Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

[Mr. Peabody]

With all of the evolution debate going on right now, I thought this was an interesting article.

Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com
1 hour, 6 minutes ago



Your ability to hear relies on a structure that got its start as a gill opening in fish, a new study reveals.


Humans and other land animals have special bones in their ears that are crucial to hearing. Ancient fish used similar structures to breathe underwater.


Scientists had thought the evolutionary change occurred after animals had established themselves on land, but a new look at an old fossil suggests ear development was set into motion before any creatures crawled out of the water.


The transition


Researchers examined the ear bones of a close cousin of the first land animals, a 370-million-year-old fossil fish called Panderichthys. They compared these structures to those of another lobe-finned fish and to an early land animal and determined that Panderichthys displays a transitional form.


In the other fish, Eusthenopteron, a small bone called the hyomandibula developed a kink and obstructed the gill opening, called a spiracle.


However, in early land animals such as the tetrapod Acanthostega, this bone has receded, creating a larger cavity in what is now part of the middle ear in humans and other animals.


Missing link


The new examination of the Panderichthys fossil provides scientists with a critical "missing link" between fish gill openings and ears.


"In Panderichthys, it is much more like in tetrapods where there is no longer such a 'kink' and the spiracle has widened and opened up," study co-author Martin Brazeau of Uppsala University in Sweden told LiveScience. "[The hyomandibula] is quite a bit shorter, but still fairly rod-like like in Eusthenopteron. It's like a combination of fish and tetrapods."


However, it's unclear if early tetrapods used these structures to hear. Panderichthys most likely used their spiracles for ventilation of either water or air. Early tetrapods probably passed air through the opening. Scientists would need preserved soft tissue to say for sure.


"That's the question that we're starting to investigate, whether early tetrapods used it for some ventilation function as well," Brazeau said. Whether it was for the exhalation of water or air, it's not really clear. We can infer that it's quite expanded and improved from fish."


This research is detailed in the Jan. 19 issue of the journal Nature.

Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) First Four-Legged Animals Inched Along Invention Allows Humans to Breathe Like Fish How Evolution Works

Visit LiveScience.com for more daily news, views and scientific inquiry with an original, provocative point of view. LiveScience reports amazing, real world breakthroughs, made simple and stimulating for people on the go. Check out our collection of Amazing Images, Image Galleries, Interactive Features, Trivia and more. Get cool gadgets at the new LiveScience Store, sign up for our free daily email newsletter and check out our RSS feeds today!

[xrayzebra]

^^well the Evolutionist got a boost from the Catholic church. The stated that
they didn't consider Intelligent Life a scientific thing and should not be taught.

[travis2]

"Intelligent Life"??

[xrayzebra]

"Intelligent Life"??

oops, sorry about that, meant Intelligent Design. :oops (I think) :lol

[Mr. Peabody]

^^well the Evolutionist got a boost from the Catholic church. The stated that
they didn't consider Intelligent Life a scientific thing and should not be taught.

I think the church's position is that intelligent life is antithetical to their teachings.

[xrayzebra]

^^draw you own conclusions. This is the article I was referring to"

The Article in this mornings E-N:

Vatican City - The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory is school classrooms only creates confusion.

The article was in Tuesday's L'Osservatore Romano.

Author Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution. He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think the church's position is that intelligent life is antithetical to their teachings.


Thank you, you've been a great crowd. Don't forget to tip your waiters.

[Mr. Peabody]

Thank you, you've been a great crowd. Don't forget to tip your waiters.

Ba-dum Bum. I'm glad somebody got it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Ba-dum Bum. I'm glad somebody got it.


we should write a sitcom

[Phenomanul]

Thank you, you've been a great crowd. Don't forget to tip your waiters.


The Vatican represents the Catholic Church and is the 'institution' that initially brought scientific progress to a standstill for over 4 centuries....

Their backpeddaling is amusing to say the least...

Their bashing of American 'creationists' only serves to prove that the Vatican is trying to dissociate itself from its own history... in an attempt to appease the larger crowd.

To get to the grain, their 'position' is irrelevant to me. I find it ironic that somehow your 'camp' would now choose to validate something emanating from a 'religious' institution.... pretty convenient, I would say.

You want change with that tip?

[Phenomanul]

Now addressing the article....

Like I've always said... when IDer's draw conclusions based on Paleontological observations they are bashed as being non-scientific.... since, of course, they are not subjectable to experimentation.

Yet somehow when evolutionists draw conclusions from these observations they are making valid 'scientific' claims????

Hmmmmmm..... Again very convenient.

Thank you.

[Duff McCartney]

we should write a sitcom

About nothing?

[Oh, Gee!!]

The Vatican represents the Catholic Church and is the 'institution' that initially brought scientific progress to a standstill for over 4 centuries....

Their backpeddaling is amusing to say the least...

Their bashing of American 'creationists' only serves to prove that the Vatican is trying to dissociate itself from its own history... in an attempt to appease the larger crowd.

To get to the grain, their 'position' is irrelevant to me. I find it ironic that somehow your 'camp' would now choose to validate something emanating from a 'religious' institution.... pretty convenient, I would say.

You want change with that tip?

Xray is the guy you're looking for, pal--he posted the article about "backpeddaling" catholics. I was merely showing my appreciating for Peabody's irreverent joke (i.e. Catholics are stupid).

[Oh, Gee!!]

About nothing?


yeah, it would be us just talking

[Mr. Peabody]

yeah, it would be us just talking

It'll never work.

[smeagol]

Xray is the guy you're looking for, pal--he posted the article about "backpeddaling" catholics. I was merely showing my appreciating for Peabody's irreverent joke (i.e. Catholics are stupid).
Not sure why there is a need to insult us.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Not sure why there is a need to insult us.


that's peabody for you

[smeagol]

The Vatican represents the Catholic Church and is the 'institution' that initially brought scientific progress to a standstill for over 4 centuries....

Which 4 centuries?


Their backpeddaling is amusing to say the least...

Don't stop at just "saying the least". Go on. What else does the Catholic Church have to be bashed about?


Their bashing of American 'creationists' only serves to prove that the Vatican is trying to dissociate itself from its own history... in an attempt to appease the larger crowd.

In 2000 years of history, The Catholic Church has never tried to appease the larger crowd. Try again, please.

[Mr. Peabody]

Which 4 centuries?

Don't stop at just "saying the least". Go on. What else does the Catholic Church have to be bashed about?

In 2000 years of history, The Catholic Church has never tried to appease the larger crowd. Try again, please.

Not only that, but in one statement he criticizes the Church for stifling scientific progress and then follows that statement by criticizing the Church for acknowledging science

[jochhejaam]

Not only that, but in one statement he criticizes the Church for stifling scientific progress and then follows that statement by criticizing the Church for acknowledging science
Don't try to shift attention from your insinuating that the Catholics are stupid.
(per Oh Gee)

Smeagol, I don't think taking the Catholic Church to task has to be interpreted as a slight to Catholics.

Didn't the Catholic Church in recent history deny the laity the right to even read the Bible? And then there's this little thing called indulgences.

You knowing where you stand with God is the important thing, at least that's what's important to me.

[Mr. Peabody]

Don't try to shift attention from your insinuating that the Catholics are stupid.
(per Oh Gee)



No, it's okay, I can make fun of the Catholics, since I used to be one. I think that's the rule.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, it's okay, I can make fun of the Catholics, since I used to be one. I think that's the rule.


It's why I became jewish, for the jokes

[Guru of Nothing]

No, it's okay, I can make fun of the Catholics, since I used to be one. I think that's the rule.

Wow! I used to be a Catholic too, and I thought I was the only one. I wonder, could there be three of us?

Seriously, Catholics, so far as religious folk go, tend to be ... well, normal, and offer very little for which I can make fun of.

But then you have Protestants, all 666 varieties of them.

Peace be with y'all.

[gtownspur]

Which 4 centuries?



Don't stop at just "saying the least". Go on. What else does the Catholic Church have to be bashed about?



In 2000 years of history, The Catholic Church has never tried to appease the larger crowd. Try again, please.


Gee! i don't know Smeagol. What has the Catholic Church done to appease everyone.....oh yea!! YOu have the Virgin of GUadalupedelaROsa Santa Maria de Quaxaca Simon DOn Patron Jose Cuervo!!, and many transposed pagan deities standing in for saints.

[Mr. Peabody]

Gee! i don't know Smeagol. What has the Catholic Church done to appease everyone.....oh yea!! YOu have the Virgin of GUadalupedelaROsa Santa Maria de Quaxaca Simon DOn Patron Jose Cuervo!!, and many transposed pagan deities standing in for saints.

Yeah, I don't like it when religions borrow from "pagan" practices in order to attract a greater number of followers. It's somewhat deceptive.

[Phenomanul]

First off, don't take this personal. Though you may consider yourself a Catholic, you are not a Vatican official, nor do you dictate which doctrines to practice.


Which 4 centuries?

To sum them up with another adjective... "The Dark Ages"... or "The Middle Ages."



Don't stop at just "saying the least". Go on. What else does the Catholic Church have to be bashed about?

Hmm... power hungry crusades... the Inquisition... I know you had nothing to do with it. Just understand that there is a reason why people have anti-religious sentiment..... when it comes to organized institutions...

Of course protestants are not excluded from this shame (Salem Witch Trials, the KKK come to mind).

People without the guidance of the Holy Spirit no matter their denomination will fall prey to their own flesh (power, greed, lust, deceit, envy, lack-of-restraint). GOD will judge all people no matter their race, gender or religious affiliation and all will be accountable to Him alone. Only then will his chosen flock be known.... I tell you this though, there will be Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Messianic Jews, Episcopalians...etc... and the common denominator in the bunch will be that they all accepted Jesus's sacrifice and repented of their sin.

It's on a person by person basis with GOD as the judge... not feeble human minds.


In 2000 years of history, The Catholic Church has never tried to appease the larger crowd. Try again, please.

gtownspur actually commented on a lesser known Catholic practice of setting up an "identifiable" saint in each of its domains in order to appease the locals.

[Phenomanul]

Not only that, but in one statement he criticizes the Church for stifling scientific progress and then follows that statement by criticizing the Church for acknowledging science


I'm just trying to show that my views aren't as narrowminded as some in here would like to suggest.

I can criticize deficiencies in any institution... after all, they are only human. The church is not made up of temples or organizational charts... it is made up of those that genuinely pursue the fulfillment of GOD's purpose in their lives.

[Phenomanul]

Now addressing the article....

Like I've always said... when IDer's draw conclusions based on Paleontological observations they are bashed as being non-scientific.... since, of course, they are not subjectable to experimentation.

Yet somehow when evolutionists draw conclusions from these observations they are making valid 'scientific' claims????

Hmmmmmm..... Again very convenient.

Thank you.


Back to the article itself I've noticed no one has addressed this double-standard...

[travis2]

Didn't the Catholic Church in recent history deny the laity the right to even read the Bible?

No.

[travis2]

To sum them up with another adjective... "The Dark Ages"... or "The Middle Ages."

The Church was not responsible for the "Dark Ages". Actually was one of the only educational resources around during that time.

[Phenomanul]

The Church was not responsible for the "Dark Ages". Actually was one of the only educational resources around during that time.


Partially true... because any 'education' or thinking that conflicted with the Catholic Church could get you in big trouble. Progress was therefore limited...

Why were people like Galileo persecuted by the Pontificate at the start of the Renaissance period?

[travis2]

Partially true... because any 'education' or thinking that conflicted with the Catholic Church could get you in big trouble. Progress was therefore limited...

Why were people like Galileo persecuted by the Pontificate at the start of the Renaissance period?

Two reasons. One, he was claiming results he hadn't proven yet as fact, and he was rather politically incorrect about the way he did things.

A (possibly biased) review of that incident can be read at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

[smeagol]

Didn't the Catholic Church in recent history deny the laity the right to even read the Bible?
Joch, you are one of my favorite posters when it comes to debating religion. That is why I am disappointed that you truly believe the above statement.

The only instances where the Roman Catholic Church was against the laity reading the Bible was because the versions of the Bible which were being printed were not the Catholic Bibles but Bibles which, according to the Catholic Church, had mistakes, important omissions and, in some cases, unwanted additions. In summary, these were corrupted versions of the Bible. It makes all the sense of the world that the Church was against the propagation of these kinds of Bibles.

By the way, Protestant leaders of the time, such as Calvin and Henry VIII, ordered versions of the Bible, which they did not agree with, burnt.



And then there's this little thing called indulgences.

I have not read enough about this subject to talk intelligently about it.


You knowing where you stand with God is the important thing, at least that's what's important to me.

As a Roman Catholic, I believe the Church was established by Christ himself (the whole thing about “Peter you are the rock and on this rock . . .”) and Christ promised that the Church would not err (“and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”). Therefore, I believe the Church will always guide me.

It’s hard for me to believe that God wanted his Church to be established the Protestant way (and this is not bashing Protestantism, it’s simply the way I see reality around me). Just see how many Protestant denominations there are, all claiming they hold the true teaching of Christ.

[2centsworth]

My questions is you have jillions of different fossils dating back billions of years but not one transitional fossil. Common Sense should tell us there should be thousands of transitional fossils if evolution is true. Maybe the more intelligent athiest on the board can explain it to me.

[danyel]

There are transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

[smeagol]

Gee! i don't know Smeagol. What has the Catholic Church done to appease everyone.....oh yea!! YOu have the Virgin of GUadalupedelaROsa Santa Maria de Quaxaca Simon DOn Patron Jose Cuervo!!, and many transposed pagan deities standing in for saints.
Your post makes little sense.

The Virgin of Guadalupe is simply the Virgin Mary who appeared to a poor “campesino” in Mexico. Nothing to do with transposed deities.

The rest of what you have written I simply cannot follow given you poor grammar:

“GUadalupedelaROsa Santa Maria de Quaxaca Simon DOn Patron Jose Cuervo”

[2centsworth]

There are transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Why is it so obscure?. There should be hard concrete evidence and fossils and not evidence that can be easily countered. At this point of the discussion it takes as muchif not more faith to believe in evolution as it does God.

[SA210]

Your post makes little sense.

The Virgin of Guadalupe is simply the Virgin Mary who appeared to a poor “campesino” in Mexico. Nothing to do with transposed deities.
Is this in the bible?

[smeagol]

First off, don't take this personal. Though you may consider yourself a Catholic, you are not a Vatican official, nor do you dictate which doctrines to practice.
So?



To sum them up with another adjective... "The Dark Ages"... or "The Middle Ages."
As Travis put it, the Catholic Church was one of the few institutions which, regarding knowledge and learning, bridged the Old World with the Renaissance.



Hmm... power hungry crusades... the Inquisition..


You need to read about these historic events from non-biased writer.



People without the guidance of the Holy Spirit no matter their denomination will fall prey to their own flesh (power, greed, lust, deceit, envy, lack-of-restraint). GOD will judge all people no matter their race, gender or religious affiliation and all will be accountable to Him alone. Only then will his chosen flock be known.... I tell you this though, there will be Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Messianic Jews, Episcopalians...etc... and the common denominator in the bunch will be that they all accepted Jesus's sacrifice and repented of their sin.


I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches something different from you statement above.



gtownspur actually commented on a lesser known Catholic practice of setting up an "identifiable" saint in each of its domains in order to appease the locals.


Way to twist reality. This is not what I would expect from you.

[smeagol]

Is this in the bible?
No.

The Church does not require its flock to believe in personal revelations, such as the appearance of the Virgin in Guadalupe, Fatima or Lourdes.

But is has nothing to do with it being in the Bible or not.

Where is it written in the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of Faith?

[Mr. Peabody]

My questions is you have jillions of different fossils dating back billions of years but not one transitional fossil. Common Sense should tell us there should be thousands of transitional fossils if evolution is true. Maybe the more intelligent athiest on the board can explain it to me.

Or if evolution is true you would see animals that have organs and appendages, inherited from the ancestors they evolved from, that are still present but do not currently serve any purpose.

Otherwise, you would have to believe that God created man and animal with organs and other parts that are completely useless and just happen to resemble features found on other animals.

[ChumpDumper]

My questions is you have jillions of different fossils dating back billions of years but not one transitional fossil. Common Sense should tell us there should be thousands of transitional fossils if evolution is true. Maybe the more intelligent athiest on the board can explain it to me.It's my understanding fossilization isn't all that common an occurence. I'd have to look it up to get any real numbers, but it kind of stands to reason when you think about what happens to most animals after they die.

[Mr. Peabody]

Or if evolution is true you would see animals that have organs and appendages, inherited from the ancestors they evolved from, that are still present but do not currently serve any purpose.

Otherwise, you would have to believe that God created man and animal with organs and other parts that are completely useless and just happen to resemble features found on other creatures.

[danyel]

Why is it so obscure?. There should be hard concrete evidence and fossils and not evidence that can be easily countered. At this point of the discussion it takes as muchif not more faith to believe in evolution as it does God.




Why is it so obscure to you? what kind of evindence where you expecting to be discovered after several million years?

At least evolution has "obscure evidence"... :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

So?

I'm just trying to say that defense of your personal relationship with GOD should not be intertwined with defense of the Catholic Institution as interpreted by the various Vatican Pontificates. They are not without error. But don't take that as a way of me trying to imply that my particular denomination is perfect... far from it.




As Travis put it, the Catholic Church was one of the few institutions which, regarding knowledge and learning, bridged the Old World with the Renaissance.

And as I tried to explain... they put road blocks to certain forms of thinking.

Such as Coppernicus' claim that the Earth was not the center of the universe... The way I see it... the Vatican had limited understanding in several fields... so rather than seeing that these new concepts were irrelevant or rather, non-contradictory to the concept of a Divinely created universe... they thought that the concepts posed threats.

Again, this is why people fear 'religious' involvement in science. They believe we will somehow revert to this inflexible thinking....



You need to read about these historic events from non-biased writer.

I've read plenty of books regarding both subjects..... All I know is that they were very bad pursuits... and showed misdirected judmentment. Especially, when it concerns the decision to end people's lives in the name of GOD.

A protest against indulgences initially spurred about the creation of the 'protestant' church. Essentially, people were paying money to the church to obtain 'forgiveness from sin'. Bad practice.

The Catholic Church denounced the practice over a century later.



I don’t think the Catholic Church teaches something different from you statement above.

True... not the current 'modernized' Catholic Church.... but they are still very ritualistic... With beliefs such as: "You can't obtain entry into heaven without being baptized", "The bread and the wine literally turn into Christ's body and blood", not to mention the fact that they practice several rites not even in the Bible...

All that is necessary;

"If you confess with your mouth JESUS is Lord, and believe in your heart that GOD hath raised him from the dead.... YOU SHALL BE SAVED. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

- Romans 10:9-10




Way to twist reality. This is not what I would expect from you.

I'm not twisting reality.... The Catholic church was having major problems keeping order in early Mexico with native converts and non-converted habitants... everything always seemed to favor the Europeans, such as the best partitions of land, livestock and access to fresh water... the natives were getting fed up with Spanish rule to the point where the Spanish leaders feared a widespread uprising. The church tried to mitigate the problem and literally made up the story of the apparition to Juan Diego... conveniently the "Virgin" had hispanic traits that would make it easier for the natives to accept her, conveniently she appeared to a native and not someone of European descent... The ploy worked wonders for the Catholic church in Mexico. Look at how fervently Mexicans defend the name of "La Virgen de Guadalupe" till this day. If only they would do the same to defend the name of JESUS.

This ploy was also used in Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala... Haiti... Cuba...

Again, I'm in no way bashing you....

[Phenomanul]

It's my understanding fossilization isn't all that common an occurence. I'd have to look it up to get any real numbers, but it kind of stands to reason when you think about what happens to most animals after they die.


True because fossilization is not a process that can be observed for any of the animals dying presently. Interesting, no???

Animals decay way too fast to leave any fossilized remains.... unless they are somehow quickly buried.

Which is why the premise of a cataclysmic flood can explain the burial of millions of animals and a high fossilization rate that can not be explained by any modern-day mechanism.

[2centsworth]

True because fossilization is not a process that can be observed for any of the animals dying presently. Interesting, no???

Animals decay way too fast to leave any fossilized remains.... unless they are somehow quickly buried.

Which is why the premise of a cataclysmic flood can explain the burial of millions of animals and a high fossilization rate that can not be explained by any modern-day mechanism.
DUDE I went to the Musues of natural History in new york and found almost 1 million fossils. However, not one a transitional form.

[ChumpDumper]

Which is why the premise of a cataclysmic flood can explain the burial of millions of animals and a high fossilization rate that can not be explained by any modern-day mechanism.So there was a high fossilization rate at one point. Great.

[2centsworth]

Why is it so obscure to you? what kind of evindence where you expecting to be discovered after several million years?

At least evolution has "obscure evidence"... :rolleyes
a preponderance of the fossil evidence supporting creation doesn't seem obscure to me.

Nevertheless, even the Darwin says you can't know for sure so Faith has a lot to do with what you believe.

IMO being an evolutionist is the biggest gamble you could ever take.

[2centsworth]

So there was a high fossilization rate at one point. Great.
yeah but we have discovered fossils for every period in time, but them transitional forms never seem to show up.

[danyel]

a preponderance of the fossil evidence supporting creation doesn't seem obscure to me.

Nevertheless, even the Darwin says you can't know for sure so Faith has a lot to do with what you believe.

IMO being an evolutionist is the biggest gamble you could ever take.

You mean the leading, most supported scientific theory, the one that hasn't been scientifically refuted or replaced yet? Yeah, I'd take my chances...

