DeoOmnisGloria.com

Excellent list Jay. I thought I had read through "most" of the explicit Biblical evidence for Peter's authority, but I even found one or two in there that I had never run across (or if I had, I've forgotten them).

Thanks!!

Hello,
Mary was not sinless. She confessed her need for the Saviour God to save her from her sins. Alos Romans 3:23 states that "all" have sinned. This "all" includes Mary.
Marc

Marc,
Your interpretation of Romans 3:23 is incorrect - I need to specifically write a post on this. Paul is actually quoting an old testament passage that you must read to understand his point, but just to point out the obvious: Did Jesus sin? No, but He was a person, a member of the "all". Has a newborn child sinned? No. The "all" in this verse is speaking in the collective sense, Paul was indicating that both Jews and Gentiles have sinned, not that each individual person has sinned. I'll link to the post when get it up.

Also, Mary needed a saviour, just as we do, but Jesus allowed her (His mother) to be born sinless. Where does the Bible say "Mary sinned"? This topic isn't really appropriate for this post, but I recommend you read:

• The Biblical Mary: Part I
  
• The Biblical Mary: Part II
  
• The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus: Did Mary have other Children?
  
  All are good analysis of Mary.

God bless,
Jay

marc,
1 Timothy 2:13-15,"for Adam was formed first, then Eve. and Adam was not the one decieved; it was the woman who was decieved and became a sinner. but women will be saved through childbearing- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." my friend as good as gold this includes the Catholic exalted Mary.

keep truckin',
Paul

Paul,
Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that barren women aren't saved? Or those who never get married? I think you should read the entire chapter of 1 Timothy 2 to better understand this verse.

God bless,
Jay

no sir jay,
i am not saying that, check out my comments on your Dr. Dobson blog.

thanks,
Paul

I disagree with your comment Paul. To say Adam wasn't deceived is a considerable overlook on your part. So what happened to Adam in the Garden? Was he lost in some daydream while the serpent was tempting Eve? His sin was worst, for he chose (free will again) to allow his wife to be tempted by the serpent and he remained silent, although he (not Eve) had been ordered by God "keep" the Garden of Eden. Why didn't he immediately cast the serpent out of the Garden?
Think about it...

In Christ,
Joe

Interesting list, I have a few questions and comments:

According to 43, Peter was the first to lead a mass baptism, but what, then, did John the baptist do in Matthew 3:4-6?

In Matthew 8:14, we see that Peter had a Mother-In-Law. Doesn't that go against the Catholic doctrine (or maybe tradition) of the Pope being sexually pure and unmarried?

Also, isn't it rather trivial the number of times Peter was mentioned in the bible, and where his name is listed, and that he is the first to perform many miracles? I mean we might as well say that Paul was the first pope because he wrote most of the new testament in his letters to other churches.

And if Peter was the first pope, why is the "Gospel of Peter" not included in the catholic bible, or any bible?

I hope not to offend you but to start scholarly discussion because Jay really knocks me off my feet with his knowledge. Thanks Guys!

In Him who Reigns!

Jayson

John's baptism was by water while the baptism done by Jesus and the apostles after Jesus was done by the holy spirt. John the Baptist says that himself so Peter is the first to lead a mass baptism done by the holy spirit. Also, the Gospel of Peter is not included in the Bible because more likely than not Peter didn't write it. Also I don't think that the number of times Peter is mentioned is trivial, if he is mentioned more than all the other apostles combined obviously he was of more importance than them. Remember the margin was not close but more than the other apostles combined.

THANK YOU!! I really appreciate the information on Peter. Some of the facts brought up I had forgotten.
I won't get into details but God used you as an answer to my a prayer.
God Bless
christine

You are dead wrong about Peter being the first pope. Jesus did not build his church on Peter but on Peter's confession that Jesus is the Son of God.
And, if you do a little searching, you will discover that Peter was, in fact, married. Didn't think that a person could be married and be a Pope.
How 'bout it??

Gary,
All evidence suggests that Peter's wife died before he became an apostle. Besides, priests can be married - there are married priests in the US today!

Go back and read the information above, you're basically ignoring all of the Scriptural evidence (the historical evidence is overwhelming as well). The notion that Jesus was building the Church on Peter's confession is relatively new and it requires you to ignore all of the other evidence (for example, why then did Jesus give the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter?)

Try and read the Bible without your preconceived notions and you might be shocked!

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I sent you a private email about this very subject. Here is a link to a site with some
interesting historical information
:http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

You told Gary to " try and read the bible without your preconceived notions "

That advice cuts both ways. Read what the church fathers actually said on this subject.

I have purchased a couple of books that were recommended by Eerdman's on the early church father's. The book I am reading by the author Stuart G. Hall, a former chair of Escatology I believe at Kings college in England. The book title is Doctrine and Practice in the early church . The book is footnoted very well ..

