity, and there was no other Church then, from whom did they "hijack" it? LOL The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. Before that if one was Christian, one was Catholic, since that's all there was.

Is it high-jacked or hijacked? I saw it in print both ways. This was indeed hard for me to try to get a date when the Catholics started because much of the Internet is Catholic saying it started with Peter. I came across some writings around 80 AD where holy water was first being written about and then some guy later who was believed to be the first to use the word Catholic. But here's where I come in: I'm an expert in the New Testament and that means the Epistles and the Catholics don't teach any of it correctly.

 

[Illuminator]

Since the Catholics existed from the beginning of Chrstianity, and there was no other Church then, from whom did they "hijack" it? LOL

First, the anti-Catholic is compelled to change the meaning of the word "remnant" so it fits his version of church. This "remnant" were the true believers hiding from the Catholics who were trying to kill them. It was the Catholics that killed the first 27 popes. And monks would boil babies in oil, that's why they are called fry-ers.

The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. Before that if one was Christian, one was Catholic, since that's all there was.

An Augustinian, a Franciscan, and a Jesuit all die and get to heaven. Jesus asks each one, "If you could go back, what would you change"?

The Augustinian ponders a while and says, "There's so much sin in the world. If I went back, I'd try and stop people from sinning so much."
The Franciscan thinks a bit and says, "There's so much poverty in the world. If I went back, I'd try and get people to share more of their wealth with the poor."
The Jesuit looks at Jesus and quickly replies, "If I went back, I'd change my doctor."

 

[Augustin56]

The problem with that is that the Catholics high-jacked the Christian church early on and I think it was around 60 or 80 AD. Right after all Apostles were gone and I would not be surprised if it was Catholics that helped to kill them.

There was no other Christian Group around 60 or 80 AD. There was one Christian Church. Early on, that same Church began to be called "Catholic" which means, roughly, "universal." It wasn't a separate Church, and no one hijacked it. Similar to when a baby is born, sometimes it isn't given a name for a day or two (at least in some cultures). When the baby is named, it doesn't change the person to whom the name is given. It's just a means of identity.

 

[Augustin56]

Is it high-jacked or hijacked? I saw it in print both ways. This was indeed hard for me to try to get a date when the Catholics started because much of the Internet is Catholic saying it started with Peter. I came across some writings around 80 AD where holy water was first being written about and then some guy later who was believed to be the first to use the word Catholic. But here's where I come in: I'm an expert in the New Testament and that means the Epistles and the Catholics don't teach any of it correct.

The Catholic Church has many, many more experts far better educated than you, evidently. I've met many priests with PhD's in theology, Scripture, Church history, etc. None of them agree with you.

With regard to your statement about the first use of the word Catholic, etc., you would do well to keep in mind that folks back then weren't that prone to writing everything down. Their focus was mostly on oral communication, by far, because the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate. It's only been in the last 100 years or so, that humanity has show interest in universal literacy.

 

[Peterlag]

There was no other Christian Group around 60 or 80 AD. There was one Christian Church. Early on, that same Church began to be called "Catholic" which means, roughly, "universal." It wasn't a separate Church, and no one hijacked it. Similar to when a baby is born, sometimes it isn't given a name for a day or two (at least in some cultures). When the baby is named, it doesn't change the person to whom the name is given. It's just a means of identity.

What Paul teaches in the Epistles which is the doctrine for Christians and what the Catholics teach are two completely doctrines.
Here's a few examples...

There is a trinity
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

Dead people are alive
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

God is in control of everything that happens
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

The Four Gospels are written to Christians
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

Water baptism is relevant
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

 

[Peterlag]

The Catholic Church has many, many more experts far better educated than you, evidently. I've met many priests with PhD's in theology, Scripture, Church history, etc. None of them agree with you.

With regard to your statement about the first use of the word Catholic, etc., you would do well to keep in mind that folks back then weren't that prone to writing everything down. Their focus was mostly on oral communication, by far, because the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate. It's only been in the last 100 years or so, that humanity has show interest in universal literacy.

The priests with PhD's in theology said the same thing to Jesus and the Apostles. We are great men of learning and do you dare teach us they said. And what did Jesus tell them? That they were of their father the devil.

 

[Augustin56]

What Paul teaches in the Epistles which is the doctrine for Christians and what the Catholics teach are two completely doctrines.
Here's a few examples...

There is a trinity
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

Dead people are alive
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

God is in control of everything that happens
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

The Four Gospels are written to Christians
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

Water baptism is relevant
Paul ............. No
Catholics ... Yes

Peter, you need to make a slight correction to that list to make it correct:

There is a trinity
My personal interpretation of Paul.....No
The Church founded by Christ..............Yes

Dead people are alive
My personal interpretation of Paul.....No
The Church founded by Christ..............Yes

God is in control of everything that happens
My personal interpretation of Paul.....No
The Church founded by Christ..............Yes

The Four Gospels are written to Christians
My personal interpretation of Paul.....No
The Church founded by Christ..............Yes

Water baptism is relevant
My personal interpretation of Paul.....No
The Church founded by Christ..............Yes

 

[Augustin56]

The priests with PhD's in theology said the same thing to Jesus and the Apostles. We are great men of learning and do you dare teach us they said. And what did Jesus tell them? That they were of their father the devil.

So, how does that not apply to you, since you are claiming to be such an expert?