What's a transitional fossil for you? because there have been tons of transitional fossils found but you wouldn't acknowledge them as that...

[2centsworth]

You mean the leading, most supported scientific theory, the one that hasn't been scientifically refuted or replaced yet? Yeah, I'd take my chances...

What's a transitional fossil for you? because there have been tons of transitional fossils found but you wouldn't acknowledge them as that...
You seem very sure of yourself when countless non creationist scientist have many serious questions about your theory. There's no way you can be so sure. Also, none of your transitional fossils have any credibility what so ever.That's why your evidence is left out of textbooks and you have studies like the one at the beginning of this thread.

It's a gamble.

[danyel]

It isn't "my" theory...

I have questions myself too, but no other theory comes even near close as an explanation.

Yeah, there is no way I can be sure, this isn't math o physics, there is no way anyone can pull a formula and prove it. I won't live 10.000 years or more to watch things evolve...

Evidence left out of textbooks? So there is no textbook on australopithecus or you just don't consideer it as a transitional fossil either?

It isn't a gamble, its a theory...and it hasnt been proven wrong so far...

[hendrix]

It's why I became jewish, for the jokes

:lol too much Seinfeld.

[2centsworth]

It isn't "my" theory...

I have questions myself too, but no other theory comes even near close as an explanation.

Yeah, there is no way I can be sure, this isn't math o physics, there is no way anyone can pull a formula and prove it. I won't live 10.000 years or more to watch things evolve...

Evidence left out of textbooks? So there is no textbook on australopithecus or you just don't consideer it as a transitional fossil either?

It isn't a gamble, its a theory...and it hasnt been proven wrong so far...
hasn't been proven right neither. The gamble is with your life if God exist and punishes Lairs, thieves, murderes, rapist etc... like he says in the bible.

[danyel]

So in your opinion god will punish me in the after life and put me in the same category than lairs, thieves and rapists just for believing in evolution?

[2centsworth]

So in your opinion god will punish me in the after life and put me in the same category than lairs, thieves and rapists just for believing in evolution?
I'm saying have you ever lied, stolen, used god's name in vein, or even lusted after a man or woman? Of course you have and so has everyone in this world, but the fact still remains we are all Liars, Thieves, blasphemous, adultering hearts. By gods word he will punish all of us unless we repent and accept the sacrifice of Jesus.

An evolutionist I'm assuming doesn't believe in the above and that's why it's a gamble.

[danyel]

I dont believe evolution is contradictory to the idea of believing in god or in a supreme being. Not even the vatican does...

[2centsworth]

I dont believe evolution is contradictory to the idea of believing in god or in a supreme being. Not even the vatican does...
OK. Enjoyed the conversation. Let me leave you with this if God were to judge you by the ten commandments would you be innocent or guilty?

[hendrix]

Dude, I (and I thinks others here) don't believe in God.
So not a single one of your warnings and recommendations make any sense to us.
Besides... believing in God "just in case" is a really really sad way of living.

[2centsworth]

Dude, I (and I thinks others here) don't believe in God.
So not a single one of your warnings and recommendations make any sense to us.
Besides... believing in God "just in case" is a really really sad way of living.
My life is far from sad. Nevertheless, if you think Murderes, rapist etc.. who get away with their crimes on earth never get punished to each his own.

Also, your conscience is a gift from God.

[hendrix]

No, it's the way humans are. Thanks to some millions years of mutations and inheritance.

[2centsworth]

No, it's the way humans are. Thanks to some millions years of mutations and inheritance.
Are you good enough to go to heaven?
If you're wrong and are judged by the Ten Commandments will you go to heaven or hell?

I'm telling you the evil will be punished, but if you don't understand that we'll just agree to think differently.

[Phenomanul]

DUDE I went to the Musues of natural History in new york and found almost 1 million fossils. However, not one a transitional form.

My statement was not a rebuttal of yours... I was supporting your previous statement.

[hendrix]

Are you good enough to go to heaven?

You gotta be joking.

[smeagol]

I'm just trying to say that defense of your personal relationship with GOD should not be intertwined with defense of the Catholic Institution as interpreted by the various Vatican Pontificates. They are not without error. But don't take that as a way of me trying to imply that my particular denomination is perfect... far from it.

The Roman Catholic Church is the Church Christ established. It's His Church. They are totally intertwined. And in terms of Doctrine, the Church is without error.



I've read plenty of books regarding both subjects..... All I know is that they were very bad pursuits... and showed misdirected judmentment. Especially, when it concerns the decision to end people's lives in the name of GOD.

Well, I did not read much about the Crusades, aside that the reason for them was that the Christians of the time wanted to regain the Holy Lands taken away by the Muslims. Not sure what's wrong with that.

The Inquisition is a difficult topic and a lot of inaccuracies have been written about it. The reality is that the Episcopal Inquisition against the Catharists and the Roman Inquisition, the one who tried Galileo, were pretty benign and did not last long, especially the latter. The one everyone talks about when bashing the Church is the Spanish Inquisition. The truth is this version of the Inquisition abused its power. What needs to be recognized is that even though the Church is Holy, its members are not. Just like is Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, etc, we Catholics are sinners.


A protest against indulgences initially spurred about the creation of the 'protestant' church. Essentially, people were paying money to the church to obtain 'forgiveness from sin'. Bad practice.

Agreed, bad practice.


The Catholic Church denounced the practice over a century later.

And from what I read in these last two days, the practice was also condemned by the Catholic Church long before Luther and the Protestant revolt. Three Councils between 747 and 1317 (not to mention St Cyprian as early as the Fourth Century) and six Popes between 1268 and 1478 condemned and tried correct the practice.



True... not the current 'modernized' Catholic Church.... but they are still very ritualistic... With beliefs such as: "You can't obtain entry into heaven without being baptized",

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."


"The bread and the wine literally turn into Christ's body and blood",

Ever read John 6, especially John 6: 53-57?

"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."



not to mention the fact that they practice several rites not even in the Bible...

Care to name them?



"If you confess with your mouth JESUS is Lord, and believe in your heart that GOD hath raised him from the dead.... YOU SHALL BE SAVED. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

- Romans 10:9-10

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead”

James 2: 14-17

This is why you need somebody to interpret the Bible (the Catholic Church)tation of the Bible takes you nowhere (20,000 Protestant denominations)



I'm not twisting reality.... The Catholic church was having major problems keeping order in early Mexico with native converts and non-converted habitants... everything always seemed to favor the Europeans, such as the best partitions of land, livestock and access to fresh water... the natives were getting fed up with Spanish rule to the point where the Spanish leaders feared a widespread uprising. The church tried to mitigate the problem and literally made up the story of the apparition to Juan Diego... conveniently the "Virgin" had hispanic traits that would make it easier for the natives to accept her, conveniently she appeared to a native and not someone of European descent... The ploy worked wonders for the Catholic church in Mexico. Look at how fervently Mexicans defend the name of "La Virgen de Guadalupe" till this day. If only they would do the same to defend the name of JESUS.

That is your POV. To me it’s twisting. And if Mexicans adore the Virgin to the point where they forget about Jesus, then they are mistaken. I doubt this is the case but for a small group.



This ploy was also used in Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Guatemala... Haiti... Cuba...

Sure, the Evil Catholic Church, the Whore of Babylon, the Mother of all Harlots. Always coming up with new ploys.


Again, I'm in no way bashing you....

I understand you are not bashing me personally. You are bashing my Church, the one Christ established.

[Vashner]

I dont believe evolution is contradictory to the idea of believing in god or in a supreme being. Not even the vatican does...

That's the new thing. It's nice because it's more modern view.

God is not some dude with grey hair in the clouds watching every little thing everyone does or listening to prayer hotline. Or standing at pearly gates with a list.. that's all stuff people dreamed up.

It's more like the force luke.

[Phenomanul]

The Roman Catholic Church is the Church Christ established. It's His Church. They are totally intertwined. And in terms of Doctrine, the Church is without error.

That is where we differ, Christ instituted the Church to be directed by the Holy Spirit... not by any one man or insititution; you yourself admitted that all of us were sinners. And it is because we are imperfect that we can't claim the work of the Holy Spirit. The Church is definitely with error... because men are not inerrant.

I read this website about a year ago.... and fortunately it was still around. Anyways the page details why 'traditions' and 'rites' are not what Christ wanted out of HIS Church....

http://www.geocities.com/got_doctrine/rc.html


Agreed, bad practice.

See, we don't disagree on everything.



"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."

Read 1st John Chapter 5.... Where it talks about the Trinity... The water represents Jesus.

Besides, one must be fully conscious of what he is doing or accepting when being baptized. A baby does not have this discernment. Jesus was presented at the Temple as a child but not baptized till he started his 'ministry' at the age of 30.

Also, the thief that was crucified along with Christ, who recognized Jesus was Lord was promised by Jesus himself a welcome into 'Paradise'... The thief was not baptized... nor did he have any contributing works... or any other passage of rite... All he did was genuinely believe that JESUS was the Son of GOD...



Ever read John 6, especially John 6: 53-57?

"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."

Which means if you accept his sacrifice you will have eternal life.... JESUS paid the price already.


Care to name them? [/QUOTE]


Again... there are many.

http://www.geocities.com/got_doctrine/rc.html



“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead”

James 2: 14-17

This is why you need somebody to interpret the Bible (the Catholic Church)tation of the Bible takes you nowhere (20,000 Protestant denominations)






That is your POV. To me it’s twisting. And if Mexicans adore the Virgin to the point where they forget about Jesus, then they are mistaken. I doubt this is the case but for a small group.

It is the case for MOST 'religious' Mexicans.... who adore the 'Virgin' as the Mother of GOD.

The Bible clearly states that only GOD is worthy of worship... GOD and GOD alone.




Sure, the Evil Catholic Church, the Whore of Babylon, the Mother of all Harlots. Always coming up with new ploys.

OK... Now you are overreacting....



I understand you are not bashing me personally. You are bashing my Church, the one Christ established.

We are the Church... the followers... not the temples or buildings or institutions... the members themselves represent the Bride of Christ.

[Phenomanul]

An even better link...

http://www.myfortress.org/CATHOLOCISM.html

[smeagol]

Wrong post

[smeagol]

That is where we differ, Christ instituted the Church to be directed by the Holy Spirit... not by any one man or insititution

Christ told Peter that he was the rock on which his (Christ’s) Church was to be built. Unless you twist the meaning of Mt 16:18, Christ established the Catholic Church on Earth.


you yourself admitted that all of us were sinners. And it is because we are imperfect that we can't claim the work of the Holy Spirit. The Church is definitely with error... because men are not inerrant.

The fact that we are sinners and make mistakes has nothing to do with the Catholic Church teaching the True Doctrine. This is a common misconception. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (and therefore infallible) only when it makes pronouncements with regards to Doctrine. Why? Because Christ gave his Church this power.

I would turn the question to you? Why do you feel the Protestant interpretation of the Bible (which by the way varies from denomination to denomination) is the correct one?



Besides, one must be fully conscious of what he is doing or accepting when being baptized. A baby does not have this discernment. Jesus was presented at the Temple as a child but not baptized till he started his 'ministry' at the age of 30.

Where does it say in the Bible that infants should not be baptized?

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).

Furthermore, the Bible tells us of at least three instances where Paul baptizes an entire household. Although we don’t know if there where infants, there is a big possibility that in one of the three houses there were (and these are just the three that are recorded).


Also, the thief that was crucified along with Christ, who recognized Jesus was Lord was promised by Jesus himself a welcome into 'Paradise'... The thief was not baptized... nor did he have any contributing works... or any other passage of rite... All he did was genuinely believe that JESUS was the Son of GOD...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281).

In certain rare cases, you don’t need to be baptized to be saved (this would apply to the case of the Thieve, not to mention that he (the Thieve) was told he was saved by The Lord himself).



Which means if you accept his sacrifice you will have eternal life.... JESUS paid the price already.

I think John 6 is pretty clear and leads to the Transubstantiation Doctrine.



It is the case for MOST 'religious' Mexicans.... who adore the 'Virgin' as the Mother of GOD.

They adore Mary; they worship Christ. If they don’t, they are not following the Church’s Doctrine. I cannot make it more clear than that.


The Bible clearly states that only GOD is worthy of worship... GOD and GOD alone.

Show me where the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. Another Protestant misconception.



OK... Now you are overreacting....

Maybe I am, but I don’t like it when you imply that the Church is deceiving, trying to come up with ploys, etc.

[Phenomanul]

Christ told Peter that he was the rock on which his (Christ’s) Church was to be built. Unless you twist the meaning of Mt 16:18, Christ established the Catholic Church on Earth.



The fact that we are sinners and make mistakes has nothing to do with the Catholic Church teaching the True Doctrine. This is a common misconception. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (and therefore infallible) only when it makes pronouncements with regards to Doctrine. Why? Because Christ gave his Church this power.

I would turn the question to you? Why do you feel the Protestant interpretation of the Bible (which by the way varies from denomination to denomination) is the correct one?




Where does it say in the Bible that infants should not be baptized?

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).

Furthermore, the Bible tells us of at least three instances where Paul baptizes an entire household. Although we don’t know if there where infants, there is a big possibility that in one of the three houses there were (and these are just the three that are recorded).



The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281).

In certain rare cases, you don’t need to be baptized to be saved (this would apply to the case of the Thieve, not to mention that he (the Thieve) was told he was saved by The Lord himself).




I think John 6 is pretty clear and leads to the Transubstantiation Doctrine.




They adore Mary; they worship Christ. If they don’t, they are not following the Church’s Doctrine. I cannot make it more clear than that.



Show me where the Catholic Church teaches otherwise. Another Protestant misconception.




Maybe I am, but I don’t like it when you imply that the Church is deceiving, trying to come up with ploys, etc.


I would rather these diferences be discussed with PMs....

But in short Christ is the Solid Rock on which the foundation of the Church is built.... not Peter...

Peter was not the '1st Pope', read:
Matthew 8:14 --- he was already married
Galatians 2:14 --- he was not infallible
1 Corinthians 3:11 --- Christ is the foundation
Ephesians 2:20 --- Other foundations
Acts 2:42 --- Not Peter's doctrine
Matthew 18:18 --- Other's have keys
Acts 15:13-21 --- James in lead
Galatians 2:9 --- Pillars, not just one
1 Peter 1:1 --- Christ is our Rock
1 Peter 1:1 --- Peter's an apostle
1 Peter 5:1 --- Peter's an Elder

Adoration = is a form of worship.... What did Moses do when he asked God to reveal his Glory??? He bowed down and adored.

"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:" -Rev.9:20

Mary deserves our respect... she, being HUMAN and needing remission of her own sin... also needed Christ's redemption.... but she does not merit worship or adoration.

Mary was not sinless, read:
Luke 1:47
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Romans 3:23, 5:12
1 John 1:8-10
Psalms 51:5

Mary is not our Intercessor, read:
1 Timothy 2:5
John 14:6
Hebrews 8:6, 12:23-24

Mary did not remain a virgin, read:
John 2:12, 7:5
Mark 3:31, 6:1-3
Matthew 13:55
Luke 14:26
Acts 1:14
1 Corinthians 9:4-5
Galatians 1:19

How did Jesus address Mary?, read:
John 2:4, 19:26
Matthew 12:46-50


Speaking of John 6:

What's GOD's work????
John 6:28-29


BTW neither the word 'transubstantiation' or 'catholic' or 'purgatory' appear anywhere in the Bible...

[Rocky Balboa]

Where's Father Carmine when yous need 'em?

[smeagol]

Hegamboa, did you get my PM?

[travis2]

I would rather these diferences be discussed with PMs....

But in short Christ is the Solid Rock on which the foundation of the Church is built.... not Peter...

Peter was not the '1st Pope', read:
Matthew 8:14 --- he was already married
Galatians 2:14 --- he was not infallible
1 Corinthians 3:11 --- Christ is the foundation
Ephesians 2:20 --- Other foundations
Acts 2:42 --- Not Peter's doctrine
Matthew 18:18 --- Other's have keys
Acts 15:13-21 --- James in lead
Galatians 2:9 --- Pillars, not just one
1 Peter 1:1 --- Christ is our Rock
1 Peter 1:1 --- Peter's an apostle
1 Peter 5:1 --- Peter's an Elder

Adoration = is a form of worship.... What did Moses do when he asked God to reveal his Glory??? He bowed down and adored.

"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:" -Rev.9:20

Mary deserves our respect... she, being HUMAN and needing remission of her own sin... also needed Christ's redemption.... but she does not merit worship or adoration.

Mary was not sinless, read:
Luke 1:47
Ecclesiastes 7:20
Romans 3:23, 5:12
1 John 1:8-10
Psalms 51:5

Mary is not our Intercessor, read:
1 Timothy 2:5
John 14:6
Hebrews 8:6, 12:23-24

Mary did not remain a virgin, read:
John 2:12, 7:5
Mark 3:31, 6:1-3
Matthew 13:55
Luke 14:26
Acts 1:14
1 Corinthians 9:4-5
Galatians 1:19

How did Jesus address Mary?, read:
John 2:4, 19:26
Matthew 12:46-50


Speaking of John 6:

What's GOD's work????
John 6:28-29


BTW neither the word 'transubstantiation' or 'catholic' or 'purgatory' appear anywhere in the Bible...

Every one of those twists, mistranslations, misconceptions, and otherwise incorrect interpretations has been dealt with at one time or another in this forum.

I am not bashing you personally, but merely dredging up old arguments that have been refuted isn't debate.

[travis2]

Nice job, smeagol...

[Phenomanul]

If you want to have a private discussion about religion and doctrine, I have no problem.

My view is that by having it in the public forum, other more knowledgeable posters than myself (and there are many) can chime in. As long as we do it in a civilized manner.

Your call. If you want to do it private that's fine, but so is public. Let me know :spin

We can keep it public as long as we accord not to get too personal and that the conversation stay civilized...

Also, realize that since the subject is 'religious,' people not privy to the rest of the conversation will in fact get personal... If they do... we can't allow ourselves to get sucked into an aggresive defense of our faith..

I loved the way this paragraph was phrased in the Got Doctrine foreword....

"Ministries as any credit for good must be attributed to GOD. We believe any preacher or teacher that denies that they too are possibly likewise guilty of error at times does not understand that they are fallible and apt to offend by nature. Mature Christians must strive against allowing themselves to be easily overcome by personal pride which causes them to become unduly offended. We love all of our Roman Catholic, Charismatic, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. We admonish all to be familiar with their denomination's writings. Our differences and disagreements are not of a personal nature but concern articles of Faith, creeds, doctrinal statements, and the like. We must assume all who claim to believe in Jesus Christ are true members of the body of Christ. Of course, we know that there are "tares", but only God knows who these "false brethren" are. We do not critique any specific person's sincerity, spiritual standing, or worth, and would not dare do so because we believe this is judging one's brother."

Anyway, some background on myself...

I was a professed 'Catholic' till about the age of 10. I've been a 'born-again' Christian since and have strived to learn more and more about GOD's purpose for my life.

I attend a Southern Baptist Church.... but the denomination is not without its faults... for one, and in general, they are too uptight when it comes to worship.... My father is the pastor of my particular church however, and he is constantly studying to edify his understanding of the Word. Though we try to understand Biblical doctrines, we always try to do it with the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT. It is in this manner that my father always teaches, beginning with a prayer that the LORD sanctify his lips. For the most part we try to focus on our contributions to society rather than focusing on the differences in doctrine.

[Phenomanul]

Every one of those twists, mistranslations, misconceptions, and otherwise incorrect interpretations has been dealt with at one time or another in this forum.

I am not bashing you personally, but merely dredging up old arguments that have been refuted isn't debate.

I don't believe I was around when these passages were addressed.... but most are very clear. Mary was a sinner, needed redemption, was not Divine and should not be adored, revered, venerated or worshiped.

Things that are refuted by passages in the Catholic Catechism or the Council of Trent Accord... I personally can't allow to carry more weight than GOD's Holy Word itself. Again this is my opinion.

[travis2]

I don't believe I was around when these passages were addressed.... but most are very clear. Mary was a sinner, needed redemption, was not Divine and should not be adored, revered, venerated or worshiped.

Things that are refuted by passages in the Catholic Catechism or the Council of Trent Accord... I personally can't allow to carry more weight than GOD's Holy Word itself. Again this is my opinion.

I disagree with your first statement...especially given the fact of thousands of Protestant sects proclaiming themselves as the true faith.

Second...your statement about Mary is true insofar as the Church does not teach she is divine. As such, she is not to be worshipped. The other words you use, however, are incorrect. And (not meaning to sound harsh, but...) I will not allow you to redefine words to suit you. Adoration, veneration, and reverence are not the same as worship and never will be. That's a fact and it's not going to change.

Finally, most of the Biblical references you give are themselves refuted by Biblical passages...not merely Church doctrine.

However...for the efficacy of using tradition to help shape doctrine...see 1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, and 2 Timothy (among others). Further, you cannot produce any Biblical reference to relying solely on the Bible without engaging in circular logic and your own appeal to tradition.

[Phenomanul]

I disagree with your first statement...especially given the fact of thousands of Protestant sects proclaiming themselves as the true faith.

I have not, nor will I ever, profess to hold the "true faith"... And yet that is something the Catholic Church has already professed to own.

From the Roman Catholic Catechism...

The one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Roman church which is the one church of Christ and teaches the one completely true religion revealed by God for the solace and salvation of all mankind (p.81). The Catholic church, and she only, has all the truths of religion (p.82). The church which is the one ark of salvation.The Catholic church is the necessary means of salvation for all (p.340). Outside the church, no salvation (p.447).

I know it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT to teach me Truth... If I genuinely seek it...