I have read about half of the book and so far it shows that some of the Early Church fathers had changing viewpoints on various church teachings
during different periods of their ministry. A point that is brought out in the article in the link above and in the book.

I know that you will probably discount the article, Just as you accuse those who believe that Peter was not the Rock of ignoring the evidence. Could it be that those who believe that he is the Rock are ignoring the evidence and just believing it because the church says that is the way it is ?

That is one of the things that makes us unique.
We all see things from our perspective. I read your article on why you believe that Peter is the Rock.. Read the one I linked to. I am sure you will find fault with it. But maybe that is because you want to believe what the Catholic church tells you about Peter? '

The article I linked to makes more sense to me then explanation I have seen posted here and on other Catholc sites.... Jay everyone has a bias.
Even you.. Every denomination including the Catholic church is going to interpret scripture to fit their doctrine .

If you can not concede that then maybe you are the one dennying the truth ?

By His Grace,

Clem

Jay,

This link has the author's name and other articles about this subject. Here is the link:
http://aggreen.net/peter/st_peter.html

I am stuck when I read articles by Catholic
apologists that they will exort Non Catholics
to get rid of their Protestant bias when reading the scriptures. I find this humorous, because this presumes that Non Catholics or Protestants are the only group that has a bias.. This assumes that the Catholic interpretation is free of any bias.

The Pharasees believed that their interpretation
of the scriptures was the truth too. What did Jesus call them?

This condesending tactic used by Catholic apologists reminds me of Matthew 7:3-5 and Luke 6:41-42.

Peace,

Clem

Clem,
I believe Jesus instructed the faithful to do everything the Pharisees taught, but not to emulate their actions. Protestants threw out 1,500 (or more) years of Scriptural interpretation in favor of their own opinions and bias. I can be sure that my interpretation is correct, because it corresponds with the Church, which the Bible calls the "pillar and foundation of Truth." We've been through this before, Clem.

As for your author, he does some extraordinarily incorrect things to reach his opinion. First, he throws out the fact that Jesus was speaking Aramaic - no reputable scholar would suggest this. Second, he ignores the connect Scripture in the Old Testament that connects the rationale of Christ's action to the act - again, not even protestant scholars do this, so this makes the entire argument suspect. Finally, he chooses to ignore the evidence he cannot explain away, such as Peter's name change. This guy isn't really looking for the truth, he's merely finding an excuse to ignore Catholic teaching.

In addition, there are 50 proofs above. This guy tries to explain away one of those verses and ignores the others. You need to find an argument that addresses the entire spectrum of why the Bible is so overwhelmingly supportive of the Papacy and St. Peter's role; this one just doesn't have the substance.

By the way, the guys shows his intellectual dishonesty when he suggests there is "no interpretations from the earliest centuries that support the modern Roman Catholic interpretation." This is an outright lie. Either the guy hasn't really studied as he should or he is simply fabricating a lie to support his position. Very disappointing from a guy who tries to bill himself as a scholar.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Peter in his Second letter calls himself a fellow laboror. If he was the leader he NEVER
said that in his writings.

Also the apostles obviously didn't know who the leader was becuase up to the night of the last supper the Apostles were still asking who would be the greatest in the kingdom. If it were Peter that would have been a perfect time for Jesus to say, hey guys I already said it would be Peter. He is going to represent me after I am gone. Show me WHERE in scripture it says that.

I don't want to continue to argue with you Jay.
I have read excerpts from the church fathers and scriptural proofs that show that Peter was not the pope.

Here are other websites that brings up very good points and asks good questions regarding the Papacy.

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/peter_as_pope.php

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a89.htm

http://www.letusreason.org/RC6.htm

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.ws/pubs/PeterPrimacy.htm

Jay I believe that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Peter was the head apostle both scripturally and from secular historical soucess.

You choose to believe the Catholic churches version of history I don't. This arguement has been going on long before you and I ever existed and it will go on until Jesus returns and settles it. I will not convince you and your 50 proofs have not convinced me..

You are still my brother in Christ,

Clem

Interesting, Clem, so basically you ignore all the evidence above in order to form your opinion.

Peter (as are all Popes) are the "chief among equals." They are not necessarily the "greatest" in heaven - I would argue Mary probably has that place. Basically you're choosing silly arguments rather than seriously considering all of the evidence. Frankly, I think you simply want to believe the Church is wrong, so you are constantly looking for evidence that supports your position and ignoring evidence that does not. Remember, there are fifty reasonable proofs above and you're throwing out two odd reasons (things the Church never claims for the Pope) as evidence.

I hope you really consider how you are approaching this Clem. Are you really open to the truth?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

You say that these are 50 proofs... They are 50 reasons why the chuch believes or teaches what it does about Peter ...

I don't consider them Proof Jay.

I would be open to truth if I saw it. I don't see it.. Why is it that you always have to be right and my point of veiw is always wrong or heretical when it does not line up with your position ?