The Bible says that every true saint is guided by the HOLY SPIRIT into all truth, that the common saint has the unction and that "ye need not that any man teach you":

[John 14:26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

[John16:13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

[1 John 2:20] But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

[26] These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.

[27] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

In short, the Truth of GOD is revealed to those who seek it.



Second...your statement about Mary is true insofar as the Church does not teach she is divine. As such, she is not to be worshipped. The other words you use, however, are incorrect. And (not meaning to sound harsh, but...) I will not allow you to redefine words to suit you. Adoration, veneration, and reverence are not the same as worship and never will be. That's a fact and it's not going to change.

ahem... you venerate and adore her at your own risk then... My faith and loyalty, however, belong to GOD alone... for His Glory.

But this is what the Catechism says concerning Mary:

Special homage-supreme dignity as mother of God-holier and nobler than any angel or saint. It implies a loving reverence-and a confidence in her power and benevolence (p.241).

(She is) mediatress of all graces. Dispenser of the graces bestowed on human kind. Having co-operated in the Incarnation and the Redemption-our lady merits to co-operate as channel for the graces flowing therefrom (the cross).

Burying place of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where her body lay for three days before her assumption into heaven (p.496).

Her physical heart is venerated. The devotion is analogous (comparable) to that to the sacred heart of Jesus (p.225).

She remained for her whole life absolutely sinless (p.310).

"So according to "sacred tradition" of the Roman church, Mary was sinless, resurrected from the dead after three days, and is our intercessor before God (2 Cor.11:3-4, Gal.1:6-9)." (from website I linked)

I've already posted some Biblical passages that state that this ideology can't be true... direct and clear... and no, no other place in the Bible refutes Mary's standing as a HUMAN, herself in need of Christ's redemption.


As far as veneration goes, here again is what the Catechism says...

Veneration (is) that worship given to the saints either directly or through images or relics (p.512).



Finally, most of the Biblical references you give are themselves refuted by Biblical passages...not merely Church doctrine.

The Bible would not refute itself.... think about it. Interpretation of the Bible therefore should not create conflicting concepts... When this occurs something is clearly wrong.


However...for the efficacy of using tradition to help shape doctrine...see 1 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Peter, and 2 Timothy (among others). Further, you cannot produce any Biblical reference to relying solely on the Bible without engaging in circular logic and your own appeal to tradition.

That's just it... the Bible is GOD's Holy Word... but we are to rely on God.... on His daily sustenance, counsel, wisdom, and guidance. Beware if you rely on the interpretation of men... and that interpretation is in conflict with stated Biblical truths.

As far as 'Tradition' goes.... here's what JESUS had to say:

""Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

-- Mark 7:5-9

No 'Tradition' can supercede GOD's own word. Period.

[Swishy McJackass]

Soooooo... human ears evolved from fish gills.

Kick ass.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

hegamboa: very interesting about catholics using trickery to get more converts. It seems very plausible and wasn't aware it was so widespread.


2centsworth: its not a big gamble believing in evolution. There are aspects which are virtually solid (selection, inheritence) and aspects which are a bit shady (how it all started) but the theory as a whole is still the best we got. Funny how its mostly religious types that see it as a bad theory.



Pretty interesting discussion i guess. What I don't like (because I don't understand it) is how you can use bible verses as proof in a debate, which are easily refuted by more bible verses from the same bible.
Also I think it pays to remember that no matter what Christ himself said or promised, his followers (including the writers of each letter of the bible) were human and still had free will and therefore were not infallible. Thus the contradictions.

I also got a good laugh from reading this because it reminded me about all those protestant christian religions. Absolutely hilarious. :lol

[smeagol]

I briefly went through the site and it's full of inaccuracies. We can discuss them if you like.
Hector, the site is openly Anti-Catholic. I went through some of its links, such as “Catholic Church forbids the Bible”.

The owner of the website starts by stating: “The Catholic Church has a long and storied history of forbidding the translation of the bible into the common tongue.” This is untrue. The Catholic Church, who let’s not forget, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, put together the Bible more than 1000 years before Protestantism ever saw the light of day, had translated the Bible to English, German, Italian, Spanish and all other regional European tongues way before the invention of the print.

The next paragraph, the owner of the site says: “The Romish (sic) Church burned people at the stake for translating the Bible. They burned people to death for teaching that salvation is a free gift. They tortured and killed many thousands of people for trusting in God for salvation instead of trying to earn this gift that God freely gives to everybody that would ask. If that is not demonic I don't know what is. To ignore this is a slap in the face to thousands of martyrs that the Church of Rome tortured and killed.”

Romish? This is Anti-Catholicism at its best.

Another link is titled: “Is Catholic Biblical?” were you find an essay by John McArthur where he states: “To put it simply, because the Roman Catholic Church has refused to submit itself to the authority of God’s Word and to embrace the gospel of justification taught in Scripture, it has set itself apart from the true body of Christ. It is a false and deceptive form of Christianity.”

The last example (and there are plenty more) is a link titled “Catholic grid with Mormons a JWs”. Here, the author concludes Roman Catholicism is closer to being a cult and it should not be considered part of Christianity.

I just hope this website is not your main source of knowledge about Catholic doctrines.

[travis2]

I couldn't get there from here. Now I won't bother when I get home.

[Phenomanul]

Hector, the site is openly Anti-Catholic. I went through some of its links, such as “Catholic Church forbids the Bible”.

The owner of the website starts by stating: “The Catholic Church has a long and storied history of forbidding the translation of the bible into the common tongue.” This is untrue. The Catholic Church, who let’s not forget, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, put together the Bible more than 1000 years before Protestantism ever saw the light of day, had translated the Bible to English, German, Italian, Spanish and all other regional European tongues way before the invention of the print.

The next paragraph, the owner of the site says: “The Romish (sic) Church burned people at the stake for translating the Bible. They burned people to death for teaching that salvation is a free gift. They tortured and killed many thousands of people for trusting in God for salvation instead of trying to earn this gift that God freely gives to everybody that would ask. If that is not demonic I don't know what is. To ignore this is a slap in the face to thousands of martyrs that the Church of Rome tortured and killed.”

Romish? This is Anti-Catholicism at its best.

Another link is titled: “Is Catholic Biblical?” were you find an essay by John McArthur where he states: “To put it simply, because the Roman Catholic Church has refused to submit itself to the authority of God’s Word and to embrace the gospel of justification taught in Scripture, it has set itself apart from the true body of Christ. It is a false and deceptive form of Christianity.”

The last example (and there are plenty more) is a link titled “Catholic grid with Mormons a JWs”. Here, the author concludes Roman Catholicism is closer to being a cult and it should not be considered part of Christianity.

I just hope this website is not your main source of knowledge about Catholic doctrines.

Though I may read the above site... I'm not easily duped... I draw my own conclusions based on the Bible.

Besides the first link I wanted you to read was far less instigative and that is where I've been drawing most of my discussion. Which seemed to be ignored.

Also I wouldn't necessarily toss out historical references as jibberish... some are well documented in other sites.... The Catholic Inquisition set out to claim that it alone held the key to GOD's revelation... those who did not submit to this thinking were punished and killed. I don't find that justifiable by any means of interpretation.

[smeagol]

Peter was not the '1st Pope', read:
1) Matthew 8:14 --- he was already married
2) Galatians 2:14 --- he was not infallible
3) 1 Corinthians 3:11 --- Christ is the foundation
4) Ephesians 2:20 --- Other foundations
5) Acts 2:42 --- Not Peter's doctrine
6) Matthew 18:18 --- Other's have keys
7) Acts 15:13-21 --- James in lead
8) Galatians 2:9 --- Pillars, not just one
9) 1 Peter 1:1 --- Christ is our Rock
10) 1 Peter 1:1 --- Peter's an apostle
11) 1 Peter 5:1 --- Peter's an Elder.

1) Paul encourages people to remain virgin. Furthermore, not only Peter but a number of Popes and early Christians were married. This does not aid you in negating the Papacy and the fact that Christ elected Peter as the head of the Apostles, not to mention he (Peter) is the rock where Jesus would build his Church.

Side note: I’m repeating myself with regards to the rock comment, something I never clarified.

On another post you say “Christ is the rock in which the Church is built”, and although I don’t disagree with you statement, in Mt 16:18:
“And I tell you that you are Peter (Cephas), and on this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Peter, or Petro in Latin, means rock. But in its original language, Aramaic, the Evangelist used the word Cephas both for Peter’s name and when he described the rock.

2) The Pope is only infallible when pronouncing Doctrine, together with the Bishops. The Pope cannot tell you next week’s lotto numbers. The passage you quote, Peter is not pronouncing Doctrine, he is simply making a human mistake, as all Popes do. Again, this does not refute the Papacy.

3) 1 Corinthians 3:11 says: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ”. This verse by itself means nothing if you do not put it in context. This is something Fundamentalists do often.

In this case simply look at the verse right before it (1 Cor 3:10): “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.”

In 1 Cor 3:11 it reads that no one can lay a foundation other than Christ but in the preceding verse, Paul says that he himself, by the Grace of God, has laid foundations. Furthermore, the Pope only lays foundations, which are not really foundations but clarifications of Doctrines that in all cases were held by Catholics since the first Centuries of Christianity, guided by the Holy Spirit, just like Paul is aided by the Grace of God when he lays foundations in 1 Cor 3:10.

I could go on and on refuting one by one your points, but this post would end up being to long.

[Phenomanul]

1) Paul encourages people to remain virgin. Furthermore, not only Peter but a number of Popes and early Christians were married. This does not aid you in negating the Papacy and the fact that Christ elected Peter as the head of the Apostles, not to mention he (Peter) is the rock where Jesus would build his Church.

Side note: I’m repeating myself with regards to the rock comment, something I never clarified.

On another post you say “Christ is the rock in which the Church is built”, and although I don’t disagree with you statement, in Mt 16:18:
“And I tell you that you are Peter (Cephas), and on this rock (Cephas) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
Peter, or Petro in Latin, means rock. But in its original language, Aramaic, the Evangelist used the word Cephas both for Peter’s name and when he described the rock.

2) The Pope is only infallible when pronouncing Doctrine, together with the Bishops. The Pope cannot tell you next week’s lotto numbers. The passage you quote, Peter is not pronouncing Doctrine, he is simply making a human mistake, as all Popes do. Again, this does not refute the Papacy.

3) 1 Corinthians 3:11 says: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ”. This verse by itself means nothing if you do not put it in context. This is something Fundamentalists do often.

In this case simply look at the verse right before it (1 Cor 3:10): “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.”

In 1 Cor 3:11 it reads that no one can lay a foundation other than Christ but in the preceding verse, Paul says that he himself, by the Grace of God, has laid foundations. Furthermore, the Pope only lays foundations, which are not really foundations but clarifications of Doctrines that in all cases were held by Catholics since the first Centuries of Christianity, guided by the Holy Spirit, just like Paul is aided by the Grace of God when he lays foundations in 1 Cor 3:10.

I could go on and on refuting one by one your points, but this post would end up being to long.

There is a sanctified bond in Marriage... If by your own admission other Popes were married why would the Church now prohibit them from doing so... It should be a personal choice... wouldn't you think?? Again the Church establishes tradition where the Bible makes no definite stand.... Staying sexually pure before marriage is a principle theme that would of course be endorsed by Paul. Some people have the "gift" of being able to remain single most... don't. Again the choice is personal and never dictated as law by GOD.

As for Peter.... hmmm let’s examine the scriptures carefully on this point. Matthew 16:18 particularly.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Roman interpretation of this scripture is that Jesus would build his Church upon Peter. Baptist rendering follows the text more carefully to understand the contrast between “Petros”, a proper noun of masculine gender, and “this rock”, a demonstrative pronoun of feminine gender. The truth (a feminine noun) that Peter stated in his response to Jesus' question is clearly the rock (petra, a feminine noun) which Christ would build upon. In Greek the pronoun must always agree in gender with it’s object. “This”, the demonstrative pronoun used here, could have been in the masculine and with some obscure use could have been used to point to Peter, i.e. This(m) Petros(m), will be the rock(m) to build my ecclesia(f). But that would not be the words of Christ. His words reflect a contrast between the name Petros (m) and the truth(f) that he stated. This truth(f) which Christ labeled this(f) rock (petra)(f) was what he would build his Church upon. Christ’s Church is built upon the truth of who he is, which is what Baptist's believe in. It is not built on a human or upon a succession of humans, as in Roman Catholic Doctrine.


The keys of the kingdom of heaven are also misrepresented in Roman Catholic thinking. I believe they clearly represent the gospel of Jesus Christ, more decisively the preaching of that gospel. Peter was first to use those keys in Acts chapter 2. At that 1st preaching of the gospel there were thousands loosed from bondage of sin. Christ’s Church is built by the preaching of the gospel to every creature and his marvelous work of salvation, i.e. the regeneration of believers. That follows Baptist Doctrine. Christ’s Church is not built by Peter handing down the keys to a human papacy made infallible, now with authority to lock or unlock the kingdom at it’s will and whim.

[smeagol]

Though I may read the above site... I'm not easily duped... I draw my own conclusions based on the Bible.

Besides the first link I wanted you to read was far less instigative and that is where I've been drawing most of my discussion. Which seemed to be ignored.

Why do you say your discussion was ignored. You have raised many issues and it’s very difficult to address them all. I believe when you posted the link to the other site you were talking about baptism and the Real Presence, both issues which I have tried to address in other posts.


Also I wouldn't necessarily toss out historical references as jibberish...

Actually I don’t. I place a lot of stock in history. All those Doctrines which Fundamentalists claim are fabricated, non-Biblical or borrowed from paganism (the Real Presence, the Marian beliefs, infant baptism, the Sacraments, the Comunion of the Saints, the Pope, etc) are in fact Biblical and have been practiced by Catholics since the 1st Century. And all of them are historically documented.



The Catholic Inquisition set out to claim that it alone held the key to GOD's revelation... those who did not submit to this thinking were punished and killed. I don't find that justifiable by any means of interpretation.

As I said on an earlier post, the Spanish Inquisition had it’s share of abuses. Our Church is a Church of sinners, just like any other Church on Earth.

[smeagol]

BTW neither the word 'transubstantiation' or 'catholic' or 'purgatory' appear anywhere in the Bible...

By the way, neither the word Trinity, nor Southern Baptist, nor the prohibition to drink alcohol, white weddings and changing wedding rings are words or traditions rooted in the Bible. Nevertheless, you probably adhere to them.

Transubstantiation is simply the word theologians came up in the XI Century to describe what Catholics believed since New Testament times: the Real Presence. I have tried to convince you (without any success) that John 6 must be read literally *sigh*.

Catholic means universal. The phrase Catholic Church can be found in St. Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans, written about 110 AD. As I said before, Ignatius was St John’s apostle.

There are references to purgatory (without mentioning the word) in the Bible. When Christ died, he went to preach to a place which was neither Heaven nor hell. And again, early Christins writers (Tertullian, St Cyprian, St Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa and St Agustine) address this point at length.

[Phenomanul]

Why do you say your discussion was ignored. You have raised many issues and it’s very difficult to address them all. I believe when you posted the link to the other site you were talking about baptism and the Real Presence, both issues which I have tried to address in other posts.

Fair enough... it's a lot of content.... I know....




Actually I don’t. I place a lot of stock in history. All those Doctrines which Fundamentalists claim are fabricated, non-Biblical or borrowed from paganism (the Real Presence, the Marian beliefs, infant baptism, the Sacraments, the Comunion of the Saints, the Pope, etc) are in fact Biblical and have been practiced by Catholics since the 1st Century. And all of them are historically documented.

Show me where the Bible endorses the adoration or veneration of Mary... she is not my mediator... I can't pray to her (praying to the dead is biblically condemned act)... only Christ alone can lead me to the Father.

"I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life... no man cometh to the Father except by me" John 14:6

Your example of Paul baptizing households as a way to say the bible directly implied the baptism of children is inconclusive... for me anyway.

Your statement that the "Bible did not say not to baptize children" is also not really definite... why?? because what the Bible does show is examples of grown individauls being baptized.... Jesus himself was already an adult when he was baptized. That is the model I would choose to follow myself.




As I said on an earlier post, the Spanish Inquisition had it’s share of abuses. Our Church is a Church of sinners, just like any other Church on Earth.


That is why I can't believe the Catholic Church proclaims itself to be infallible.... The Inquisitions were sanctioned by Catholic doctrine. And if they pretended "not to know" what was going on that's even worse. Christ made it very clear that the choice is ours. Using violence to eradicate conflicting ideology is not something Christ would ever endorse.

[smeagol]

hegamboa: Please be patient and read what I have extracted from www.catholic.com. This is obviously the Church’s interpretation of Mt 16:18. Take a close look at “Look at the Aramaic” which specifically refutes your point.

Peter and the Papacy


There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).


Peter the Rock


Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.


Look at the scene


Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.


Promises to Peter


When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.


Who is the rock?


Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.


Another alternative


The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.


Look at the Aramaic


Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

[Phenomanul]

By the way, neither the word Trinity, nor Southern Baptist, nor the prohibition to drink alcohol, white weddings and changing wedding rings are words or traditions rooted in the Bible. Nevertheless, you probably adhere to them.

Transubstantiation is simply the word theologians came up in the XI Century to describe what Catholics believed since New Testament times: the Real Presence. I have tried to convince you (without any success) that John 6 must be read literally *sigh*.

Exactly... but my church would never profess to claim such words as biblically endorsed ideologies... or put my salvation at risk because I failed to believe in them.

"Trinity" is simply an adjective... The ideology is nevertheless true... "Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" and <--- that is referenced on numerous occasions.

As for weddings and stuff... yes I would say I would probably adhere to 'traditions' but there are social ramifications if I don't provide proof of marriage to society... As far as marriage before GOD is concerned, however, I could simply obtain approval from my bride's parents, my own parents and say a prayer for GOD to sanctify the union. Read on how Isaac 'married' Rebecca. When I first read it I said... .hmm no ceremony how odd....

Nowadays, weddings exist so that there is a platform for the families of both parties to meet and rejoice among friends.... so many other things have been added for fun... like the garter throw... the bouquet throw... wedding presents... etc...

Adhereing to these "traditions" has no bearing on my salvation however.



Catholic means universal. The phrase Catholic Church can be found in St. Ignatius letter to the Smyrnaeans, written about 110 AD. As I said before, Ignatius was St John’s apostle.

Simply an adjective....


There are references to purgatory (without mentioning the word) in the Bible. When Christ died, he went to preach to a place which was neither Heaven nor hell. And again, early Christins writers (Tertullian, St Cyprian, St Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa and St Agustine) address this point at length.

Read the context of his visit... Christ was the bridge between a Pact with the People of Israel and GOD and a new Covenant available to all... It is believed he made it possible for "gentiles from times past" to either accept or reject his offer of salvation.

[smeagol]

That is why I can't believe the Catholic Church proclaims itself to be infallible.... The Inquisitions were sanctioned by Catholic doctrine. And if they pretended "not to know" what was going on that's even worse. Christ made it very clear that the choice is ours. Using violence to eradicate conflicting ideology is not something Christ would ever endorse.

Hector, Infallibility has nothing to do with being always right. The Inquisition was a specific event in the Church’s history, one that included abuses, the same as other events in other Church’s lives which included abuses and death.

Let me ask you a question. How do you justify Sola Scriptura if it’s not in the Bible? Actually, the Bible says that its writtings do not include all the doings of Christ. That is why Tradition and what the early Christians did is so important. They were privileged enough to know Christ or know people who knew and hear what Christ taught. And we are lucky to have many of those early Christian’s writings.

If the early Christians baptized infants, it is safe to say this is something Christ or the Disciples did but is not specifically detailed in the Bible. Same applies to the reverence of Mary and other points which are sticky to Fundamentalists.

I'm out for a while.

Good talking to you. :spin

God bless you.

[Mr. Peabody]

Yep ... fish gills. Can you believe it?

[Phenomanul]

hegamboa: Please be patient and read what I have extracted from www.catholic.com. This is obviously the Church’s interpretation of Mt 16:18. Take a close look at “Look at the Aramaic” which specifically refutes your point.

Peter and the Papacy


There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. ......................................


It is clear to me that the difference in interpretation is how we chose to translate the phrase... If Peter in fact were to have the key to my personal salvation however... that would imply that there would be something additional that Peter would have to provide me with that Christ did not or could not.... That would then imply that Christ's atonement of my sin needs additional 'help' to get me into heaven... I believe then that this would cheapen Christ's sacrifice as if His "finished" work were somehow incomplete...

Again, was Jesus lying when he stated, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life... no man cometh to the Father except by me"....????? He didn't say, I and my earthly representative are the way to the father... he simply said "I".

[Phenomanul]

Hector, Infallibility has nothing to do with being always right. The Inquisition was a specific event in the Church’s history, one that included abuses, the same as other events in other Church’s lives which included abuses and death.

Let me ask you a question. How do you justify Sola Scriptura if it’s not in the Bible? Actually, the Bible says that its record do not include all the doings of The Christ. That is why Tradition and what the early Christians did is so important. They were privileged enough to know Christ or know people who knew and hear what Christ taught. And we are lucky to have many of those early Christian’s writings.

If the early Christians baptized infants, it is safe to say this is something Christ or the Disciples did but is not specifically detailed in the Bible. Same applies to the reverence of Mary and other points which are sticky to Fundamentalists.

I'm out for a while.

Good talking to you. :spin

God bless you.

Till mañana pues....

The subjects are sticky because they have profound theological ramifications on other biblical concepts.

Why would "Those early Christian writings" not be included into the Biblical Canon then???

The Catechism was writen centuries later after all of JESUS's contemporaries had passed.... they in no way reference other 'writings'. AND it starts off by implying salvation can only be attained through the Roman Catholic Church.... Far as I know, salvation can only be attained through JESUS.

Alright now I'm out.

Peace.

[smeagol]

Nice job, smeagol...
Thanks.

Quite a compliment coming from you :tu

[Guru of Nothing]

It is clear to me that the difference in interpretation is how we chose to translate the phrase... If Peter in fact were to have the key to my personal salvation however... that would imply that there would be something additional that Peter would have to provide me with that Christ did not or could not.... That would then imply that Christ's atonement of my sin needs additional 'help' to get me into heaven... I believe then that this would cheapen Christ's sacrifice as if His "finished" work were somehow incomplete...

Again, was Jesus lying when he stated, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life... no man cometh to the Father except by me"....????? He didn't say, I and my earthly representative are the way to the father... he simply said "I".

And herein lies the difference (I call it irony); nothing comes between you and God, 'cept for Jesus, AND a collection of anonymous dudes that composed the Bible.

Happy gambling!

[travis2]

First of all, praying to the dead IS in the Bible. The most relevant reference merely happens to be in a portion of the Bible that your human heroes of yesteryear decided to remove because it was too uncomfortable for them (2 Maccabees). How can you expect to fully understand the Bible if you don't have a complete one?

Secondly, praying to the saints is merely asking them to pray for us. Period. If it's wrong, then every time you ask someone to pray for you you're committing sin. Period. It's that simple. If we are alive in Christ when we die, then we are alive in Christ. Alive being the operative word.

Now nobody is forced to pray to Mary or to any of the saints. Doing so is not a matter of our salvation. However, for you or anyone else to claim it is forbidden or somehow an impediment to our salvation is way out of bounds.

Finally, no one...let me repeat that, no one has ever EVER EVER said that Peter holds the keys to my salvation. That is frankly insulting. I can't help the fact that Jesus in the Bible gave the keys to the Church on Earth to Peter (and thereby to his successors)...you'll have to take it up with Him. And Peter's presence in Rome for more than a visit is historical, sorry.

[travis2]

Oh, and by the way...I'm calling your Catechism source a liar.

If you actually knew anything about the Catechism, you would know that it is referenced by paragraph/section numbers...not pages. So...I invite you to find those things you posted as supposedly being from the Catechism. There are several online versions...they're not hard to find.

[travis2]

Oh, and one more thing...you wouldn't send someone to a neo-Nazi site if they wanted information on the Jewish people...and you wouldn't send someone to a KKK site if they wanted information on African-American culture...so why do so many (including you) have no problem sending us Catholics to bigoted sites like that? And then place the burden on us to prove the site wrong?

[Phenomanul]

First of all, praying to the dead IS in the Bible. The most relevant reference merely happens to be in a portion of the Bible that your human heroes of yesteryear decided to remove because it was too uncomfortable for them (2 Maccabees). How can you expect to fully understand the Bible if you don't have a complete one?

Secondly, praying to the saints is merely asking them to pray for us. Period. If it's wrong, then every time you ask someone to pray for you you're committing sin. Period. It's that simple. If we are alive in Christ when we die, then we are alive in Christ. Alive being the operative word.

Now nobody is forced to pray to Mary or to any of the saints. Doing so is not a matter of our salvation. However, for you or anyone else to claim it is forbidden or somehow an impediment to our salvation is way out of bounds.

Finally, no one...let me repeat that, no one has ever EVER EVER said that Peter holds the keys to my salvation. That is frankly insulting. I can't help the fact that Jesus in the Bible gave the keys to the Church on Earth to Peter (and thereby to his successors)...you'll have to take it up with Him. And Peter's presence in Rome for more than a visit is historical, sorry.

Hmmmm... interesting ..... Peter never established himself in Rome.

I pray to GOD in JESUS' name. No other, no one else. If you pray to others who have passed on... that is your belief and your perogative. As for praying for someone else, read 1 John 5 after the portion where it talks about the 'trinity'. Trust me, supporting each other with prayer is by no means a sin.... CAUSE we are still praying to GOD. We are not praying to each other.... We are praying for each other. "To GOD" is the operative word in that clause. One can't pray for someone who has already passed on because their eternal fate has already been sealed...


Finally, no one...let me repeat that, no one has ever EVER EVER said that Peter holds the keys to my salvation.

So why does the RCC make such a bold statement as to claim that Salvation does not exist outside the Catholic Church... a statement they profess till this day. If the Catholic Church is led by Peter's line of successors it's all the same to me. Irregardless, Salvation exists only through JESUS not any institution... It's really not a difficult concept and yet man manages to complicate and convolute GOD's gift of Salvation.

As for the other books... what else can I say.... they really don't add or take away anything from GOD's revelation of JESUS.

[Phenomanul]

Oh, and one more thing...you wouldn't send someone to a neo-Nazi site if they wanted information on the Jewish people...and you wouldn't send someone to a KKK site if they wanted information on African-American culture...so why do so many (including you) have no problem sending us Catholics to bigoted sites like that? And then place the burden on us to prove the site wrong?


The main site has links to other peoples writings....

As for the Catechism, I have one at home... Remember I too was once a Catholic.... and my memory is good but not perfect... those refernces you mentioned were obviously based on a certain edition.... now mind you... I would ask for you to submit a list of all the Catechism passages I have listed that were miswritten...

Geesh Travis2 don't get a heart attack.... My sources are numerous, not just those sites... Stick to my posts not the links.

[travis2]

hmmmm...so it's OK to use hateful sources so long as you have other sources too? Nice to know...

No, you provided those...you need to properly reference them. Then I can address them.

[Phenomanul]

Oh, and by the way...I'm calling your Catechism source a liar.

If you actually knew anything about the Catechism, you would know that it is referenced by paragraph/section numbers...not pages. So...I invite you to find those things you posted as supposedly being from the Catechism. There are several online versions...they're not hard to find.


Already addressed in previous post... however I would point out that you are making rather unsubstantiated claims....

You call my Catechism source a liar... without giving valid evidence. Quit trying to make me look like the bad guy... I'm just pointing out that most Catholic Tradition in fact stems from the Catechism and not GOD's Holy Word. That the Catechism itself dictates the bounds of Tradition... where not implicitly stated in the Bible... giving itself equal worth to the Bible itself...

It's like the Mexican Government writing laws that disallow reacquiring any money that was stolen from the people by any Government official. Basically they write "if we steal and get caught you can't strip us of the money we stole."

The Catechism implies, and I will paraphrase, "Tradition is as important as the Bible because the Catechism says so. To believe any other way is heretical."

[SA210]

I pray to GOD in JESUS' name. No other, no one else. If you pray to others who have passed on... that is your belief and your perogative. As for praying for someone else, read 1 John 5 after the portion where it talks about the 'trinity'. Trust me, supporting each other with prayer is by no means a sin.... CAUSE we are still praying to GOD. We are not praying to each other.... We are praying for each other. "To GOD" is the operative word in that clause. One can't pray for someone who has already passed on because their eternal fate has already been sealed...
Exactly :tu good job hegamboa

[travis2]

Hmmmm... interesting ..... Peter never established himself in Rome.

I pray to GOD in JESUS' name. No other, no one else. If you pray to others who have passed on... that is your belief and your perogative. As for praying for someone else, read 1 John 5 after the portion where it talks about the 'trinity'. Trust me, supporting each other with prayer is by no means a sin.... CAUSE we are still praying to GOD. We are not praying to each other.... We are praying for each other. "To GOD" is the operative word in that clause. One can't pray for someone who has already passed on because their eternal fate has already been sealed...



So why does the RCC make such a bold statement as to claim that Salvation does not exist outside the Catholic Church... a statement they profess till this day. If the Catholic Church is led by Peter's line of successors it's all the same to me. Irregardless, Salvation exists only through JESUS not any institution... It's really not a difficult concept and yet man manages to complicate and convolute GOD's gift of Salvation.

As for the other books... what else can I say.... they really don't add or take away anything from GOD's revelation of JESUS.

1. You can pray to God to release them early from Purgatory into Heaven.
2. You can pray to saints in Heaven asking them to pray for you. Which is exactly the same as asking someone here on Earth to pray for you. No difference. It's not a difficult concept.

Salvation outside the Church...see Catechism (specifically paragraphs 811-870).

"Other books"...well, for a people who decry adding or subtracting anything from the Bible and using it as the ONLY source...removing books seems to me to be a very strange thing to do.

[Phenomanul]

hmmmm...so it's OK to use hateful sources so long as you have other sources too? Nice to know...

No, you provided those...you need to properly reference them. Then I can address them.

To have an opposing view does not make the source hateful... I'm sorry. We are entitled to our own beliefs.... to each his own.

And I will find an online Catechism... but then you won't like how many more passages I will post about that try to supercede the Bible's authority.

[travis2]

Already addressed in previous post... however I would point out that you are making rather unsubstantiated claims....

You call my Catechism source a liar... without giving valid evidence. Quit trying to make me look like the bad guy... I'm just pointing out that most Catholic Tradition in fact stems from the Catechism and not GOD's Holy Word. That the Catechism itself dictates the bounds of Tradition... where not implicitly stated in the Bible... giving itself equal worth to the Bible itself...

It's like the Mexican Government writing laws that disallow reacquiring any money that was stolen from the people by any Government official. Basically they write "if we steal and get caught you can't strip us of the money we stole."

The Catechism implies, and I will paraphrase, "Tradition is as important as the Bible because the Catechism says so. To believe any other way is heretical."

Ummmm...who's making unsubstantiated claims? You post things that are supposedly from the Catechism...but you (or your source) mis-reference them...and I'm still supposed to bear the burden of proof? No, that's not how it works.

The rest of your post is mere opinion...not fact. You are entitled to it, but don't expect me to believe it.

[travis2]

To have an opposing view does not make the source hateful... I'm sorry. We are entitled to our own beliefs.... to each his own.

And I will find an online Catechism... but then you won't like how many more passages I will post about that try to supercede the Bible's authority.

Look at the language smeagol posted. That's not "an opposing view".

[Phenomanul]

1. You can pray to God to release them early from Purgatory into Heaven.
2. You can pray to saints in Heaven asking them to pray for you. Which is exactly the same as asking someone here on Earth to pray for you. No difference. It's not a difficult concept.

Salvation outside the Church...see Catechism (specifically paragraphs 811-870).

"Other books"...well, for a people who decry adding or subtracting anything from the Bible and using it as the ONLY source...removing books seems to me to be a very strange thing to do.

Show me Biblical references.... no... write the passages down (so as to eliminate confusion) where these concepts are endorsed or supported.

[Phenomanul]

Look at the language smeagol posted. That's not "an opposing view".

Are you talking about his post where he quoted a passage from a link on the site??? Or Smeagol's posts in general???

Because Smeagol and myself have tried to keep this discussion civil... while having opposing beliefs.

[travis2]

1. 2 Maccabees 12:43-46
2. It would be easier to read this...contains all the Biblical references necessary plus explanatory content...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Intercession_of_the_Saints.asp

[Phenomanul]

Ummmm...who's making unsubstantiated claims? You post things that are supposedly from the Catechism...but you (or your source) mis-reference them...and I'm still supposed to bear the burden of proof? No, that's not how it works.

The rest of your post is mere opinion...not fact. You are entitled to it, but don't expect me to believe it.


Yes... it is an opinion but it is not unsubstantiated....
Does the RCC try to dictate how to interpret the Bible? YES

Does the RCC speak of Tradition? YES

Does the RCC explicitly state that Mary is our intecessor where the Bible makes no such claim? YES

Anyways I must go... but I'll be back.

[travis2]

Are you talking about his post where he quoted a passage from a link on the site??? Or Smeagol's posts in general???

Because Smeagol and myself have tried to keep this discussion civil... while having opposing beliefs.

I'm talking about where Smeagol posted an example from the site you listed.

I am not being uncivil yet...merely frank and forthright. I am trying to tell you that, while I am in no way trying to convert you to Catholicism, I am also not going to allow you to dictate the rules of the discussion to me. That sounds harsher than I mean it to sound...but it also is a true statement.

I am proud of being a Catholic. And while you may not be one nor have any desire to be one...well, let me put it this way...if I came at you like a Feeneyite and called you a heretic and unclean and yelled that you were going to burn in hell for leaving the Church, you would be pretty insulted (I would assume). And yet many Fundamentalists think nothing of doing the same to Catholics...with no real knowledge of the Church except the lies they read from people like Jack Chick and Matt Slick (to name two big ones)...who merely regurgitate the lies promulgated by earlier Catholic-haters such as Lorraine Boettner.

So yes...we are keeping it civil. And for my part I still intend to.

[Phenomanul]

I'm talking about where Smeagol posted an example from the site you listed.

I am not being uncivil yet...merely frank and forthright. I am trying to tell you that, while I am in no way trying to convert you to Catholicism, I am also not going to allow you to dictate the rules of the discussion to me. That sounds harsher than I mean it to sound...but it also is a true statement.

I am proud of being a Catholic. And while you may not be one nor have any desire to be one...well, let me put it this way...if I came at you like a Feeneyite and called you a heretic and unclean and yelled that you were going to burn in hell for leaving the Church, you would be pretty insulted (I would assume). And yet many Fundamentalists think nothing of doing the same to Catholics...with no real knowledge of the Church except the lies they read from people like Jack Chick and Matt Slick (to name two big ones)...who merely regurgitate the lies promulgated by earlier Catholic-haters such as Lorraine Boettner.

So yes...we are keeping it civil. And for my part I still intend to.

I'm back sooner than I thought... though only for a short while....

Let's get something straight.... If you believe in JESUS Christ, that's good enough for me.. never did I make a claim to suggest you would go to Hell cause your doctrine was different from my own.

^^^ I had to make this big just so that we know where we stand.

I am not the voice of fundamentalists... so unless I've said something don't associate me with other views.

Where we differ is that you also believe you need to amend GOD's gift of salvation.... with works and rites and sacraments.... fine. You are entitled to serve GOD within those bounds.

I serve GOD without trying to merit the Kingdom of GOD with my own works... I know they would never be sufficient. I do them anyways just because it gives me peace to align myself with the higher calling of GOD's will.

"For by grace are we saved through faith, and not of ourselves. It is the gift of GOD. It is not by works lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

Anyways... I will reiterate what I posted earlier....

"Ministries as any credit for good must be attributed to GOD. We believe any preacher or teacher that denies that they too are possibly likewise guilty of error at times does not understand that they are fallible and apt to offend by nature. Mature Christians must strive against allowing themselves to be easily overcome by personal pride which causes them to become unduly offended. We love all of our Roman Catholic, Charismatic, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. We admonish all to be familiar with their denomination's writings. Our differences and disagreements are not of a personal nature but concern articles of Faith, creeds, doctrinal statements, and the like. We must assume all who claim to believe in Jesus Christ are true members of the body of Christ. Of course, we know that there are "tares", but only God knows who these "false brethren" are. We do not critique any specific person's sincerity, spiritual standing, or worth, and would not dare do so because we believe this is judging one's brother." <--- this is not the same site Smeagol protested about.

[travis2]

I'm back sooner than I thought... though only for a short while....

Let's get something straight.... If you believe in JESUS Christ, that's good enough for me.. never did I make a claim to suggest you would go to Hell cause your doctrine was different from my own.

^^^ I had to make this big just so that we know where we stand.

I am not the voice of fundamentalists... so unless I've said something don't associate me with other views.

Where we differ is that you also believe you need to amend GOD's gift of salvation.... with works and rites and sacraments.... fine. You are entitled to serve GOD within those bounds.

I serve GOD without trying to merit the Kingdom of GOD with my own works... I know they would never be sufficient. I do them anyways just because it gives me peace to align myself with the higher calling of GOD's will.

"For by grace are we saved through faith, and not of ourselves. It is the gift of GOD. It is not by works lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

Anyways... I will reiterate what I posted earlier....

"Ministries as any credit for good must be attributed to GOD. We believe any preacher or teacher that denies that they too are possibly likewise guilty of error at times does not understand that they are fallible and apt to offend by nature. Mature Christians must strive against allowing themselves to be easily overcome by personal pride which causes them to become unduly offended. We love all of our Roman Catholic, Charismatic, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. We admonish all to be familiar with their denomination's writings. Our differences and disagreements are not of a personal nature but concern articles of Faith, creeds, doctrinal statements, and the like. We must assume all who claim to believe in Jesus Christ are true members of the body of Christ. Of course, we know that there are "tares", but only God knows who these "false brethren" are. We do not critique any specific person's sincerity, spiritual standing, or worth, and would not dare do so because we believe this is judging one's brother." <--- this is not the same site Smeagol protested about.

That was religioustolerance.org, right? I'm familiar with that site...yeah, that's an OK site. Not particularly one I'd go to for Catholic doctrine...:lol...but it is a well put together place with lots of good essays.

OK, I accept your statement. Thank you. And you are welcome to your own faith.

One thing, though...Catholics do not try to "merit the Kingdom of God with {our} own works". Despite what you may have read, the Church does NOT teach that salvation is through works. We merely recognize that without works there is no faith (James 2). You can't have "faith alone".

[smeagol]

travis and hegamboa, good discussion :tu

I agree with travis about the site hegamboa linked. It was blatantly anti-Catholic. But it’s pretty clear from your posts, Hector, that you are not anti-Catholic at all. I simply feel you are not aware or are sometimes mis-informed about some of our beliefs and traditions and where those traditions come from.

Oh, and I've seen travis become uncivil in other threads and I can assure you he has been civil (and passionate) on this one.

[Phenomanul]

That was religioustolerance.org, right? I'm familiar with that site...yeah, that's an OK site. Not particularly one I'd go to for Catholic doctrine...:lol...but it is a well put together place with lots of good essays.

OK, I accept your statement. Thank you. And you are welcome to your own faith.

One thing, though...Catholics do not try to "merit the Kingdom of God with {our} own works". Despite what you may have read, the Church does NOT teach that salvation is through works. We merely recognize that without works there is no faith (James 2). You can't have "faith alone".


:tu :tu

I will take that gamble (albeit I know that I have strived to be more than a typical "bench warmer" by being an active participant of the ministry... I just don't hinge on this... 'lest I should boast')...

The doctrine I follow believes 'works' are evidence of Salvation.... but not necessarily requirements of Salvation. People who obey GOD's precepts, people who take care of orphans, widows and the meek, people who seek GOD are known as the Children of GOD because they bear good fruit. More importantly because they have accepted JESUS Christ as their personal Saviour.

True... 'faith without works is dead' simply because we rob ourselves of the blessings GOD would otherwise bestow upon us if we truly "sought after His own heart".

The Bible states that "by Grace we are saved through faith" it doesn't add that we are saved through faith and strict adherence to sacraments or rites.

"Grace" is recieving what we don't deserve.

In this case Life and a chance to attain Salvation through JESUS Christ.

"Mercy" is not recieving what we do deserve.

Because we are all sinners, and deserve death, it through GOD's mercy that we are even allowed to live.

[travis2]

travis and hegamboa, good discussion :tu

I agree with travis about the site hegamboa linked. It was blatantly anti-Catholic. But it’s pretty clear from your posts, Hector, that you are not anti-Catholic at all. I simply feel you are not aware or are sometimes mis-informed about some of our beliefs and traditions and where those traditions come from.

Oh, and I've seen travis become uncivil in other threads and I can assure you he has been civil (and passionate) on this one.

Yeah, let me make that clear myself. I AM NOT saying you are anti-Catholic. I AM trying to make a point about using certain sites, that's all. If you don't agree with the Catholic Church, hey that's your choice. Like I said, I don't act to convert. But bigotry is still bigotry, whether it be by skinheads, KKK toads, or virulent anti-Catholics. And I'm sure you've heard the saying "when you sleep with dogs, you're going to get fleas".

If you have serious questions about the Church, ask. I'll answer, smeagol will answer...and we don't have any problem saying "I don't know" if we don't know.

[2centsworth]

Let's get something straight.... If you believe in JESUS Christ, that's good enough for me.. never did I make a claim to suggest you would go to Hell cause your doctrine was different from my own.

The devil believes in Jesus, does that mean he goes to heaven too? I'm not a Catholic, but modern evangelical churchs have screwed up the doctrine. Sincere Repentance is just as much a requirement of salvation as belief in Jesus. True repentance and belief in Jesus are requirements of salvation.

The following is the best explanation that I've read:


The meaning of the word repentance has been twisted in recent years to the point that its biblical meaning is now obscured in the minds of many. The idea that genuine repentance could result in anything but a change of life is completely foreign to Scripture.

What does the Bible teach about the relationship between salvation and repentance? First, it teaches that repentance is essential to salvation. One cannot truly believe unless he repents, and one cannot truly repent unless he believes. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin (but they are not synonymous terms). Acts 11:18 and 2 Peter 3:9 are two of the many verses that teach that repentance is necessary for salvation. Perhaps 2 Timothy 2:25 best sums up the relationship between repentance and saving faith when it speaks of "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (see also Acts 20:21).

Second, the Greek word for repentance, metanoia, while it means "to have another mind," cannot properly be defined to exclude a sense of hatred of and penitence for sin. The biblical concept of repentance involves far more than merely a casual change of thinking. Biblically, a person who repents does not continue willfully in sin. Repentance is a turning from sin, and it always results in changed behavior (Luke 3:8). While sorrow from sin is not equivalent to repentance, it is certainly an element of scriptural repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Finally, despite what is being widely taught today, affirming that repentance and acknowledgement of Jesus' lordship are necessary to salvation does not "add" anything to the requirement of faith for salvation. It is not "faith plus repentance" that saves, but rather a repentant faith. The notion that salvation is possible apart from a genuine, heartfelt repentance, which includes a deep hatred of sin, is a relatively new one, neither believed nor taught by the people of God until the twentieth century.