Those sites I posted brought up reasonalbe doubts
about the Catholic churches claim about Peter.
You choose to believe that the RCC's position is Truth. They have not made their case to me..

Why must you question my motives and make statements that I don't want to see the truth..?

I don't question your motives Jay. You believe the RCC. That's wonderful.. You want to trust in the Instituion . Again, that is your choice.

I put my trust in Jesus being the head of His church and in the book He left me and in His Holy Spirit to Guide me.

History is full of errors the Catholic Church has made but you conveniently blame the individual over the Institution.. Again that is your right.

I respect your right to believe what you believe
Jay without saying that you refuse to see the truth. You believe the Cahtolic Church is Truth
I respect that.. I don't, please respect my
right not to believe it without accussing me of
ignoring the truth. To me it is the Catholic Churches truth . Their truth does not alway equate to God's truth in my view...

You imply that if the Catholic church says it is true that it is God's truth too.. I don't see it that way. I don't always see that what they say is true, always lines up to what God says is true..

In Christ,

Clem

Here are a couple of websites with historical facts taken from the scriptures and from information from several historians.
These sources give valid reasons WHY Peter could NOT have been the first Pope or the first Bishop of Rome as the Catholic church asserts.

Of course this will be branded as lies because it is not from a Catholic source and contrary to Catholic Tradition and Catholic teaching?

It's interesting that Protestants are quoted as
credible sources on this BLOG if they agree with
some teaching or some point the Catholic apologists here are trying to make.. Then they are trotted out as credible sources we should believe as true.

But if someone quotes a Protestant source that contradicts something the apologist posts, then
it is Just a bunch of Protestant lies or it is not credible and we can not trust it ..

If you want to be credible you can't have it both ways. Protestants are okay when they agree with you but they are a bunch of liars or not credible sources when they don't... Hmmm. Interesting.

http://www.letusreason.org/RC6.htm

http://www.picknowl.com.au/homepages/rlister/cath/cath2.htm

Peace,

Clem

I find it funny that these sites you bring up never allow comments. Perhaps they know we could pick apart these terrible arguments??

It's interesting how these don't ever answer the valid reasoning for the papacy, they simply dismiss the points they can't argue against. Again, this goes back to why they don't allow public comments.

By the way, I've addressed each of their misconceptions numerous times to you, Clem, and I don't see the point of telling again. You've proven you'll simply ignore what I say and then bring it up again in about a week as if no one had clearly answered it.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

I just came across the site I posted in my last post regarding the time frame of Peter.I was not even aware of the information on this website before three days ago so I don't know how you could have addressed this with me countless times before since I have NEVER brought this particular time line up until my last post. It is the second link listed.

I don't IGNORE what you say, I have posted responses that you seem to GLOSS over or discount
by saying they are lies or propaganda. It is easy to call something a lie or someone a liar.

But you don't back your claims up with non Bias proof of that lie. Just as you discount Protestant information as lies or non sense if it does not agree with a Catholic teaching.

I don't put any stock in a Catholic teaching or Tradition if it is not Clearly backed up in scripture or from secular history.

Example : There is NO scriptural proof or secular historical proof that Mary remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ. That teaching is Pure specualtion and church tradition. However the scriptures do talk in numerous places about the Brothers and sisters of Jesus.

The websites I list are NOT BLOGS, but they usually have the email address of the author to send responses to so you could respond to them if you so chose . I don't see how being able to post or not changes anything ?

Besides Although people have the opportunity
to post their opinion on your Blog, (Which I do appreciate) if their opinion does not line up with your point of view you ridicule it or call it non sense or Protestant Propaganda or lies..

I have done a web search on the timeline of Paul's conversion and the dates that came up range from 33 AD - 37 AD

Note Point # 3
**************************************
From the website :
WAS PETER EVER IN ROME?

The Catholic Church claims that Peter was bishop of Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., when he was crucified under Nero.

If Peter was in Rome during those years, then the New Testament cannot be relied upon. There is not the faintest, slightest historical foundation for the fiction that Peter ever saw the city of Rome.

1.) Paul was converted about 37 A.D. He says in the first chapter of Galatians (Gal. 1:13-18) that after his conversion he went into Arabia, "then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15 days." This takes us to 40 A.D. and Peter is still in Jerusalem.

2.) Sometime during these days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9, 10, 11 ).Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts12). Peter then "went down from Judea to Caesarea and there ebode" (Acts 12:19). Hered Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:20-23). Josephus says that the death of Agrippa occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.

3.) Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that 14 years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter, he went again to see him, The first journey was 40 A.D., 14 years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.

4.) Information about Peter is not so specific after 54 A.D., but in the opening verse of his First Epistle, the Apostle of the Jews addresses the Jewish believers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.

It may well be that the Apostle spent some years travelling and working among these "elect sojourners of the dispersion."