[Phenomanul]

The devil believes in Jesus, does that mean he goes to heaven too? I'm not a Catholic, but modern evangelical churchs have screwed up the doctrine. Sincere Repentance is just as much a requirement of salvation as belief in Jesus. True repentance and belief in Jesus are requirements of salvation.

The following is the best explanation that I've read:


Yes... you are correct... What I meant to say was "belief in JESUS as your personal Saviour" and then that would encompass true repentance of the person.

To believe in JESUS as your Saviour means to acknowledge that only he can give you remission of sin. His sacrificial atonement was the payment for our sin. We just have to acknowlegde this act, ask for forgiveness of our sins, and then gratefully accept that his sacrifice justifies and sanctifies us before GOD. That order would constitute repentance.

[smeagol]

Hmmmm... interesting ..... Peter never established himself in Rome.

How do you know? What’s your source?

My source is many early Christian writers which as early as 150 AD, write that both Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. (Actually, Ignatius, in 110 AD, implies that Peter was in Rome in his letter to the Roman Church).

There is also Peter’s first epistle, where he tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome.

Assuming you don’t accept the Church's interpretation of the word “Babylon” in the Bible, do you at least give any credibility to the writings of people who knew the Apostles and therefore had a much broader view of what happened in the period between 30 AD and 65 AD.?

St Irenaeus, who new Polycarp who new the Apostle John says in more than one instance that Peter was in Rome. This is one among many quotes:

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

The amount of evidence found in the early Christian writers’ legacy that attest to Peter evangelizing efforts and his martyrdom in Rome, is overwhelming. Not only Irenaeus, but Ignatius, Dionysius and Gaius (II Century); Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (early III Century); Eusebius, Peter of Alexandria and Lactanitius (early IV Century); Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Damasus I, Jerome and Augustine (mid to late IV Century).

As you can see, the evidence is overwhelming. The fact that Fundamentalists cannot bare the thought of Peter establishing himself in Rome is that, in their minds, this would be “admitting” to the Apostolic Succession. Furthermore, this would make the case for the Papacy even stronger.

[SA210]

Tradition over Bible, never quite understood that arguement.

[smeagol]

Tradition over Bible, never quite understood that arguement.
Care to explain in the case of Peter being in Rome what is it you are talking about?

[Phenomanul]

How do you know? What’s your source?

My source is many early Christian writers which as early as 150 AD, write that both Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. (Actually, Ignatius, in 110 AD, implies that Peter was in Rome in his letter to the Roman Church).

There is also Peter’s first epistle, where he tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome.

Assuming you don’t accept the Church's interpretation of the word “Babylon” in the Bible, do you at least give any credibility to the writings of people who knew the Apostles and therefore had a much broader view of what happened in the period between 30 AD and 65 AD.?

St Irenaeus, who new Polycarp who new the Apostle John says in more than one instance that Peter was in Rome. This is one among many quotes:

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

The amount of evidence found in the early Christian writers’ legacy that attest to Peter evangelizing efforts and his martyrdom in Rome, is overwhelming. Not only Irenaeus, but Ignatius, Dionysius and Gaius (II Century); Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (early III Century); Eusebius, Peter of Alexandria and Lactanitius (early IV Century); Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Damasus I, Jerome and Augustine (mid to late IV Century).

As you can see, the evidence is overwhelming. The fact that Fundamentalists cannot bare the thought of Peter establishing himself in Rome is that, in their minds, this would be “admitting” to the Apostolic Succession. Furthermore, this would make the case for the Papacy even stronger.


This is from an essay,

(Again the author refutes Catholic doctrine, but that doesn't mean that he is anti-Catholic... one attaches rebuke to the institutionized doctrines while the other implies that hate is being held for Catholics themselves... which is not the case...)



Lets follow Roman Papal lineage more closely. To propagate that this Roman papal authority is holding Peter’s keys to the kingdom they had to get Peter to be a pope in Rome. That was a formidable task which they pursued by misrepresenting history and rewriting it where necessary. They even exploited secret code word fictions like “Babylon” being Peter’s supposed secret code word for Rome. Peter wrote from Babylon, not Rome. The arguments against Peter’s residence in Rome have been quantified by Michael Grant in his historical biography “Saint Peter” (Grant was a nonbeliever, neither Roman Catholic nor a Baptized Bible Believing Baptist) as follows:

1) Paul’s Letter to the Galatians indicates that Peter’s activities took place at Jerusalem. There is also a mention of a visit to Antioch, with Gentile Christians, and even induced Paul’s companion Barnabas to adopt a similar procedure. But nothing is said here about Rome.

2) Paul’s Letter to the Romans is addressed to the Christians at Rome. In the whole of this address, however, there is no mention of Peter at all, which seems strange if he was indeed in Rome, and even stranger if he was indeed a Pope at Rome.

3) One of the principal purposes of Acts is to institute a comparison between Peter and Paul: whereas Galatians shows them in conflict and confrontation, Acts deliberately displays unanimity. Since the book terminates with Paul preaching in Rome, it is surely to be expected that its author would mention that Peter had preceded him there, or was his companion there, if any such tradition existed. But there is no mention of any such thing.

4) The Epistle I Clement (96 AD), which purports to have been written by Clement of Rome, on behalf of the church of that city, to the church of Corinth, records Peter’s noble past, but has nothing whatever to say about his having been at Rome. Moreover, the aim of the entire passage is to compare him with Paul, and draw a parallel between them. In these circumstances, it is possible to deduce that no tradition of Peter’s residence or martyrdom at Rome was known to the writer of the Letter.

5) When writing of later date do make reference to the martyrdom of Peter, they fail to indicate where this took place. If it had taken place at Rome, one would expect this to be specified.

6) In support of the opposite argument it has been supposed that when Ignatius, who died in about 110 AD, said to the Romans, ‘I did not request you, as Peter and Paul did’, he was implying that Peter as well as Paul, had preached to their community in the city. However, Justin Martyr, when he was writing in about the middle of the second century, does not make any mention of Peter having been there. About the activities of Simon Magus in the city he has a good deal to say. But on Simon’s supposed confrontation with Peter in Rome, which is the theme of so many later stories, Justin remains entirely silent.

7) The earliest evidence for Peter’s alleged residence in Rome that can be dated with any degree of accuracy comes from Dionysius of Corinth. It was during the bishopric of Soter (166-74 AD) that Dionysius wrote to the church of Rome, expressing gratitude to its members for their financial assistance. Part of the Letter has been reproduced by Eusebius. In this, Dionysisus observes that it is right and proper that the churches of Rome and Corinth should operate in unison, since they had both been founded jointly by Peter and Paul (and this, in the case of Rome, was echoed by Irenaeus.) However, this mention of the role of Peter does not readily invite acceptance. For one thing, what Dionysius stated about Corinth was not true. That is to say, he had seriously distorted the history of his own church. And, since he had been so inaccurate about the church he knew so well, there is no reason to believe what he said about Rome either. Moreover, there are positive reasons for disbelieving what he wrote on the subject. For one thing, his ascription to Paul of a joint role in the foundation of the Roman Church does not seem to be correct. On the contrary, Paul observed in Romans that he had never met the Christians in Rome, in the foundation of whose Church, therefore, he cannot have played a part. So why believe the statement about Peter either, which goes far beyond anything said by Ignatius or Justin?

8) Later on, it became customary to report, without any justification , that Peter had resided at Rome for twenty-five years, and to declare that he had been not merely the joint founder but the sole founder of its Church, so that the alleged participation of Paul in its establishment was gradually expunged from the record.


In order to propagate it’s single episcopal, monarchical personage doctrine and to build and hold onto a forged papal authority the Roman Church needed to twist, contort and add to history. It had to expunge the true founder of the Church at Rome, the Lord Jesus Christ, and fabricate a continuous succession of authority, attached to Peter. They misread Scripture to fashion Peter as the human founder of the Church, they misread history to propagate their error.

Baptist Doctrine follows verbatim Biblical Doctrine. That individual Churches, (i.e. bodies of believers, called out baptized believers,) were organized into local Churches where only regenerated baptized believers were admitted into membership. These local Churches, whose founder was the Lord Jesus Christ, had but one human overseer in an office called bishop (Grk. Bishop = Overseer), who was an ordained elder (Grk Presbyter = elder, mature one), who was to do the task of a shepherd (Grk. Pastor.) A Roman Catholic will be kept form this explanation and guarded in the teaching that Peter founded the Church of Rome and passed on an apostolic authority wherein the Popes all retained infallible connection to God, even if they initiate mariology or indulgences, baptismal regeneration or immaculate conception.

The contention between Rome and Baptist has always been centered on authority. Roman Imperial Monarchical Church always wielded the sword of Government, (until 1776 Praise the Lord.) The Baptist (not always called by that name but always separatist) wielded only the two edged sword of the Word of God. We are still only armed with that powerful sword and reliant only on the Spirit of God that indwells all regenerated believers today.

[Guru of Nothing]

In conclusion, I'm not bright enough to comprehend the rules of Christianity.

[gtownspur]

I just have one problem with your statement GON, that is that you should've left it at "I'm not bright enough".

[travis2]

I have a few questions for you, hegamboa...for a church that follows "verbatim Biblical doctrine"...

1. Find me the words "personal Savior" in the Bible.
2. Explain why the clear words of Jesus at the Last Supper are not being followed.
3. Explain why Jesus' words concerning Baptism to Nicodemus are not followed.
4. Explain what happens when your personal Bible interpretation conflicts with your neighbor's.

I'll come up with some more later.

[travis2]

Tradition over Bible, never quite understood that arguement.

Neither have we Catholics. Nor have we understood why our detractors have to make things up when they attack us.

[travis2]

This refutes the article above.

Was Peter in Rome? (http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp)

Like other Protestants, Fundamentalists say Christ never appointed Peter as the earthly head for the simple reason that the Church has no earthly head and was never meant to have one. Christ is the Church’s only foundation, in any possible sense of that term.

The papacy, they say, arose out of fifth- or sixth-century politics, both secular and ecclesiastical; it has no connection with the New Testament. It has not been established by Christ, even though supposed “successors” to Peter (and their defenders) claim it was. At best the papacy is a ruse; at worst, a work of the devil. In any case, it is an institution designed to give the Catholic Church an authority it doesn’t have.

A key premise of their argument is the assertion that Peter was never in Rome. It follows that if Peter were never in Rome, he could not have been Rome’s first bishop and so could not have had any successors in that office. How can Catholics talk about the divine origin of the papacy, Fundamentalists argue, when their claim about Peter’s whereabouts is wrong?

Let’s look at this last charge, reserving for another tract a look at Peter’s position among the apostles and in the early Church.

How to Understand the Argument

At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.

On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

So, if the apostle got there only much later, that might have something to say about who his legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishop of Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peter’s successor), but it would say nothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that the papacy was instituted by Christ in the first place.

No, somehow the question, while interesting historically, doesn’t seem to be crucial to the real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholic organizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it.

“Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.

The Charges in Brief

The case is stated perhaps most succinctly, even if not so bluntly, by Loraine Boettner in his best-known book, Roman Catholicism (117): “The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only nine times in the Bible [actually, ten times in the Old Testament and ten times in the New], and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. Paul’s journey to the city is recorded in great detail (Acts 27 and 28). There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend.”

Well, what about it? Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years. Boettner is wrong to dismiss these early historical documents as conveyors of mere “legend.” They are genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes.

What the Bible Says

Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.

Early Christian Testimony

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.

A Very Early Reference

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency (http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp).) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.

What Archaeology Proved

There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that “exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin” (118).

Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as “some bones of uncertain origin” were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter’s remains were inside.

After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.

[Phenomanul]

This refutes the article above.

Was Peter in Rome? (http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp)

Like other Protestants, Fundamentalists say Christ never appointed Peter as the earthly head for the simple reason that the Church has no earthly head and was never meant to have one. Christ is the Church’s only foundation, in any possible sense of that term.

The papacy, they say, arose out of fifth- or sixth-century politics, both secular and ecclesiastical; it has no connection with the New Testament. It has not been established by Christ, even though supposed “successors” to Peter (and their defenders) claim it was. At best the papacy is a ruse; at worst, a work of the devil. In any case, it is an institution designed to give the Catholic Church an authority it doesn’t have..................................

..........................................

.

You trust in the Pope and his bishops then.... I will admit however, that I can not get myself to trust the writings addressed by the article. Even the Catholic Church chose not include these writings in early Biblical canons (on the grounds that they were not divinely inspired). How then can they base their claims on Peter's whereabouts from these same sources???

As for the bones.... well... frankly, they could be anyones. No forensic analysis will be able to prove or disprove the claim.

I choose to elevate my praise, burdens, and prayers directly to GOD. The veil that was torn from top to bottom in the Jewish temple after JESUS died (which was about 7" thick), symbolizes our direct access to GOD by way of JESUS' atoning sacrifice. WE DON'T REQUIRE HUMAN MEDIATORS BEFORE GOD WHEN OUR 'LAWYER' IS JESUS HIMSELF.

Through the sin of one, death entered our world. Through the Righteousness of another, Life was once again restored.

[smeagol]

Hector ], I will comment on your article. Please take time to read my comments. Unfortunately, the are long.


hegamboa[/B]] Lets follow Roman Papal lineage more closely. To propagate that this Roman papal authority is holding Peter’s keys to the kingdom they had to get Peter to be a pope in Rome.


No. This is incorrect. The fact that Peter went to Rome and died there does not prove the legitimacy of the Papacy. As we discussed already, it was Christ who installed the Papacy (Mt 16:18). It is there in the Bible, in black and white. I posted a long explanation with plenty of historical and Biblical evidence (not my explanation but Karl keating’s). You actually have not yet refuted the arguments of that post.



hegamboa[/B]] That was a formidable task which they pursued by misrepresenting history and rewriting it where necessary.

Not sure what the author means with “rewriting it where necessary”. Is he implying the Church forged all those early second century writings? Again, the old deceiving Catholic Church?



hegamboa[/B]] They even exploited secret code word fictions like “Babylon” being Peter’s supposed secret code word for Rome. Peter wrote from Babylon, not Rome.


Babylon is mentioned six times in Revelations (Rev 14:18; 16:19; 17:5, 18:2; 18:10; and 18:21) and in all six times it talks about Babylon falling or Babylon about to fall or the hour of judgment coming upon Babylon. If Babylon was really the capital of the Babylonian empire, these quotes make no sense given that when Revelations was written, that Babylon had been reduced to an insignificant city after years of military defeat. It was no longer “a great city” (Rev 16:19 starts with “The great city broken in three pieces . . . to Babylon, the great city”. (this I borrowed from the article travis posted)



hegamboa[/B]] The arguments against Peter’s residence in Rome have been quantified by Michael Grant in his historical biography “Saint Peter” (Grant was a nonbeliever, neither Roman Catholic nor a Baptized Bible Believing Baptist) as follows:

1) Paul’s Letter to the Galatians indicates that Peter’s activities took place at Jerusalem. There is also a mention of a visit to Antioch, with Gentile Christians, and even induced Paul’s companion Barnabas to adopt a similar procedure. But nothing is said here about Rome.


This is a weak argument. So simply because Paul’s letter to the Galatians makes no reference to Peter going to Rome proves the point?



hegamboa[/B]] 2) Paul’s Letter to the Romans is addressed to the Christians at Rome. In the whole of this address, however, there is no mention of Peter at all, which seems strange if he was indeed in Rome, and even stranger if he was indeed a Pope at Rome.


What if Peter was not in Rome at the time Paul wrote this letter? Again, simply because Paul does not mention it does not mean it did not happen. What if Paul’s letter was written before Peter ever went to Rome?.



hegamboa[/B]] 3) One of the principal purposes of Acts is to institute a comparison between Peter and Paul: whereas Galatians shows them in conflict and confrontation, Acts deliberately displays unanimity. Since the book terminates with Paul preaching in Rome, it is surely to be expected that its author would mention that Peter had preceded him there, or was his companion there, if any such tradition existed. But there is no mention of any such thing.


Again the argument “because it is not in the Bible it cannot possibly be true”. If Acts is supposed to be an all-encompassing account of Peter and Paul’s life, why no mention to Paul’s imprisonment and martyrdom in Rome?



hegamboa[/B]] 4) The Epistle I Clement (96 AD), which purports to have been written by Clement of Rome, on behalf of the church of that city, to the church of Corinth, records Peter’s noble past, but has nothing whatever to say about his having been at Rome. Moreover, the aim of the entire passage is to compare him with Paul, and draw a parallel between them. In these circumstances, it is possible to deduce that no tradition of Peter’s residence or martyrdom at Rome was known to the writer of the Letter.


Clement’s letter can be interpreted differently than what the author of the essay you posted is saying, therefore making the connection between Peter and Paul and the fact they both died in Rome.

Another curious thing is how the author shows disdain for the letter itself, doubting if it is legitimate or not. This letter was read in the early Church as scripture on Sundays and, when the Bible was put together in the Fourth Century, bishops of the time debated long and hard in order to determine if such a letter was inspired or not.



hegamboa[/B]] 5) When writing of later date do make reference to the martyrdom of Peter, they fail to indicate where this took place. If it had taken place at Rome, one would expect this to be specified.


So?



hegamboa[/B]] 6) In support of the opposite argument it has been supposed that when Ignatius, who died in about 110 AD, said to the Romans, ‘I did not request you, as Peter and Paul did’, he was implying that Peter as well as Paul, had preached to their community in the city. However, Justin Martyr, when he was writing in about the middle of the second century, does not make any mention of Peter having been there. About the activities of Simon Magus in the city he has a good deal to say. But on Simon’s supposed confrontation with Peter in Rome, which is the theme of so many later stories, Justin remains entirely silent.


So? Just because Justin makes no reference to Peter being in Rome, but four other first and second century writers, including Ignatius in 110 AD, do, is enough to proclaim these four writers (Clement, Ignatius, Dionysius and Iraneaus) are wrong, with regards to Peter being with Rome, and Justin, who simply does not mention this fact, is enough evidence to state he indeed was never in Rome? Weak argument.



hegamboa[/B]] 7) The earliest evidence for Peter’s alleged residence in Rome that can be dated with any degree of accuracy comes from Dionysius of Corinth. It was during the bishopric of Soter (166-74 AD) that Dionysius wrote to the church of Rome, expressing gratitude to its members for their financial assistance. Part of the Letter has been reproduced by Eusebius. In this, Dionysisus observes that it is right and proper that the churches of Rome and Corinth should operate in unison, since they had both been founded jointly by Peter and Paul (and this, in the case of Rome, was echoed by Irenaeus.) However, this mention of the role of Peter does not readily invite acceptance. For one thing, what Dionysius stated about Corinth was not true. That is to say, he had seriously distorted the history of his own church. And, since he had been so inaccurate about the church he knew so well, there is no reason to believe what he said about Rome either. Moreover, there are positive reasons for disbelieving what he wrote on the subject. For one thing, his ascription to Paul of a joint role in the foundation of the Roman Church does not seem to be correct. On the contrary, Paul observed in Romans that he had never met the Christians in Rome, in the foundation of whose Church, therefore, he cannot have played a part. So why believe the statement about Peter either, which goes far beyond anything said by Ignatius or Justin?


I cannot comment on Dionysius writings because I have not read them. What is false in this 7th point is stating that his testament is not the earliest. Both Clement in 96 AD, but more conclusively Ignatius in 110 AD, attest to Peter’s stay in Rome.



hegamboa[/B]] 8) Later on, it became customary to report, without any justification , that Peter had resided at Rome for twenty-five years,


False. The vast majority of Catholic writers have never said that Peter stayed in Rome for 5 years. What some Church historians say is that Peter pontificate lasted 25 years from about 33 AD to approximately 58 AD, year when they say Peter was martyred (nevertheless, the most agreed upon date for Peter’s death is 67 AD).



hegamboa[/B]] and to declare that he had been not merely the joint founder but the sole founder of its Church, so that the alleged participation of Paul in its establishment was gradually expunged from the record.


Again, this is simply not true.



hegamboa[/B]] In order to propagate it’s single episcopal, monarchical personage doctrine and to build and hold onto a forged papal authority the Roman Church needed to twist, contort and add to history.


“Monarchical personage doctrine”? Is he trying to imply the Catholic Church is run like a monarchy and the Pope is its king? This is the kind of bashing that makes the article less and less credible. This statement could not be farther from the truth.

“forged Papal authority”? Peter being or not being in Rome at some point in his life is not the reason for the Papacy. It is simply more evidence but it is inconsequential.



hegamboa[/B]] It had to expunge the true founder of the Church at Rome, the Lord Jesus Christ,


Oh boy! Every Catholic knows that Christ is the founder of the Church, not only of Rome, but every Christian Church in the face of this Earth. Again, the author loses credibility with this type of statements.



hegamboa[/B]] and fabricate a continuous succession of authority, attached to Peter. They misread Scripture to fashion Peter as the human founder of the Church, they misread history to propagate their error.


Again, balony.



hegamboa[/B]] Baptist Doctrine follows verbatim Biblical Doctrine. That individual Churches, (i.e. bodies of believers, called out baptized believers,) were organized into local Churches where only regenerated baptized believers were admitted into membership. These local Churches, whose founder was the Lord Jesus Christ, had but one human overseer in an office called bishop (Grk. Bishop = Overseer), who was an ordained elder (Grk Presbyter = elder, mature one), who was to do the task of a shepherd (Grk. Pastor.)