This we do know. When Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians (about 57 A.D.), Peter was travelling in the company of his wife (I Cor. 9:5).

The suggestion that Peter spent those years in the Provinces named accords with his residence in Babylon from whence he wrote his Epistle (I Peter 5:13).

5.) In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the Church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle Paul salutes 27 persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter were "governing" the Church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him.

Romans 1:13 shows that the Church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle had been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.

6.) Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. From his prison the apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter.

7.) Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died, Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "11 Timothy." In that final letter the Apostle mentions many people, but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter.

We have gone throughout those years of 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., the years Pater is supposed to have been the prince and bishop and ruler of the church at Rome. There is not a suggestion anywhere that such a thing was true. Rather, the New Testament clearly and plainly denies
that Peter could have been the bishop of Rome for
25 years.
*******************
PETER IN THE EARLY CHURCHES
Was Peter ever the ruler of the Church? of any Church, any time, any place?

Not that anybody knows of. The pastor and leader of the Church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21: 18; Gal. 2:9). This Scriptural account of James is confirmed by Josephus in his Antiquities XX, 9, 1, where James' martyrdom is described. Josephus never heard of Simon Peter, but the Jewish historian knows all about the faithful pastor and leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem.

Notice in Acts 8:14 that Peter is "sent" by the Apostles along with John to Samaria. Peter is not doing the sending; somebody else is.

Notice in Acts 15:14-21 that at the Jerusalem conference, after Peter made his speech and Paul and Barnabas made their speeches, it is James who delivers the final verdict.
************************************************

His Peace to you,

Clem

Jay,

I have a question. In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius declared that men who taught that Mary was assumed into Heaven were heretics.

Then In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned men as heretics for teaching it. Their teaching on Doctrine according to the RCC is "Infallible". Both popes declared the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy.

Then, in 1950, Pope Pius XII another pope "infallible" in matters of Doctrine and morals) declared the assumption to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.

If All three were infallible in teachings on church doctrine then which one made an Error?

If the facts are that two popes declared this teaching and this doctrine heresy then how can
another Pope reverse the infallible decision of two previous popes ?

In Christ,

Clem

Clem,
Please point out where this was said. Frankly, you're either taking it out of context and misquoting them, or it doesn't exist. (It's nice knowing you are defending an infallible instititution ordained by God ;-)

Once you point it out, I'll explain your error.

God bless,
Jay

FYI - Clem, I actually know the answer to this one, but I think you can find out for yourself by looking into the writings of Gelasius and Hormisdas. I've often encouraged you to read their writings, and this is a great way to start.

Good luck and God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Here is where I got the information. Source material for the author is footnoted.

http://www.christiantruth.com/assumption.html

I know what your reply will be. You will discredit the author and his sources. Most source material by the way are from Catholic sources.

It's funny because this author says that the Catholic apologists are guilty of taking information, be it from scripture or the church fathers out of context.He says they will take a line or a paragraph that on the surface seems to make their point but if you dig deeper into the total of either the scrpture or the church father's writtings you see that what is sited is taken out of context.

It all comes down to choices. It appears that you choose to put your faith and trust in the Pope, the Magisterium , church tradition which is sometimes vague and church doctrine . You seem to put these on an equal footing with scripture and it sometimes seems you give tradition and church doctrine more weight than scripture.

I have not done an in depth study of the Early Church fathers, however what I have read to date shows that the church fathers had diffeing views on a subjects depending on what point of their life a work was written.

The truth is that there is debate not just between Catholics and Protestants but between Catholic and Catholic and between Protestant and Protestant who are historians and theologians on any number of teachings or doctrines.

What BOTH sides do is find the theologian or historian that agrees with their position and then deems that they are credable or renoun.
Not because of their credentials but because they agree with their position.

When you come down to it these educated scholars
are giving you their opinion or their interpretaion based upon their experience and their education..

The historical truth is that the first century church was a church under persecution. The church became the Roman Catholic Church through Constantine and it became the state religion , which ended up being the one doing the persecuting later on in history.

The Crusades and the inquisition. These are historal facts and these practices were condoned or at the very least not condemmed by the Pope or the Magistirum.

Did Jesus instruct the apostles to spread and preach the Gospel by FORCE ? Yet that is exactly what the Catholic church did...

Now you are going to say that I am going off the wall or some other trite saying. But were there crusades? Were they sanctioned by the church?
Was there a period of an inquisition? Was it sanctioned by the church? I am not making these things up.. They happened and the church gave it's blessing to them. The Popes and Bishops put pressure on Kings and governments to carry out their plans.. We are supposed to forget about all that..

Jesus and the apostles left us the scriptures
and Apostolic tradition.I thought the church was supposed to be in the world but NOT OF IT.

The Roman Catholic church seems to be OF THE WORLD. IS the church supposed to weild such power on earth? They may not be conducting crusades but they are sure Rich and Powerful and sitll trying to influence goverments to do their will..

Jay you embrace the Roman Catholic church. You feel they have the truth, again that is your right..

God has a plan and HE has ulimate control. He allowed the Protestant movement to happen. He allowed the church to conduct the crusades and
the inquisition.

Jesus didn't call me to become a part of an Institution. He called me to fellowship with Him and to become a part of His body on earth. That is anyone who like the apostles takes up their cross and follows Him.

Jesus said I am the way the truth and the light. He did NOT say the Roman Catholic church was or any other church for that matter.. Paul told us to test the truth by searching the scriptures.

That is what I am doing and in my unimportant humble opinion , The Roman Catholic fails the Test in Many areas.

Your Brother in Christ,

Clem

Clem,

I've actually read that article and others like it referencing Gelasius. What all of such articles neglect to point out is that Pope Saint Gelasius did NOT condemn the doctrine of the assumption. Rather, he condemned certain heretics and their writings. Some of those writings contained the doctrine of the assumption. Why is it that your criticism is always so shoddy? You don't even bother to read between the lines! At least be honest enough to acknowledge that neither Gelasius nor any other infallible authority every expressly stated that the assumption was heretical or incorrect. These deceptive sources that you love to quote certainly can't be expected to point out their own failings. But if you are claiming to be a "searcher", always investigating the Truth, you should at least try to be fair.

And by the way, 1.3 billion Christians have accepted this dogma (Catholics and Orthodox alike). There is not a place on the face of the planet that anyone claims contains the remains of the Blessed Virgin. The most revered figure in the Bible next to Christ, yet no one claims to know where she was buried? Do any of your sources have an answer for that issue?

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

Sorry my questions are not up to your standards.
It's interesting that you tell me to read between the lines when I bring up disenting views but the Cathholic apologists on this blog post on subjects like Onan and try to make it about contraception instead of the obvious meaning of this scripture which is not about contraception but about Onan not wanting to give his brother an heir. He wanted the benefits of his brother's wife and his brother's goods but did not want to keep his end of the bargan and give his brother an heir. It is not about Onan NOT WANTING ANY children, He did not want to create a child that would not be his..

As I said Catholic apologists do the same thing.
Quote out of context. It all depends on what you want to believe. As I said you guys will trot out
a Protestant scholar or historian if they agree with your point of view. Then what they have to say is credable. They are one of the enlightened
Protestants..

But if someone quotes a protestant who opposes your point of viewe and this Protestant even gets their data from Catholic sources and they have impressive educational credentials in their field. Then they are manipulating the data or intentionally trying to mislead ...

I have NEVER seen any RCC Apologist on this blog
admit that an opposing protestant scholar or theologian could be right.

Peace,

Clem

Clem,

I do not believe that I have ever intentionally quoted anything out of context, but if I have, please point them out and I will happily apologize. All I am asking is that if you are intent upon knowing the Truth, you stop seeing everything through Protestant blinders.

I for one do not accept anything on blind faith, since, like Jay, it was only by honestly weighing the claims of the Church against Protestant traditions in which I was steeped that I came to the Truth. I accept the infallibility of the Church based on a review of history that shows only a handful of instances where infallible authorities can even appear to contradict each other. This fact in and of itself is stunning. In 2000 years, such apparent contradictions are few and far between. By contrast, for each 100 years of the Protestant Reformation, one can discover hundreds of contradictions from every single denomination old enough to qualify. That is the mark of fallible humans. The consistency of the Catholic Church is the mark of an infallible Holy Spirit.

Also, note that I never said the Church contradicts itself. It appears to in very limited circumstances, but a proper understanding of infallibility, the facts, and the meaning of what was said, can clear up these issues. And before you object, consider that the Scriptures have just as many apparent "contradictions" as the Church, yet you hold Scripture to be infallible. So, Clem, your pious indignance at the claimed infallibility of the Church waxes hypocritical.

Just think about the craziness of Protestant shifting to and fro, the limited examples of purported Church contradiction, the existence of similar examples in Scripture, and try to see these apparent contradictions with the eyes of the Holy Spirit rather than a heart bent on dissent.

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. You are partially right about Onan--but surely you will admit that many passages in Scripture mean more than just one thing...

Dave,

1.)Thanks for at least giving a little on Onan.
Sure a scripture can have more than one meaning. But Jay refused to concede the perspective myself and others were trying to point out. He was insistant that contraception was the only point of the whole passage..

I can not think of an instance where I can say
You personally purposely quoted something out of context.. It's more a general statement.

2.)I don't think I said in my post that you said the church contradicts itself.

It's funny that you would use the phase, Protestant Traditions, when the RCC wants people
to follow their traditions that contradict the scriptures they are so proud to claim they put together. From my perspective the RCC puts "Church tradition on an equal footing to or in some cases even above the Scripture.