No, no, no. The primacy of Rome is evident in many early Christian writings. Setting aside the issue if Peter went to Rome or not, let me just give you an example. St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, went to Rome to discuss with Pope Victor I the controversy between some Churches, especially those in the East, regarding the manner of observe Easter.


hegamboa[/B]] A Roman Catholic will be kept form this explanation and guarded in the teaching that Peter founded the Church of Rome and passed on an apostolic authority wherein the Popes all retained infallible connection to God, even if they initiate mariology or indulgences, baptismal regeneration or immaculate conception.

This guy has Pope Infallibility all mixed up.


hegamboa[/B]] The contention between Rome and Baptist has always been centered on authority. Roman Imperial Monarchical Church always wielded the sword of Government, (until 1776 Praise the Lord.) The Baptist (not always called by that name but always separatist) wielded only the two edged sword of the Word of God. We are still only armed with that powerful sword and reliant only on the Spirit of God that indwells all regenerated believers today.

Sure, the Roman Catholic Church is only political. There is nothing spiritual in it. Another poorly drafted paragraph that lends little credibility to the author of the article and the article itself.

[Phenomanul]

Hector ], I will comment on your article. Please take time to read my comments. Unfortunately, the are long.

No. This is incorrect. The fact that Peter went to Rome and died there does not prove the legitimacy of the Papacy. As we discussed already, it was Christ who installed the Papacy (Mt 16:18). It is there in the Bible, in black and white. I posted a long explanation with plenty of historical and Biblical evidence (not my explanation but Karl keating’s). You actually have not yet refuted the arguments of that post.

Not sure what the author means with “rewriting it where necessary”. Is he implying the Church forged all those early second century writings? Again, the old deceiving Catholic Church?

Babylon is mentioned six times in Revelations (Rev 14:18; 16:19; 17:5, 18:2; 18:10; and 18:21) and in all six times it talks about Babylon falling or Babylon about to fall or the hour of judgment coming upon Babylon. If Babylon was really the capital of the Babylonian empire, these quotes make no sense given that when Revelations was written, that Babylon had been reduced to an insignificant city after years of military defeat. It was no longer “a great city” (Rev 16:19 starts with “The great city broken in three pieces . . . to Babylon, the great city”. (this I borrowed from the article travis posted)

This is a weak argument. So simply because Paul’s letter to the Galatians makes no reference to Peter going to Rome proves the point?

What if Peter was not in Rome at the time Paul wrote this letter? Again, simply because Paul does not mention it does not mean it did not happen. What if Paul’s letter was written before Peter ever went to Rome?.

Again the argument “because it is not in the Bible it cannot possibly be true”. If Acts is supposed to be an all-encompassing account of Peter and Paul’s life, why no mention to Paul’s imprisonment and martyrdom in Rome?

Clement’s letter can be interpreted differently than what the author of the essay you posted is saying, therefore making the connection between Peter and Paul and the fact they both died in Rome.

Another curious thing is how the author shows disdain for the letter itself, doubting if it is legitimate or not. This letter was read in the early Church as scripture on Sundays and, when the Bible was put together in the Fourth Century, bishops of the time debated long and hard in order to determine if such a letter was inspired or not.

So?

So? Just because Justin makes no reference to Peter being in Rome, but four other first and second century writers, including Ignatius in 110 AD, do, is enough to proclaim these four writers (Clement, Ignatius, Dionysius and Iraneaus) are wrong, with regards to Peter being with Rome, and Justin, who simply does not mention this fact, is enough evidence to state he indeed was never in Rome? Weak argument.

I cannot comment on Dionysius writings because I have not read them. What is false in this 7th point is stating that his testament is not the earliest. Both Clement in 96 AD, but more conclusively Ignatius in 110 AD, attest to Peter’s stay in Rome.

False. The vast majority of Catholic writers have never said that Peter stayed in Rome for 5 years. What some Church historians say is that Peter pontificate lasted 25 years from about 33 AD to approximately 58 AD, year when they say Peter was martyred (nevertheless, the most agreed upon date for Peter’s death is 67 AD).

Again, this is simply not true.


“Monarchical personage doctrine”? Is he trying to imply the Catholic Church is run like a monarchy and the Pope is its king? This is the kind of bashing that makes the article less and less credible. This statement could not be farther from the truth.

“forged Papal authority”? Peter being or not being in Rome at some point in his life is not the reason for the Papacy. It is simply more evidence but it is inconsequential.

Oh boy! Every Catholic knows that Christ is the founder of the Church, not only of Rome, but every Christian Church in the face of this Earth. Again, the author loses credibility with this type of statements.

Again, balony.

No, no, no. The primacy of Rome is evident in many early Christian writings. Setting aside the issue if Peter went to Rome or not, let me just give you an example. St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, went to Rome to discuss with Pope Victor I the controversy between some Churches, especially those in the East, regarding the manner of observe Easter.

This guy has Pope Infallibility all mixed up.

Sure, the Roman Catholic Church is only political. There is nothing spiritual in it. Another poorly drafted paragraph that lends little credibility to the author of the article and the article itself.

It's all perspective.... Even if I were to concede that Peter did end up in Rome and that he helped guide the early church. Like you said it is really inconsequential... That, however, would not mean the Revelation of GOD would be exclusively interpreted by any sort of human lineage.... And we shall agree to disagree on the interpretation of Mt. 16:18.

What I'm trying to say... is that if you place your trust in men... you do so at your own risk. But then you say, "they've been given the Revelation of GOD" to that I say... the HOLY SPIRIT gives that same Revelation to any person that genuinely seeks it. Again, we all have direct access to GOD. And no amount of earthly manipulation can take that away from me...

We are all priests... since we have the 'keys' to unbind others from the bondage of sin by sharing the Gospel. But we are not the ones to take the glory, because it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT.

[Phenomanul]

Neither have we Catholics. Nor have we understood why our detractors have to make things up when they attack us.


That argument goes both ways... which is why we must seek to understand the perspective of other doctrines...

[travis2]

That argument goes both ways... which is why we must seek to understand the perspective of other doctrines...

Seeking understanding is all I want as well. And I'm happy to assist with the Catholic side of that.

Unfortunately the wording of SA210's post didn't seem to me to fall into that category...

[SA210]

I'm sorry, but there was nothing wrong with my wording. Mary as intercessor is a tradition, not from the Bible. We've been through this, yes I know you say it's like asking a friend to pray for you.

Hagamboa is right, respectfully, there is a difference, we are praying To God when doing that, not Mary or for her intercession. Not the same.

[travis2]

I'm sorry, but there was nothing wrong with my wording. Mary as intercessor is a tradition, not from the Bible. We've been through this, yes I know you say it's like asking a friend to pray for you.

Hagamboa is right, respectfully, there is a difference, we are praying To God when doing that, not Mary or for her intercession. Not the same.

There is something wrong with your wording. You said "tradition over the Bible". That is a completely false statement. You are spreading a lie.

Period.

[smeagol]

You trust in the Pope and his bishops then.... I will admit however, that I can not get myself to trust the writings addressed by the article.


Why? Do you believe them to be forgeries? Do you believe them to be inaccurate?



Even the Catholic Church chose not include these writings in early Biblical canons (on the grounds that they were not divinely inspired). How then can they base their claims on Peter's whereabouts from these same sources???


This is a flawed way of thinking. The Church not declaring that those letters where divinely inspired (something you correctly pointed out) does not totally discredit them.

Those letters, such as the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp, were written by people who new the Apostles. The Epistle of Clement (95 AD) was probably written at the same time, if not earlier, than the Gospel according to John.

What I don’t understand is how Fundamentalists only believe what’s in the Bible but discredit the institution that compiled that same Bible. The Bible is the Catholic Church’s book. She put it together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and she preserved it through the years in its churches and monasteries until the Reformers decided to do away with part of it because it did not suit their new theology.

[SA210]

There is something wrong with your wording. You said "tradition over the Bible". That is a completely false statement. You are spreading a lie.
Period.
If that's what you want to call it. Respectfully, Now, you don't say Tradition over Bible of course, but much of what the religion practices, IS against what the Bible teaches us. So, it does make sense the point I was making, that's what's really going on. You don't have to say the words Tradition over Bible, because I know you probably believe that it's not.

Only the practices are, Not that you teach someone that, and I know you don't, but what the "practices" of the religion are that go against Bible teachings. I'm happy we all are worshipping God, but I disagree on how. I'll just choose to worship and pray to God directly, in Jesus' name as the Bible specifically teaches us to do.

[travis2]

If that's what you want to call it. Respectfully, Now, you don't say Tradition over Bible of course, but much of what the religion practices, IS against what the Bible teaches us. So, it does make sense the point I was making, that's what's really going on. You don't have to say the words Tradition over Bible, because I know you probably believe that it's not.

Only the practices are, Not that you teach someone that, and I know you don't, but what the "practices" of the religion are that go against Bible teachings. I'm happy we all are worshipping God, but I disagree on how. I'll just choose to worship and pray to God directly, in Jesus' name as the Bible specifically teaches us to do.

Once again...the Church practices nothing against the Bible.

You state these things as though they are established facts. They are not.

[smeagol]

It's all perspective.... Even if I were to concede that Peter did end up in Rome and that he helped guide the early church. Like you said it is really inconsequential... That, however, would not mean the Revelation of GOD would be exclusively interpreted by any sort of human lineage....

How can you not have an ultimate arbitrator when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Look at what happens when you let individuals interpret the Bible. 20,000 different interpretations. Does the Holy Spirit give these 20,000 denominations a different explanation of what is true?

Christ established the Church and gave the power to his representative(s) on Earth to spread the Good News and continue with His evangelical work. It’s only natural that the Popes and the bishops (in short, the Catholic Church) has the authority to interpret the Bible when doubts among its flock arises. This is the way it has been since Christ was crucified. The Reformers are not the first to try to reinterpret the Bible and adopt new doctrines (the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Montanists, the Manicheans, the Arians, the Donatists, the Nestorians and many others came many centuries before them) and they won’t be the last.



And we shall agree to disagree on the interpretation of Mt. 16:18.


I have no problem in agreeing to disagree. I have to say though that I posted an extensive article on the Catholic explanation of Mt 16:18 and most of the points raised in the article have not been addressed by you. On the other hand, you posted an extensive article on Peter and his historical whereabouts, and my rebuttal to that article was very detailed, almost refuting point by point.

[smeagol]

That argument goes both ways... which is why we must seek to understand the perspective of other doctrines...

Hector, believe me when I say that I have read many books on Fundamentalist beliefs and their origins. I’m also very interested in how the Reform happened and its historical roots. I try to understand many of the different doctrines they (Protestants) profess but I always fall back to the Catholic way of interpreting the Bible, because it makes so much sense to me.

For example: travis and I have asked you many times on the concept of Sola Scriptura and how Fundamentalists make it the cornerstone of their belief, while this concept is not found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible expressly says it has not recorded all of Jesus doings and teachings.

[smeagol]

If that's what you want to call it. Respectfully, Now, you don't say Tradition over Bible of course, but much of what the religion practices, IS against what the Bible teaches us. So, it does make sense the point I was making, that's what's really going on. You don't have to say the words Tradition over Bible, because I know you probably believe that it's not.

Only the practices are, Not that you teach someone that, and I know you don't, but what the "practices" of the religion are that go against Bible teachings. I'm happy we all are worshipping God, but I disagree on how. I'll just choose to worship and pray to God directly, in Jesus' name as the Bible specifically teaches us to do.

Lets through out there as many lies as we can, at the end of the day, some of those lies will begin to sound like truths. :depressed

Give us examples of Catholic practices that go against Bible teachings.

And by the way, aren’t you the one who does not believe in the Trinity?

[gtownspur]

Truth is,... the early church of pentecost was no Notre Damesque steepled church with Mary worship, and veneration of the saints. There was no pope, and if peter was the first pope, then the apostle paul was guilty of getting on to peter for discriminating against gentiles and being unchristian like.

IF peter was the pope, then paul would of never questioned Peter. ANd last time I checked there was no need to confess to clergy in the early church.

What the early church practiced pre 60 AD was enough. Paul warned of false angels coming and preaching a different gospel than what was already presented. ANd the NT was simple on the gospel. ALL it took was to confirm that Jesus was your saviour and he rose on the last day.

[travis2]

Truth is,... the early church of pentecost was no Notre Damesque steepled church with Mary worship, and veneration of the saints.

We don't worship Mary either. For the thousandth time.


There was no pope, and if peter was the first pope, then the apostle paul was guilty of getting on to peter for discriminating against gentiles and being unchristian like.

Wrong...and right. Nobody said Peter was personally perfect.


IF peter was the pope, then paul would of never questioned Peter. ANd last time I checked there was no need to confess to clergy in the early church.

Wrong...and wrong. "Receive the Holy Spirit. Who's sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Who's sins you hold bound, they are held bound."


What the early church practiced pre 60 AD was enough. Paul warned of false angels coming and preaching a different gospel than what was already presented. ANd the NT was simple on the gospel. ALL it took was to confirm that Jesus was your saviour and he rose on the last day.

He was warning of the Gnostics, for the most part. And you have no Biblical reference for your last statement.

[Phenomanul]

Why? Do you believe them to be forgeries? Do you believe them to be inaccurate?




This is a flawed way of thinking. The Church not declaring that those letters where divinely inspired (something you correctly pointed out) does not totally discredit them.

Those letters, such as the Epistles of Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp, were written by people who new the Apostles. The Epistle of Clement (95 AD) was probably written at the same time, if not earlier, than the Gospel according to John.

What I don’t understand is how Fundamentalists only believe what’s in the Bible but discredit the institution that compiled that same Bible. The Bible is the Catholic Church’s book. She put it together under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and she preserved it through the years in its churches and monasteries until the Reformers decided to do away with part of it because it did not suit their new theology.

The writings don't coherently agree with what is written in the rest of the New Testament. This analysis was carried out by the church a long time ago and found that the works were 'lacking in inspired' revelation. I'm going to say something here which might anger you... but only if you take criticisms of Roman Catholic leaders as a personal attack on your faith... which like I've said before, despite your noted disagreement, should not be intertwined....

The Catholic Church as instituted by the 1st elected Pope (Pope Gregory I in 605 A.D.) claimed the legacy of the early church for itself. That is why declaring that a contemporary of JESUS, in this case Peter, was the founder of the institution was crucial to their cause of having existed from the beginning and laying a stake on a piece of history that did not belong the Roman Catholic Institution as it is founded today. To make the claim that the inception of the church belongs to them is what angers many protestants.... why? Because we are the church... and life and forgiveness are granted to us by our Heavenly Father not by any earthly representative. The church exists and perseveres because of GOD's grace... not because we as humans somehow 'managed' to preserve it...

The early church which compiled the Gospels, Paul's Letters, John's Letters, and Peter's Letters did so, you are correct, with the guidance and discernment of the HOLY SPIRIT. And those books complete the Bible we now use...

As for the other books, we did not take the Apocrypha out of the Bible. The Apocrypha was added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as specific response to the Reformation. Explain how Divine infallibility would have had several Papal successors not include the Apocrypha to then suddenly decide that they were wrong and that the books should be included?? If the Jews did not, and still do not, consider the Apocryphal writings to be a part of the Hebrew Canon why else would the RCC decide to add these writings to the Bible... and 1500 years after the Revelation of JESUS???

And I am not misunderstanding the 'infallibility' concept. The RCC claims their doctrines are "free of error" because they were given by GOD. Could all the earlier popes be given an incomplete doctrine and then suddendly say... "you know... these other books were also intended to be part of the Canon." Don't even bother to look up justifying support for the Apocrypha... Fact of the matter is that they are irrelevant to the Revelation of JESUS Christ.

Don't get me wrong... the existence of these books, in and of itself, is not necessarily wrong. Though they are uninspired, they do contain much truth derived from the true Word of God, just as might a commentary or a devotional book. The apocryphal books may make for good reading, provided that they (like everything else) are examined and judged in the light of the true scriptures. But they do not belong in the canon of the scriptures, and it is clear from the testimony of history that the Jews never considered them scripture, and neither did the true church of God. The fact that the writings of the Apostles, are devoid of quotations from apocryphal books, is proof enough that they are irrelevant to the New Covenant in Christ.

However, Rome has invested a good deal of theological capital in maintaining that these books are inspired scripture. Claiming them as such allows Rome to bolster its profession to be the "mother of the Bible", because it "fixed the canon". Further, there are several major pillars of Roman Catholic Tradition which rest upon an apocryphal foundation, and which would be completely baseless if the apocryphal books were rendered unusable from a doctrinal standpoint.

[bigzak25]

seeing as how God created fish too, anything is possible.

[implacable44]

Once again...the Church practices nothing against the Bible.

You state these things as though they are established facts. They are not.

where in the bible does it describe baptism as sprinling water on the head ?

[bigzak25]

guys religion is simple.

it's a PERSONAL THING. if you want to fellowship with others, go for it. if you want to read the book alone. Good.

but do not hate on Christianity because of the mistakes and mis-steps that MAN has made. Man is guilty. Man is not perfect.

Jesus is. Just like his Father. Look to them, for they have all the answers.

Man has answers mixed with lies. Do not turn away from the truth just cuz their is a cloud in front of it.

[travis2]

The writings don't coherently agree with what is written in the rest of the New Testament. This analysis was carried out by the church a long time ago and found that the works were 'lacking in inspired' revelation. I'm going to say something here which might anger you... but only if you take criticisms of Roman Catholic leaders as a personal attack on your faith... which like I've said before, despite your noted disagreement, should not be intertwined....

The Catholic Church as instituted by the 1st elected Pope (Pope Gregory I in 605 A.D.) claimed the legacy of the early church for itself. That is why declaring that a contemporary of JESUS, in this case Peter, was the founder of the institution was crucial to their cause of having existed from the beginning and laying a stake on a piece of history that did not belong the Roman Catholic Institution as it is founded today. To make the claim that the inception of the church belongs to them is what angers many protestants.... why? Because we are the church... and life and forgiveness are granted to us by our Heavenly Father not by any earthly representative. The church exists and perseveres because of GOD's grace... not because we as humans somehow 'managed' to preserve it...

The early church which compiled the Gospels, Paul's Letters, John's Letters, and Peter's Letters did so, you are correct, with the guidance and discernment of the HOLY SPIRIT. And those books complete the Bible we now use...

As for the other books, we did not take the Apocrypha out of the Bible. The Apocrypha was added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as specific response to the Reformation. Explain how Divine infallibility would have had several Papal successors not include the Apocrypha to then suddenly decide that they were wrong and that the books should be included?? If the Jews did not, and still do not, consider the Apocryphal writings to be a part of the Hebrew Canon why else would the RCC decide to add these writings to the Bible... and 1500 years after the Revelation of JESUS???

And I am not misunderstanding the 'infallibility' concept. The RCC claims their doctrines are "free of error" because they were given by GOD. Could all the earlier popes be given an incomplete doctrine and then suddendly say... "you know... these other books were also intended to be part of the Canon." Don't even bother to look up justifying support for the Apocrypha... Fact of the matter is that they are irrelevant to the Revelation of JESUS Christ.

Don't get me wrong... the existence of these books, in and of itself, is not necessarily wrong. Though they are uninspired, they do contain much truth derived from the true Word of God, just as might a commentary or a devotional book. The apocryphal books may make for good reading, provided that they (like everything else) are examined and judged in the light of the true scriptures. But they do not belong in the canon of the scriptures, and it is clear from the testimony of history that the Jews never considered them scripture, and neither did the true church of God. The fact that the writings of the Apostles, are devoid of quotations from apocryphal books, is proof enough that they are irrelevant to the New Covenant in Christ.

However, Rome has invested a good deal of theological capital in maintaining that these books are inspired scripture. Claiming them as such allows Rome to bolster its profession to be the "mother of the Bible", because it "fixed the canon". Further, there are several major pillars of Roman Catholic Tradition which rest upon an apocryphal foundation, and which would be completely baseless if the apocryphal books were rendered unusable from a doctrinal standpoint.

Uhhhhhh...wrong.

First, Pope Gregory did not "institute" the Catholic Church.

The Canon was first officially listed on paper at the Council of Rome, 382. It was affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the Canon as it has always been in response to the removal of those books by Luther and his bunch.

And no, you do not understand the concept of infallibility. As is the usual case, you attempt to over-apply it to areas in which it does not apply.

Also, dogma and doctrine are two different things. "Doctrine" is "teaching". Dogma is "...a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church." (from the Catholic Encyclopedia). One could consider "dogma" to be the highest form of "doctrine". Only that which is "dogma" is unchanging.

[travis2]

where in the bible does it describe baptism as sprinling water on the head ?

We don't sprinkle. We either pour or immerse.

[implacable44]

We don't sprinkle. We either pour or immerse.

catholics ?

[travis2]

catholics ?

Yes. If you heard we "sprinkle", you heard wrong. Pouring or immersion.

[smeagol]

The writings don't coherently agree with what is written in the rest of the New Testament. This analysis was carried out by the church a long time ago and found that the works were 'lacking in inspired' revelation.


Where don’t they coincide? Simply because the Books in the Bible are silent when it comes to Peter’s whereabouts does not mean they contradict Ignatius’ Epistles, where there is a clear reference to Peter having been in Rome.

Again, “lacking in inspired revelation” does not mean they are wrong or inaccurate. I put much more stock on a letter written by men who knew the Apostles (Clement knew Peter, Ignatius knew John) than what 15th through 21st Century Protestant writers have to say on this subject.