Calling your treatment of Mary Veneration instead of what it really is, Worship. Making claims that Mary is the mother of God. She was the mother of Christ's humanity, but since all things were created through Jesus and He existed with the Father in heaven long before Mary existed, She could never be the Mother of GOD.
God has no mother..

You say you have studied history and have come to your conclusion that The RCC is the true church. I admit that I am not a schollar or a historian but I have studied history and what I have seen is that the church compromised when it
aligned itself with Rome. The church of the apostles. The church of Martyrs let in the leven
of the secular state. They went from being hated by the state to the official state religion.
They went from a church of relationships to a church of rituals..

It went from Peter telling the magician in Acts that God's power and the Holy Spirit are NOT for sale to the church that Sold indulgences.

I see a church that told the flock to search the scriptures and be on guard against deceivers
To a church that forbid the bible from being printed in the common language and discouraged the common man from reading it and telling it's flock , we will tell you what the bible says and what the bible means... It is only within the past ten or fifteen years that the church started having bible studies. I could go on but what's the point..

You believe I am just out to cause discention.
You are entitled to your opinion. But it is a matter of perspective. I grew up in the RCC and went to catecism and made my communion and my confirmation in the church during the 60's and 70's.

They never told me that I could have a relationship with Jesus. They never encouraged me to read God's word. The mass was still in Latin when I was growing up. The RCC let me down.
Not my parents. I had a head knowledge of God but there wasn't a true relationship.

It wasn't until I attended a bible study at a protestant neighbors that I found that I could have a relationship with God.. They opened up God's word to me. The protestant churches helped me to feel God's presence and His Love. They helped me to find His joy. There was no joy in the RCC. God was portrayed as a God of Anger
and punishment, not a God of Love and Mercy.

I AM seeking the Holy Spirit. The more I read the word the more problems I see with the RCC.
As I have said in many posts I can not in good conscience follow a Man and an Institution that has strayed so far from the mark. I think John Paul II is a very sincere and devout man but I don't believe He speaks for God..

God Spoke through his written word. I will endeavor to follow Jesus. I put my faith and trust in Him. I can not put it in a Man or a Church institution Catholic or Protestant.

In Christ,

Clem

Clem,

The more you read, the problems you will find in the Church. There is no escaping or denying it. There are 1 BILLION people in the Church and a great number of them are not following Christ (including some priests and bishops). The rest are still filled with flaws. That, however, is not the issue. The first important question is whether the Church contains within her the true teachings of Christ (in the unique sense of Spirit-led infallibility). An examination of 2000 years of Church history suggests "yes", when considered just how miraculous it is for the Church to be as consistent as she has been when every human institution in existence at the time she was born perished centuries ago. If that is the right answer, no amount of bad people in the Church can be adequate cause for abandoning her. To put it another way, you don't leave Peter on account of Judas. Yes, Clem, remember that even the original Church had Judas, and he was with Christ during the entire ministry despite his black heart. Think about this: between 300 and 500 AD, the majority of people in the Church accepted Arianism. This is a historical fact, and one that many Catholics are not aware of. Even after the Council of Nicea, the idea that Christ was not equal with God took deep root in the Church. But no council or pope ever waivered from teaching that God was a Trinity. You see, the Church can be filled with bad people. But her teaching office has remained true for all time because it does not come from her, but from the One who sent her. If you allow doubt, dissent, and frustration to drive you from accepting the Bride of Christ for what she is, it is you who have lost. A tragedy to be sure, but one that has happened to scores of men and woman who have chosen to give up on the Church rather than build her up.

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. Your heretical statement regarding Mary being the "Mother of God" was condemned by the whole Church in 430 AD. The heresy is known as Nestorianism. Please look it up. And incidentally, when we say that Mary was the Mother of God, we do not say that she was the originator of God the Father, nor of Christ's spirit. You really need to review Catholic doctrine. Rather, we affirm that the man Jesus Christ was fully and INSEPARABLY both man and God. Thus, when Mary gave birth to this God-man, she gave birth to the whole of Christ, not just a part of Him. While the Son pre-existed Mary, the God-man Jesus Christ did not (i.e. the unity of humanity and divinity). Mary gave birth to that unity, not just the humanity.

Great Post Jay! After weeks of posting in a non-Catholic website, which I really do not want to mention, unless you really want me to; I thank GOD I am here at a REAL CATHOLIC website which respects everything about Catholicism. I so love Dave Armstrong.
Again, its good to be back here JAY!!
Cordially,
Eric

Great Post Jay! After weeks of posting in a non-Catholic website, which I really do not want to mention, unless you really want me to; I thank GOD I am here at a REAL CATHOLIC website which respects everything about Catholicism. I so love Dave Armstrong.
Again, its good to be back here JAY!!
Cordially,
Eric

I also want to recommend another good book regarding the Papacy, entitled: "Jesus, Peter & The Keys" by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess. Scott Butler is a friend of a friend of mine who recommended the book which is a compendium of resources for people interested in explaining the Catholic doctrine on St. Peter and the Papacy.