For the 100th time: The fact that the Bible is silent with regards to an event does not mean that that event never happened.



The Catholic Church as instituted by the 1st elected Pope (Pope Gregory I in 605 A.D.) claimed the legacy of the early church for itself.


Hector, I like debating with you but please, you need to check your sources. Whoever told you (or whoever wrote) the above statement is way off.



That is why declaring that a contemporary of JESUS, in this case Peter, was the founder of the institution was crucial to their cause of having existed from the beginning and laying a stake on a piece of history that did not belong the Roman Catholic Institution as it is founded today. To make the claim that the inception of the church belongs to them is what angers many protestants


In other words, what the author of this essay is saying is that the Church of the first six centuries (until 605 AD, when the Catholic Church was instituted (I can’t help laughing at this statement :lol )) was similar in its rites and doctrine to today’s Protestant Church? This is mind boggling to me. The testaments of all these early Christians point out that the early Church practiced all rites and possessed all those beliefs Protestants are against (I have quoted many times in this thread early Christian writings that attest to Peter being in Rome, infant baptism, the Sacraments, the Real Presence, auricular confession, Marian Beliefs, etc)



we are the church... and life and forgiveness are granted to us by our Heavenly Father not by any earthly representative. The church exists and perseveres because of GOD's grace... not because we as humans somehow 'managed' to preserve it...

So now Catholics believe that life and forgiveness is granted by an Earthly representative? And they also believe that the Church survived 2000 years because of humans? This kind of blatant disregard of what true Catholic beliefs really are, does not help your argument and undermines your credibility.



As for the other books, we did not take the Apocrypha out of the Bible. The Apocrypha was added to the Canon in 1546 by the Council of Trent as specific response to the Reformation.


No!!!!! Please do your research before posting.

What is known as Old Testament Apocrypha (we Catholics prefer to call it Deutocanonical) was part of the greek version of the Old Testament used by the Jews in Alexandria. Writers such as Justin in the II Century and Origen in the III, already acknowledge that Catholics were using an extended version of the OT than which was different than the one used by the majority of the Jews. Origen even goes as far as defending Tobias, Judith and fragments of Daniel. Thereafter, writers such as Tertullian and Cyprian, also in the III Century quote verses of most of the Deutocanonical books.

In the IV Century, there was some doubt among Christian writers about the divne inspiration of these books, but the Councils and Synods of the later part of the Century Rome (382), Hyppo (393) and Carthage (393, 397), where the Canon was finaly decided, include these books.

See how far off is you above statement that these books were added in 1546 in Trent as a response to the Reformation.



Explain how Divine infallibility would have had several Papal successors not include the Apocrypha to then suddenly decide that they were wrong and that the books should be included?? If the Jews did not, and still do not, consider the Apocryphal writings to be a part of the Hebrew Canon why else would the RCC decide to add these writings to the Bible... and 1500 years after the Revelation of JESUS???


Again, do some research on this subject because what you are stating is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. And by the way, the Apocrypha was part of the Jewish Bible (at least a version that some Jews used). It was slowly dropped for the OT by Jews in the first Centuries of the current era.

Actually, it was the Protestants such as Luther who decided to amputate these books that had been part of the Bible since the Canon was agreed in 380 – 390 AD. Luther, one of the Champions of the Reformation, also corrupted Scripture by adding the word “alone” after faith in Rom 3:28. In Lutheran Bibles, I believe the phrase reads “man is justified by faith alone . . .”. Talk about someone altering scripture to push a personal agenda.



And I am not misunderstanding the 'infallibility' concept. The RCC claims their doctrines are "free of error" because they were given by GOD. Could all the earlier popes be given an incomplete doctrine and then suddendly say... "you know... these other books were also intended to be part of the Canon." Don't even bother to look up justifying support for the Apocrypha... Fact of the matter is that they are irrelevant to the Revelation of JESUS Christ.


Your statements are based on flawed premises. You are perpetuating the error that the OT Apocrypha was added in 1546. It wasn’t. One more thing, The Greek Orthodox Bible also includes these books. This Church broke from the Catholic Church in the IX Century, again disproving your XVI century date.



The apocryphal books may make for good reading, provided that they (like everything else) are examined and judged in the light of the true scriptures. But they do not belong in the canon of the scriptures, and it is clear from the testimony of history that the Jews never considered them scripture, and neither did the true church of God.


No. I prove this point earlier.



The fact that the writings of the Apostles, are devoid of quotations from apocryphal books, is proof enough that they are irrelevant to the New Covenant in Christ. .


Although there are no direct quotes in the NT of the OT Apocrypha (Deutocanonical Books), there are close affinities of thought, and in some cases also of language, between I Peter 1: 6-7, and Wisdom 3: 5-6; Hebrews 1:3, and Wisdom 6: 26-27; 1 Corinthians 10: 9-10, and Judith 8: 24-25; 1 Corinthians 6: 13 and Ecclesiasticus, 36: 20.

[Phenomanul]

Uhhhhhh...wrong.

First, Pope Gregory did not "institute" the Catholic Church. .

Right.... sorry. I meant to say "The Roman Catholic Church as interpreted by Gregory the I (in AD 605 -- the year of his death) staked a claim on all Christendom... and it's history...

This of course is nevertheless insulting to other Christians who have been 'unchurched' of their own history.



The Canon was first officially listed on paper at the Council of Rome, 382. It was affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the Canon as it has always been in response to the removal of those books by Luther and his bunch.

And no, you do not understand the concept of infallibility. As is the usual case, you attempt to over-apply it to areas in which it does not apply.

Also, dogma and doctrine are two different things. "Doctrine" is "teaching". Dogma is "...a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church -- but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church." (from the Catholic Encyclopedia). One could consider "dogma" to be the highest form of "doctrine". Only that which is "dogma" is unchanging.

Misinterpreting Biblical truths is a 'smoking barrel' sign that 'papal interpretation of GOD's revelation' is not infallible. The claim is that their Doctrine, or in this case Dogma, is "error-free". I don't buy it.

Read the following passage written oddly enough by Tim Dunkin....!!!



And the Apocrypha was not an 'official' part of the Canon during the first few centuries... History tells us that the Council of Rome (presided over by Damasus) was only a local council which did not have ecumenical authority, and this fact is obvious from the complete lack of regard to findings shown by the churches in the rest of Europe and in the East.

One of Damasus' chief supporters in the drive to accept the Apocrypha was Augustine, the definitive theologian of the Western Catholic religion for centuries after his time. It was Augustine's presence and support for the Apocrypha at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) which guaranteed the acceptance of the expanded canon at these gatherings. Once again, though, these councils did not have ecumenical force, and their findings were little regarded outside of Rome and North Africa until after the Western Empire had fallen, and the Roman Catholic religion began to formally assert itself as the dual religious and temporal authority in Europe.

However, it should be understood that even with these councils, a large share of the Latin church did not accept the Apocrypha as scripture, just as many of their brethren in the East rejected those books... After the time of these councils, many in the West continued to give no evidence that they viewed the apocryphal books as Scripture. Among these are Sulpitius Severus (363-420 AD) and Vincent of Lerons (d. 450 AD), both from Gaul. The Greek Eastern churches in these later years continued their general witness against the Apocrypha, with this being the position of men such as Anastasius of Antioch (c. 500 AD) and Leontius of Byzantium (c. 580 AD). The Syriac writer, Jacob Aphrahat (337-445 AD), made sparing use of the Apocrypha, and does not indicate through his manner of use that he considered these books as anything more than secondary literature. Even as late as the 8th century, we see Eastern writers who reject the Apocrypha, one of whom was John of Damascus (664-777 AD).

From this overview of the early church and its use of the Apocrypha, one thing should be abundantly clear. The patristic writers were hardly uniform in the belief that the Apocrypha was scripture. In fact, the majority of them witnessed against that position and against the Apocrypha. The writers who spanned these early centuries of Christian history were hardly "catholic" ... universal... in their views on this matter. Even a cursory study of the patristic writers shows that these men were as theologically and doctrinally diverse as Christians are today. This diversity extended to their understanding of what constituted the "edges" of the canonical scriptures. For the Roman Catholic religion to accept the opinions of some of these men, while ignoring the greater witness of those in the early churches who did not use or opposed the inclusion of the apocryphal books, is complete arbitrarity. The arguments from patristic use and reverence which are used by Roman Catholicism to justify their inclusion of the Apocrypha into the canon are based upon the convenient choice of which particular patristic writer and which particular council to appeal to for authority.

The acceptance of the apocryphal books fails the test of catholicity in geography, as well. Before the time that Europe fell under the dominion of Roman Catholicism and the Catholic Bible (Apocrypha included) became the sole approved version, the only places where the Apocrypha gained serious currency were in Egypt and North Africa, with patristics from Palestine later turning to it through the influence of Pamphilus and Eusebius. The general testimony from Greece, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Gaul, Syria, and even many in Italy was against the inclusion of these books.

Lastly, in spite of Catholic arguments based upon the authority of tradition, the acceptance of the Apocrypha as canonical scripture was an anti-traditional position within the early churches. The trend through these early centuries was a departure from the Hebrew canon of 22 books to the extended canon which eventually came to dominate after the rise of Roman Catholicism proper. With increasing distance from apostolic times, we see a gradually increasing view that the apocryphal works were inspired scripture, aided by the introduction of these books into the Greek Old Testament texts during the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries.... Thus, what is often couched as an argument from "church tradition" instead seems to defy true tradition in favour of an arbitrary choice of sources made for the purposes of buttressing dogmatic assertion.

The New Covenant in Christ is not really affected by the Apocrypha as much as Catholic traditions are... so I really don't care.... Those specific traditions addressed in those books have no bearing on my eternal salvation.... and even if I were to concede that a "purgatory" phase was required of me for 'purification' as a pre-cursor to entry to Heaven. It still wouldn't mean I had no salvation secured....

[Yonivore]

The thread that would not die!

[Phenomanul]

Enough of the Apocrypha... The books don't speak of Christ and have no bearing on the New Covenant.

Oh... and Smeagol don't crucify me on the Gregory I comment, I mean I was good at memorizing history... but ecclesiastical history was much harder for me to keep track of simply because as such it always has to be subjected to the scrutiny of other historical documents... and around and around I went.

Notwithstanding, if you want to undermine my credibility that is your perogative. I'm learning much here and don't proclaim to type all this stuff out of memory. The one time I did; I screwed up....

I won't point out any of your errors in that exhuberant a manner, but be careful you don't fall into a trap of pointing to out the "splinter in my eye, while having a plank sticking out of yours."

[smeagol]

Enough of the Apocrypha... The books don't speak of Christ and have no bearing on the New Covenant.

Not all OT books speak of Jesus.


Notwithstanding, if you want to undermine my credibility that is your perogative. I'm learning much here and don't proclaim to type all this stuff out of memory. The one time I did; I screwed up....

It is not my intention to undermine your credibility just for the fun of it and I was not aware that it was a mistake. My issue when I discuss religion with Fundamentalists is that (i) they don’t understand what the true position of the Catholic Church is in many issues, and (ii) many times, when debating, they use so-called facts which are way off.

I feel to some degree this has happened in our debate.


I won't point out any of your errors in that exhuberant a manner, but be careful you don't fall into a trap of pointing to out the "splinter in my eye, while having a plank sticking out of yours."

Sometimes I get carried away :spin

[Dos]

I don't think there is one true catholic church anymore.. there are great debates between the liberal jesuits and more conservative catholics... as to which direction the church should head.. either more liberal or more conservative... but thats what I know as a former catholic...

[smeagol]

This of course is nevertheless insulting to other Christians who have been 'unchurched' of their own history..

It is overwhelmingly clear that the early Church practiced the rites and Doctrines that the Catholic Church practices. The “'unchurched'” Christians that you refer to have their own history. It started in the XVI century. The history of Fundamentalism started even later: late XIX Century.


It still wouldn't mean I had no salvation secured....

Ahh . . . Sola fide.

[travis2]

Misinterpreting Biblical truths is a 'smoking barrel' sign that 'papal interpretation of GOD's revelation' is not infallible. The claim is that their Doctrine, or in this case Dogma, is "error-free". I don't buy it.


Excuse me? And you don't consider this a "bash"? C'mon...:rolleyes

Who is the official arbiter of these "truths" you claim the Church has misinterpreted? You? Sorry..."I don't buy it".

Not one Biblical truth has been misinterpreted by the Catholic Church. Not one.

And we certainly don't have to add words to or remove books from the Bible or make up fraudulent histories in order to make ourselves feel better.

[Phenomanul]

Excuse me? And you don't consider this a "bash"? C'mon...:rolleyes

No... I just don't believe Christ left His Revelation to the fate of one institution... and to top it off ... to one that has committed many 'political' and 'socially reprihensible' errors across its history (Vatican sanctioned murders.... numerous child abuse scandals and subsequent cover ups....) But, hey I realize that we are human.... I'm not one to judge them as people. It's just that they feel like they can do whatever they wish and still have the audacity to claim doctrinal perfection.... C'mon that is an insult. Not to me. To Christ himself.

"Do not judge your brother", "GOD is our Judge".... yet the Catholic Church has held inquisitions to boast Judicial authority???? Does the word Pharisee ring a bell???



Who is the official arbiter of these "truths" you claim the Church has misinterpreted? You? Sorry..."I don't buy it".

NOPE... it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT... for the umpteeenth time... these truths are revealed to all that genuinely seek it.


Not one Biblical truth has been misinterpreted by the Catholic Church. Not one.

Says of course... the Catholic Church.



And we certainly don't have to add words to or remove books from the Bible or make up fraudulent histories in order to make ourselves feel better.


Says of course... the Catholic Church.

How do you know it's not the other way around??? Yeah. You can accuse others of making up history, but if one turns it around to question the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is 100% accurate. Always. No questions asked. Doubters be damed.... Please.... such an arrogant stance is not Christlike.

The Gospel is simple. Human interpretation has convoluted God's message of Grace and salvation to place himself as a mediator between GOD and men when JESUS clearly said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father except by me." And then you all complain about not taking passages literally???

[Phenomanul]

It is overwhelmingly clear that the early Church practiced the rites and Doctrines that the Catholic Church practices. The “'unchurched'” Christians that you refer to have their own history. It started in the XVI century. The history of Fundamentalism started even later: late XIX Century.



Ahh . . . Sola fide.


Sola fide... yes. But don't imply my 'works' or those of others are non-existent... that is an error that you all fall into often... and is not a judgement call you or any person on earth is qualified to make. And frankly it is a tiring affair to have to point it out.

As for rituals... hey I was baptized as an infant (when I was 'catholic'), and again as a teen. I participated of the RCC's sacraments (again, when I was 'catholic').... and yet that is not what justifies me before GOD. Christ's blood has and always will.

[travis2]

No... I just don't believe Christ left His Revelation to the fate of one institution... and to top it off ... to one that has committed many 'political' and 'socially reprihensible' errors across its history (Vatican sanctioned murders.... numerous child abuse scandals and subsequent cover ups....) But, hey I realize that we are human.... I'm not one to judge them as people. It's just that they feel like they can do whatever they wish and still have the audacity to claim doctrinal perfection.... C'mon that is an insult. Not to me. To Christ himself.

"Do not judge your brother", "GOD is our Judge".... yet the Catholic Church has held inquisitions to boast Judicial authority???? Does the word Pharisee ring a bell???




NOPE... it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT... for the umpteeenth time... these truths are revealed to all that genuinely seek it.



Says of course... the Catholic Church.




Says of course... the Catholic Church.

How do you know it's not the other way around??? Yeah. You can accuse others of making up history, but if one turns it around to question the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is 100% accurate. Always. No questions asked. Doubters be damed.... Please.... such an arrogant stance is not Christlike.

The Gospel is simple. Human interpretation has convoluted God's message of Grace and salvation to place himself as a mediator between GOD and men when JESUS clearly said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh to the Father except by me." And then you all complain about not taking passages literally???

First of all...read up on what the Inquisition actually was and what it did. Find out what the Church did, and what the secular governments did. And you continue to show ignorance about what infallibility means.

History...the Church history is recorded and supported by non-Catholic, secular historians. If you choose to disbelieve it, that's of course your affair. But I don't see the same academic rigor in support of anti-Catholic histories.

So...the Holy Spirit gave 20,000 different interpretations of the Bible?

And you may not like my spirited defense of the Church, and maybe I go overboard every so often...but when you state unsupported opinions as though they were proven fact, you bet your @$$ I'm going to be all over you about it. If that's arrogance...so be it. I'm arrogant. But you'd better look in the mirror before you use that term again.

I can't stand people twisting the plank in my eye while their own plank is cracking me upside the head.

[Oh, Gee!!]

This thread is worthless without pics.

[travis2]

BTW, hegamboa...I did ask you 4 serious questions a while back. Did you miss them?

[xrayzebra]

This thread is worthless without pics.

shhhhhsh, you are interfering with serious discussions.

[Oh, Gee!!]

shhhhhsh, you are interfering with serious discussions.


Oh, the irony

[Mr. Peabody]

Oh, the irony

Like a black fly in your chardonnay?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Like a black fly in your chardonnay?


It's like Raaaaayyyyy on your wedding day

[SA210]

It's like Raaaaayyyyy on your wedding day
An old man turned ninety-eight...
He was senile and still lied the next day.

Isn't it Ironic...

[Mr. Peabody]

It's like Raaaaayyyyy on your wedding day

Man, I hate when guys named Ray show up on my wedding day. Then I'm all like "Hey man, this is a no Rays wedding."

Of course that means I have to let one Ray in.

[smeagol]

Sola fide... yes. But don't imply my 'works' or those of others are non-existent...

I never implied that. I’m sure you do plenty of works because from what I read in your posts, you are a committed Christian.

What I more than implied is that you believe that you are saved by Faith alone, and as James says, Faith without Works is nothing. And having assurance of Salvation simply because you believe (Faith) but not following Christ’s example (Works) (in the extreme this could mean that you say you believe but you lead a terrible life) is something I have trouble believing Christ would approve.


that is an error that you all fall into often... and is not a judgement call you or any person on earth is qualified to make.

No, I don’t fall into that error because, as I pointed out above, I believe many people who follow the Sola Fide doctrine, because they believe in Christ, they follow his example and live exemplary lives.

My issue is related to the doctrine itself. You believe there’s a place for you in Heaven simply by accepting Jesus as your personal Savior. I believe that is incorrect because: (i) the Bible says Works are needed, (ii) the Early Fathers say works are needed, (iii) common sense says that Faith alone is not enough.

[smeagol]

BTW, hegamboa...I did ask you 4 serious questions a while back. Did you miss them?
I also asked you the question about Sola Scriptura

[Phenomanul]

I can't stand people twisting the plank in my eye while their own plank is cracking me upside the head.


I'll address the rest later, but man I got to admit... that's a good quote... seriously.

Of course it would be reserved for a much more heated discussion....

[travis2]

I'll address the rest later, but man I got to admit... that's a good quote... seriously.

Of course it would be reserved for a much more heated discussion....

Glad you like it. :lol

No royalties.

[smeagol]

I'll address the rest later, but man I got to admit... that's a good quote... seriously.

On the other hand, I missed completely the meaning of the above-mentioned phrase :depressed

[travis2]

On the other hand, I missed completely the meaning of the above-mentioned phrase :depressed

My saying (as far as I know it's original with me) is just another way of putting the speck/beam verse...:lol

[Phenomanul]

First of all...read up on what the Inquisition actually was and what it did. Find out what the Church did, and what the secular governments did. And you continue to show ignorance about what infallibility means.


This is from a Catholic website....


In the last number of years , Pope John Paul II addressed the wrong actions of the Catholic Church throughout history, including the tortures and deaths related to the medieval Inquisitions. The following is a letter he wrote recounting his sorrow:

The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished...the children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to "the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth" (4)

This spirit of repentance, it is clear, entails a firm determination to seek in the future ways to bear witness to the truth that are in keeping with the Gospel."

The prayer I addressed to God on that occasion contains the reasons for a request for forgiveness that can also be applied to the tragedies associated with the Inquisition, as well as to the injuries to memory that result from it.

"Lord, God of all men and women, in certain periods of history. Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our resolve to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. We ask this through Christ Our Lord"

(Prayer for Forgiveness, Day of Pardon, 12 March, II; ORE, 22 March 2000, p.). JOHN PAUL II, From the Vatican, 15 June 2004

The Inquisition tortures and deaths were wrong, dead wrong!

.................

What is ironic about this beautiful repentance prayer (and I mean that) is that he never once points the finger to the church leaders.... The Catholic Church even while trying to attain forgiveness from GOD has never admitted to condoning attrocious acts against GOD's precepts. The Roman Catholic Church has had a documented history of wrong doings; it is much easier, however, for them to have scape goats and call them 'bad tares' or 'black sheep' and thus avoid criticism. But if the wrongdoings stem from sanctioned acts coming directly from leaders who are recieving direct spiritual direction from GOD. It is only common sense for someone then to question the validity of that exclusivity.

All people are infallible... and all are in need of Christ's redemption. GOD reveals his Truth to all without predilection... "Doctrinal Truths" are thus given to those who seek GOD and study His Scripture. Why?? because no man is greater than his brother.



History...the Church history is recorded and supported by [b]non-Catholic, secular historians. If you choose to disbelieve it, that's of course your affair. But I don't see the same academic rigor in support of anti-Catholic histories.


It doesn't seem to matter does it... if we find instances where the Catholic Institution has misinterpreted a historical document or ignored others alltogether... The answer is still the same. "YOU ARE WRONG, WE ARE ALWAYS RIGHT." Did you read the excerpt by Tim Dunkin. If anything poses a threat to Catholic ideologies it will always be branded as fraudulent even if that were not the case. I can not win here no matter if I became an archeologist and found the original Gospel of John... or the Letter to the Romans.... any opposition will be crushed.



So...the Holy Spirit gave 20,000 different interpretations of the Bible?

No... the HOLY SPIRIT gives out only one TRUTH, that we are all sinners in need of a redeemer. The rest is in the Bible, and ironically it is our corrupt nature which gets in the way of fully understanding everything written in GOD's Scripture.




And you may not like my spirited defense of the Church, and maybe I go overboard every so often...but when you state unsupported opinions as though they were proven fact, you bet your @$$ I'm going to be all over you about it. If that's arrogance...so be it. I'm arrogant. But you'd better look in the mirror before you use that term again.

I can't stand people twisting the plank in my eye while their own plank is cracking me upside the head.

I know if and when I don't admit to my own wrongdoings my parents, or others around me, will call me out on arrogance. Church leaders are not excempt from commiting this sin. Any institutionalized doctrine will never be free from open scrutiny. I'm not calling you arrogant... though sarcasm may sometimes allude to its presence... The Roman Catholic Church's stance is arrogant. And nothing you can say will make me believe otherwise.

[Phenomanul]

Glad you like it. :lol

No royalties.


Yeah... the visual image was classic.... Tom & Jerry.

Guru's avatar came to mind.

[smeagol]

No... I just don't believe Christ left His Revelation to the fate of one institution... and to top it off ... to one that has committed many 'political' and 'socially reprihensible' errors across its history (Vatican sanctioned murders.... numerous child abuse scandals and subsequent cover ups....) But, hey I realize that we are human.... I'm not one to judge them as people. It's just that they feel like they can do whatever they wish and still have the audacity to claim doctrinal perfection.... C'mon that is an insult. Not to me. To Christ himself.

So you believe you are better off interpreting the Bible yourself because you feel you are a better interpreter of the Holy Spirit than an institutions that has been around for 2000 years and has been established by Christ (sorry to continue beating this dead horse buy you have not refuted my arguments of how Mt 16:18 should be interpreted).

And again: because of people who think they can understand what the Holy Spirit is saying there are 20,000 Protestant denominations (another point you have not addressed).



NOPE... it is the work of the HOLY SPIRIT... for the umpteeenth time... these truths are revealed to all that genuinely seek it.


Sure, 20,000 groups of people have seeked and they have understood different things.



Says of course... the Catholic Church.

Says of course... the Catholic Church.

No, says history. The Canon of the Bible that was put together in the late IV Century had the Apocrypha. You posted that the Catholic Church inserted it in 1546. I proved you wrong. You never acknowledged your mistake.


Furthermore, do you deny that Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28?



How do you know it's not the other way around??? Yeah. You can accuse others of making up history, but if one turns it around to question the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is 100% accurate. Always. No questions asked. Doubters be damed.... Please.... such an arrogant stance is not Christlike.


If the Church is wrong, I will be the first to admit it. The Inquisition had many wrong aspects. All the other historical data you bring to the table has been refuted.


The Gospel is simple.


If it were simple, there would not be 20,000 interpretations of it.

[Phenomanul]

So you believe you are better off interpreting the Bible yourself because you feel you are a better interpreter of the Holy Spirit than an institutions that has been around for 2000 years and has been established by Christ (sorry to continue beating this dead horse buy you have not refuted my arguments of how Mt 16:18 should be interpreted).

And again: because of people who think they can understand what the Holy Spirit is saying there are 20,000 Protestant denominations (another point you have not addressed).

As far as institutionalized religion goes... Read Mark 7. Conveniently you will fail to see or rather not want to see that the Roman Catholic Church has followed the path of the phrarisees...

I already posted my reference for how Mt 16:18 is interpreted in evangelical circles... again though, you assume that showing me the Catholic interpretation is going to overide what I've studied for years on that verse.... not to mention you write it down with a sense that it can not be rebuked.

As for the '20,000' interpretations.... well, considering the fact that billions of people have come & gone, or exist in the world today... I would say that the above value constitutes a relatively small percentage of 'statistical' deviation on varied interpretation.

BTW different denominational names don't always constitute totally different doctrines.... some people just choose to congregate with people who 'worship' in similar fashions as they do without feeling uncomfortable around each other. For example, the church I attend loves singing to the beat of latin rythms (go figure)... you wouldn't expect our 'American' brothers and sisters to adopt a style of music not suited to their tastes...

And true... I will concede that the Catholic Catechism has indeed standardized worldwide Catholic beliefs but consider this: Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses are pretty consistent in their respective doctrines (top down from their leaders to the laity)... notice however, that this homogeneity doesn't make those two sects any more correct than say... Islam. Why?? because they have chosen to reject JESUS's divinity and offer of Salvation... Ironically, they too believe that 'works' will merit their salvation... And although many of their members are 'moral' and 'good' by secular standards... without JESUS they will not attain Salvation.

Which brings me to a point I have stated throughout this discussion. There is nothing... nothing... that you or I can do out of our own accord that would be worthy enough of inheriting GOD's kingdom. Any sin in our lives will keep us from reaching GOD. The Bible is clear on that in Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23. Only JESUS can get us to GOD. We can't add to a gift that was labeled as 'finished' by the Lord himself.... AND again, that is not to imply that Salvation in Christ gives us a 'credit card' of GRACE to sin freely at our every whim.... NO!!! Hebrews 10:26-39 gives a very clear and stern admonition against sining deliberately.



Sure, 20,000 groups of people have seeked and they have understood different things.

The question then beckons??? Have they understood different things or do they focus on some things more than others... different priorities...there is a difference. Remember the HOLY SPIRIT's Truth is simple, "we are all sinners in need of a redemeer. Christ has provided the payment for our sins. We need to repent and acknowledge Christ's divinity and gift of Salvation".. All other differences can be attributed to the immensely complicated nature of human idiosyncrasies.


No, says history. The Canon of the Bible that was put together in the late IV Century had the Apocrypha. You posted that the Catholic Church inserted it in 1546. I proved you wrong. You never acknowledged your mistake.


Furthermore, do you deny that Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28?


The Catholic's version of history will always be explained through a set of very distinct glasses considering that many of the documents that the RCC has used to support its own history were never intended to be 'objective historical accounts' ... the Catholic perspective, first and foremost has always dictated what could or could not be 'published'. It would be naive to ignore this fact. And although I know this is my opinion, it is one shared by many who have tried to reconcile secular and ecclesiastical documents for historical and contextual accuracy.


As for the RC Church's claim of Luther's supposed alteration of Romans 3:28... it is again highly convenient for the RCC to maintain this as truth... YOU nor anyone else in our generation can say with 100% accuracy that is not the case... at least 3 Bibles pre-dating Luther by over 800 years have the word included... Of course the RCC will claim that someone doctored them up... it's not a 'issue' we can win when the RCC dictates the rules by which the 'judgement calls' are made. And....one of those Bibles was written in Greek as opposed to Latin.

Oh BTW two of those Bibles did not have the apocryphal books included... interesting... It just comes to show that some Bibles had it and others didn't... and that to me says that the Apocrypha was by no means official... otherwise all of them would have it. Again, as stated by Dunkin's article, neither the Council of Rome in 1382 or the Councils of Carthage etc... had ecumenical authority to speak for the 'whole' church... as such, those councils only exercised local authority. Supposedly, many other bibles illustrating this phenomena were burned by Nazi Germany.


If the Church is wrong, I will be the first to admit it. The Inquisition had many wrong aspects. All the other historical data you bring to the table has been refuted.


If it were simple, there would not be 20,000 interpretations of it.

Already explained above.

And as for your 'refuted' comment.... you have simply given the Catholic Church's stand on the issues... You believe them to be true. I don't. You have rebuttaled the arguments... there is a difference.... but without evidence neither you or I are privy to (as in original documents) no one here can really or truly 'refute' the other.

[gtownspur]

There is no way Smeagol is going to convinvce anyone hear that the early church of Pentecost, which was mainly jewish, had anything remotely close to a roman catholic ritual rites. THere was no sprinkling in the head for baptism, baptism in that day was understood as the way John the Baptist, whose ties to a radical sect of Judaism , practice deep immersion.

The Roman Catholic way of Baptism is not biblical through proper exegisis. There was no veneration of saints since the Jewish Christian worship was closely tied to the conservative Judaic culture in which Yahweh reigned supreme as the arbiter and sole governor. Mary was not a figure of high stature to be considered queen of heaven like the Catholics believed. THat would have been blasphemous.

[Guru of Nothing]

Threads like these never fail to reinforce my belief that Protestantism is merely an exercise in one-upmanship. Catholicism has issues too, but I lack the time and interest to delve into them now.

The Protestant message is highly interesting - Jesus >>> God ... ? or is it? Perhaps it is, Jesus represents God's way of saying "talk to the hand?"

One thing I do like about Christianity (especially the Protestants) is hitting the grocery stores around noon on a Sunday. Hot MILFs wearing copious amounts of make-up and sporting panty hose. ... maybe I sould just go to church and overload the senses.

Yeah Baby!

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Yonivore]

Somebody drive a stake in this freakin' thread already...

[travis2]

There is no way Smeagol is going to convinvce anyone hear that the early church of Pentecost, which was mainly jewish, had anything remotely close to a roman catholic ritual rites. THere was no sprinkling in the head for baptism, baptism in that day was understood as the way John the Baptist, whose ties to a radical sect of Judaism , practice deep immersion.

The Roman Catholic way of Baptism is not biblical through proper exegisis. There was no veneration of saints since the Jewish Christian worship was closely tied to the conservative Judaic culture in which Yahweh reigned supreme as the arbiter and sole governor. Mary was not a figure of high stature to be considered queen of heaven like the Catholics believed. THat would have been blasphemous.

:rolleyes

Read my lips. The Catholic Church does not "sprinkle". Now, you can continue to close your eyes to my posts and stick your fingers in your ears and throw up your own strawmen for you to knock down...but it doesn't change the facts.

Further, your view on the communion of saints is not biblical through proper exegesis.

And oh by the way...just because you say something is true doesn't make it so...

[travis2]

Smeagol...:tu:tu

[2centsworth]

This thread has turned into a crying shame. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and believes the Bible is the divine word of God should work together to do God's work. The bickering is disheartening and I would suggest that all the Christians and Catholics in here read Romans Chapter 14.

And to Guru from Romans 3:10- "No one is good-not even one". One day you will have to give a personal account to God. Judge yourself by the 10 commandments and I'm sure you'll discover you are guilty in the eyes of God. Pay particular attention to the 2nd commandment about Idol Worship. Idol Worship includes creating a God to suit your own life. You're guilty of transgressing the law of the God of the Bible and there's only one way to receive forgiveness and mercy. The consequence of not accepting forgiveness is hell where the bible says all murderers, rapist, liars, thieves, and transgressors of God's Law will end up.

[travis2]

*psssst*...hey 2cents...Catholics are Christians...

[Phenomanul]

This thread has turned into a crying shame. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and believes the Bible is the divine word of God should work together to do God's work. The bickering is disheartening and I would suggest that all the Christians and Catholics in here read Romans Chapter 14.

And to Guru from Romans 3:10- "No one is good-not even one". One day you will have to give a personal account to God. Judge yourself by the 10 commandments and I'm sure you'll discover you are guilty in the eyes of God. Pay particular attention to the 2nd commandment about Idol Worship. Idol Worship includes creating a God to suit your own life. You're guilty of transgressing the law of the God of the Bible and there's only one way to receive forgiveness and mercy. The consequence of not accepting forgiveness is hell where the bible says all murderers, rapist, liars, thieves, and transgressors of God's Law will end up.

At the start of the discussion Smeagol and myself agreed to keep it at that... and even suggested that perhaps it would be better to do this through PMs... Others have made this a bickering affair. If you want the thread to end fine by me.... as I have respected everyone's entitlement to their own opinions.

[travis2]

hegamboa...you're not talking to me, are you? :wow

:lol

I think the discussion is fine...but we may also get getting to the point of diminishing returns.

[smeagol]

This thread has turned into a crying shame.

Not really. It has beren educating to me.

[2centsworth]

*psssst*...hey 2cents...Catholics are Christians...
I know.

[2centsworth]

Not really. It has beren educating to me. The thread has turned into more than about you.

[smeagol]

There is no way Smeagol is going to convinvce anyone hear that the early church of Pentecost, which was mainly jewish, had anything remotely close to a roman catholic ritual rites.

What do you mean by “the early Church of Pentecost?”. Is it the Church of the first Century? Does it go all the way to the second Century?

If you understanding of the early Church of Pentecost is the Church that developed in the first 70 years after Christ’s death and Resurrection, then the two documents available to analyze early Christian behavior at that time in history are (i) the Bible, and (ii) other Christian writings which scholars agree were written in the late first Century, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas and the 1 Clement (of Rome).

There is a third source, which is the writings from the second Century Christians. Fortunately, there are many second Century writings that have survived, some of which are very detailed. These writings talk about Christian doctrine in a way that shows that these “ritual and rites” had been practiced for several years.

The bottom line is Catholic doctrine is Biblical, but most importantly, in the writings I have mentioned above, early Christians describe what their interpretation of the Bible is, which coincides 100% with what Catholicism teaches. All these writings contain passages with descriptions of what early Christians understood when they talked about the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Papacy, the Real Presence, Marian beliefs, the Communion of the Saints (praying for the dead), infant baptism, the sacrifice of the Mass, auricular confession, Faith and Works, etc and all without fail, coincide with what Catholics teach today.


THere was no sprinkling in the head for baptism, baptism in that day was understood as the way John the Baptist, whose ties to a radical sect of Judaism , practice deep immersion.

Already addressed by travis


There was no veneration of saints since the Jewish Christian worship was closely tied to the conservative Judaic culture in which Yahweh reigned supreme as the arbiter and sole governor.

Honoring the saints has occurred since the beginning of Christianity. It’s in the Bible that you should honor certain people who have led holy lives.


Mary was not a figure of high stature to be considered queen of heaven like the Catholics believed. THat would have been blasphemous.

False. Mary has been considered the mother of God (or God-bearer) since the mid to late second Century (Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, mentions this). This tradition probably goes back to the early part of that Century.

In any case, putting Mary in a place of high honor is nor blasphemous. Stop trying to imply Catholics worship Mary (and therefore don’t worship God).

[2centsworth]

gtown let it go. Catholics accept the Grace of Jesus and are forgiven of whatever short comings you think they have.

[smeagol]

The thread has turned into more than about you.
Huh?

[smeagol]

At the start of the discussion Smeagol and myself agreed to keep it at that... and even suggested that perhaps it would be better to do this through PMs... Others have made this a bickering affair. If you want the thread to end fine by me.... as I have respected everyone's entitlement to their own opinions.


I think the discussion has been very productive and although it gets a little rough at times, I enjoy exchanging points of view with fellow brothers in Christ, even though I may not agree with them on everything.

I not only learn about Protestantism but also learn about my own religion.

[travis2]

I know.

Sorry. When I see someone (not just you, but in general) separate "Catholics" and "Christians", to me that is a statement that Catholics aren't. Makes me grind me teeth.

However, you have already explained that that's not what you meant, so cool...:tu

[travis2]

I think the discussion has been very productive and although it gets a little rough at times, I enjoy exchanging points of view with fellow brothers in Christ, even though I may not agree with them on everything.

I not only learn about Protestantism but also learn about my own religion.

:tu

[Phenomanul]

Threads like these never fail to reinforce my belief that Protestantism is merely an exercise in one-upmanship. Catholicism has issues too, but I lack the time and interest to delve into them now.

The Protestant message is highly interesting - Jesus >>> God ... ? or is it? Perhaps it is, Jesus represents God's way of saying "talk to the hand?"

One thing I do like about Christianity (especially the Protestants) is hitting the grocery stores around noon on a Sunday. Hot MILFs wearing copious amounts of make-up and sporting panty hose. ... maybe I sould just go to church and overload the senses.

Yeah Baby!

Don't shoot the messenger.


In your view you are already self-justified to do whatever you wish... no one's telling you to do different. We are just taught to have compassion for those people who want and search for something more... If, however they are fine with the status of their lives, we are also taught that GOD gives people opportunities to get to know Him... If they continue to to reject His word... so be it.. no one will force you to believe otherwise... In the end, though, you will have to pay for your actions...

Ummm JESUS = GOD THE FATHER = THE HOLY SPIRIT.... They are a Triune entity or Trinity.

Only GOD can forgive sins.

But it took the blood of GOD himself, GOD incarnate, JESUS to atone for the sins of all humanity.

[2centsworth]

Huh?
we're cool. What do you think about this.

I'm an evangelical who married a catholic wife in a catholic church where I baptized my kids and we are all members of an evangelical church.:spin

[smeagol]

we're cool. What do you think about this.

I'm an evangelical who married a catholic wife in a catholic church where I baptized my kids and we are all members of an evangelical church.:spin

:wow

I’m a born again Catholic, if such a term exists. I was raised Catholic by my Mom (my Dad is an atheist whom I’m trying to convert with little success :depressed ).

I took my first Communion but slowly stopped going to Church. I experienced a short lived revival when I was 18 but sank into deeper agnosticism in my early 20s.

I started getting close to the Church again through some friends via long philosophic discussions. By 2001, after reading Mere Christianity and other books I was ready to go to Church again. By the end of 2001, I has committed to Christ, this time, I believe, for good.

My wife is also agnostic (born and raised a Catholic). My kids (3) are all baptized but too young to learn about God.

God bless you and your family.

[Guru of Nothing]

we are also taught that GOD gives people opportunities to get to know Him... If they continue to to reject His word... so be it.. no one will force you to believe otherwise... In the end, though, you will have to pay for your actions...


I do not think you can comprehend my point (a point which I may have made elsewhere, and not necessarily in this thread).

I am not rejecting God's Word; I am rejecting your words.

I would happily embrace Christianity, if only I could take the leap of faith which you have. Clarence Darrow summed up my toughts perfectly when he said, "I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of." ... although, I am not necessarily agnostic (anymore).

[2centsworth]

I do not think you can comprehend my point (a point which I may have made elsewhere, and not necessarily in this thread).

I am not rejecting God's Word; I am rejecting your words.

I would happily embrace Christianity, if only I could take the leap of faith which you have. Clarence Darrow summed up my toughts perfectly when he said, "I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of." ... although, I am not necessarily agnostic (anymore).
It's hard for the arrogant. Us ignorant men are so sure because we've experienced the power of God. I'll always be hard on you because your ego gets in the way of your God given talent to communicate.

[Guru of Nothing]

It's hard for the arrogant. Us ignorant men are so sure because we've experienced the power of God. I'll always be hard on you because your ego gets in the way of your God given talent to communicate.

You know, arrogance and and ignorance are not mutually exclusive. By definition, agnosticism is synonymous with ignorance. ... I am ignorant! Is that better? ... and is there is no arrogance in your tone when you say "Us ignorant men are so sure because we've experienced the power of God," eh?

[2centsworth]

I think my statement illustrates the arrogance of Clarence Darrow, because I just repeated what he said. No way to repeat his quote without sounding arrogant, but if I was out of line I apologize.

I just have conviction in my heart that God will punish murderers and rapist who get away with their crimes on earth and if you read your bible he says he will punish everyone because we all fall short of his standards. If you take the chance and read the bible you will be smart enough to know it makes all the sense in the world.

[Guru of Nothing]

I think my statement illustrates the arrogance of Clarence Darrow, because I just repeated what he said. No way to repeat his quote without sounding arrogant, but if I was out of line I apologize.

I just have conviction in my heart that God will punish murderers and rapist who get away with their crimes on earth and if you read your bible he says he will punish everyone because we all fall short of his standards. If you take the chance and read the bible you will be smart enough to know it makes all the sense in the world.

Nothing to apologize for. For all I know, Clarence Darrow may in fact be the most arrogant SOB to ever walk the face of the Earth, but "pretend to know" reasonates with me on a very deep level. For me to claim that I am a Christian, I would in fact have to "pretend to know," and I refuse to pretend. I'm just wired this way, and disparaging comments serving only to guilt me into believing otherwise will always fall upon deaf ears.

[2centsworth]

Nothing to apologize for. For all I know, Clarence Darrow may in fact be the most arrogant SOB to ever walk the face of the Earth, but "pretend to know" reasonates with me on a very deep level. For me to claim that I am a Christian, I would in fact have to "pretend to know," and I refuse to pretend. I'm just wired this way, and disparaging comments serving only to guilt me into believing otherwise will always fall upon deaf ears.
Guilt you? I'm just telling you what the bible says. I'm no different than you are except that I accept God's forgiveness. Your life is your own.

[Guru of Nothing]

Guilt you? I'm just telling you what the bible says. I'm no different than you are except that I accept God's forgiveness. Your life is your own.

I suggest no threats of eternal hell.

I see a difference.

[Peter]

So is this thread about humans evolving from fish or Protestants evolving from Catholics? I don't have the desire to wade through 9 pages of cliche-laden flamethrowing.

[2centsworth]

I suggest no threats of eternal hell.

I see a difference.
No threats, just a warning.

As far as the difference, I'm incredibly handsome.

[Phenomanul]

So is this thread about humans evolving from fish or Protestants evolving from Catholics? I don't have the desire to wade through 9 pages of cliche-laden flamethrowing.

:rolleyes

Go back to your cubicle.... Did you not get the memo???

[smeagol]

:rolleyes

Go back to your cubicle.... Did you not get the memo???
:lmao :lmao :lmao

:tu