I'll add another outstanding resource, the best I have ever seen and one of the most convincing to me as a Protestant: Stephen Ray's book "Upon This Rock".

In Christ,
Dave

I want to share with you some of what Scott Butler discusses in the book "Jesus, Peter & The Keys" various questions designed to "elicit thinking on the particular subject being examined, from words and phrases to history to etymology to Greek grammar...." purely for understanding how Peter understood his own role. As a Catholic, but also, as and individual trying to reason his faith, I can appreciate the "reason". On page 79 in regards to Peter's authority in the New Testament Church, question 66 asks: "Who takes the lead in calling for the selection of a replacement for Judas Iscariot? Peter. After Jesus Christ's ascension into heaven, Peter's first act was to initiate the selection of a new Apostle to replace Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Acts 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus."

"S. Peter here assumes, as a matter of right, the function of Chief governor, and Chief Pastor of the Church. A vacany occurs in the apostolic body, through the treason and death of Judas. He then, apparently without previous concert with his co-apostles, directs, not "suggests", as some say, but directs, or rather "commands", another to be ordained in his place; and he further states authoritatively, from what class of men a successor must be chosen, limiting thereby their choice; 'wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us...must one be ordained,' &c.From the above nothing can be clearer than the nature of that office S.Peter assumed on this occasion, namely, that of the Ruler, the Governor, and Chief Pastor of the Church." Colin Lindsay, "The Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, Green 1870,8-9)"

This evidence alone is much more important to me than proving where Peter is buried and whether or not he ever visited Rome. Although I believe both are true.

That Peter is the first Pope, is clear to me.

Clem.... I assume you ar still reading tis material, (as per our email conversations).... so will address what you said here.

You offered another link to a "trvalentine" link. And asked that we be biblical, that it cuts both ways... HAving received the study on Isaiah 22, you can see full well, trvlentine didn't bother studying isaiah, he found plenty of references to "rock" but neglected the typological reference to isaiah a what Chrsit wa alluding to.. you ahve the study so it aought to make all sense now.. FORGET whathte church is tody or the middle ages, taht has NO bearing to what was given it 2000 years ago.. (it creates smokescreens when judgements abot a church 1500 years later is what causes one to look upon promises made 1500 years earlier. Did Judah or israel sin a a nation? Does their sins, however grave, nullify the promise made earlier or do we say, that was not a prmise and has to means something else cuz of course, God would never give such a promise to such a sinful nation, (church) THINK a little deeprin these things...

Getting back however, the issue is that "THE ROCK" is the "rock" in typology, that Moses struck . The rock is that cut without hands, Chrsit JEsus. However, Christ Himself gave Peter the name "rock". You denying Christ's choice of words or names? When we study the keys from the old testament, we find that it was given to ONE individual, passed on thru generations, not to a mass of people.. Christ is "the rock" however, Chrsit is not his church, he is sht head of his church.. WE are his body... Is that not his church? AS his body, Peter was the first "living stone" layed. IT doesn't stop there, this PARTICULAR living stone, (rock) was given teh keys of binding and loosing, specifically his... Only peter, Kepha in aramaic was given this... in the greek, Petra is a fenminine word, Petros is masculine.. in the greek, we find both used in the same seneence, "Peter, thou art rock" in the aramaic, we don't find the diffeernce. You wouldn't call a male Judy, would you ? You would masculinize it.

For instance, to show taht this in fact DOES HAPPEN, in the LXX of the bble, Christ's name is "iesous" in zecheriah,,,, in the hebrew it is yeshua...
the "y" and the "i" are the SAME LETTER, in fact, the "y" is the consonant version of the "i". "j" is really an "i or y" that has a different sound for those interested.

So in the greek, it is the "phonetic" of yeshua... we get yeshua ---> iesous. How? Y changes to I, (ame letter), the "h" is silent so no phoenetics and the "s" ending makes his name "masculine" in the greek.

(so much for the pig god or son of zeus the messianics claim we worship)

Same with Peter.. "s" addded in the end for grammatical reasons, inherent in the language itself....

AGAIN, Clem, we find outselves dealing with a man you sent us linked to that is shallow in his teaching, he did everything including backflips to prove his point, went tot he greek for the keys passage, yet, forgot to stop being sucha scholar and read the bible himself and understand typology.

Carmine

Dave.. I would like to add something regarding MAry as Mother of God...

The issue wsa really, in that dayt, that some said Mary wsa the Mother of JEsus,(focusing on the flesh attribute) in his flesh while others thought to say, no she was the Mother of God, (focusing on the godly attribute)..

as far as I am concerned, each is as heretical as teh other.. IF, as you state, they are inseperaable, it is JUST as correctto focus in on Mother of JEsus or Mother of God cuz both point ot Chrsit. To say Motehr of God lessens his flesh and visa versa.... ADDITIONALLY, the council ofEphasus where this wsa determined, was somewhat questionable and it is undestandable. Ephasus wa teh city of the pagan goddess, Diana Lucifera and many thought pagan identity of Diana wa being transfered to MAry and thus, they wanted to remove any appearance of goddess nature, being mother of God.

However, in John we read, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God....

This word wsa "begotten", NOT "made".... Christ, as God appeared to us, pre existing, in the flesh. however, he gave up all divinity to become man... (was made a little lower than the angels) IT wsa only by the power of the indwelling spirit in Chrsit that he did miracles, not his own divinity as he also refers to the FAther as my God and your God. So, in essense, Christ became man... So Mary wsa the vehicle by which God manifested as man on earth...

Did God die on the cross or did Jesus' body die on the cross?

When JEsus wsa broght into the desert to be tempted, was God tempted? Since you can't seperate out his divinity from his humanity and you do this with MAry, then we have to follow logic and be consistent..(equal weights and measures).. Was God tempted in the desert wilderness as Christ if the bible elsewhere says God cannot be tempted?

The disagreements wit the Nestorian church, (today called trhe assyrian church of the east) was minute and I pesonally feel, (opinion), tht the council chose to use MAry as Mother of God, (SEPERATING OUT his humanity by focusing on hs divinity in the title) to cater to evangelization of the cult of Diana Luciferia.. (she looks like the statue of liberty, with a torch in hand...) While the nestorians said She was the mother of Christ, focusing on his her role in his brith into humanity.... Why not just say Mary mother of Jesus? Cuz it doesn't have the same PUNCH when evangelizing the pagans of Ephesus, where the council met to discuss these things.

If Chrsit cannot be seperated out, humanity nd divinity, then Mother of Chrsit is equally as valid since to mention ihis humanity is to recognize his divinity and visa versa.

The heavenly woman in REvelation.. this woman is the "holy spirit" who births all of us. WE are to be born from above thru what? The holy spirit... The vision is of a heavenly figure.... However, it's pattern wsa seen on earth as MAry taking on the earthly role. (just like Moses' tabernacle wsa the pattern of the heavenly), Mary was the earthly pattern of the heavenly..... WE are all born thru the heavenly woman....

And it was the overshadowing of this heavenly woman upon MAry, the earthly woman, that Chrsit was born.... The heavenly woman provided the seed, Mary provided the womb.

At some point, it gets real "dangerous" to give to Mary the role of the holy spirit or identifying MAry as such , as if you cn't seperate out the earthly mother and the heavenly one.... ONE was overshadowed, MAry has one nature, not two...

as a RCC christian, ew have to learn to distinguish between this... otehrwise, you end up down a slippery slope.

REmember, tradition cannot contradict scripture.. MAry's role is distinct from teh spriit's role.

Carmine

Carmine

Dave.. I would like to add something regarding MAry as Mother of God...

The issue wsa really, in that dayt, that some said Mary wsa the Mother of JEsus,(focusing on the flesh attribute) in his flesh while others thought to say, no she was the Mother of God, (focusing on the godly attribute)..

as far as I am concerned, each is as heretical as teh other.. IF, as you state, they are inseperaable, it is JUST as correctto focus in on Mother of JEsus or Mother of God cuz both point ot Chrsit. To say Motehr of God lessens his flesh and visa versa.... ADDITIONALLY, the council ofEphasus where this wsa determined, was somewhat questionable and it is undestandable. Ephasus wa teh city of the pagan goddess, Diana Lucifera and many thought pagan identity of Diana wa being transfered to MAry and thus, they wanted to remove any appearance of goddess nature, being mother of God.

However, in John we read, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God....

This word wsa "begotten", NOT "made".... Christ, as God appeared to us, pre existing, in the flesh. however, he gave up all divinity to become man... (was made a little lower than the angels) IT wsa only by the power of the indwelling spirit in Chrsit that he did miracles, not his own divinity as he also refers to the FAther as my God and your God. So, in essense, Christ became man... So Mary wsa the vehicle by which God manifested as man on earth...

Did God die on the cross or did Jesus' body die on the cross?

When JEsus wsa broght into the desert to be tempted, was God tempted? Since you can't seperate out his divinity from his humanity and you do this with MAry, then we have to follow logic and be consistent..(equal weights and measures).. Was God tempted in the desert wilderness as Christ if the bible elsewhere says God cannot be tempted?

The disagreements wit the Nestorian church, (today called trhe assyrian church of the east) was minute and I pesonally feel, (opinion), tht the council chose to use MAry as Mother of God, (SEPERATING OUT his humanity by focusing on hs divinity in the title) to cater to evangelization of the cult of Diana Luciferia.. (she looks like the statue of liberty, with a torch in hand...) While the nestorians said She was the mother of Christ, focusing on his her role in his brith into humanity.... Why not just say Mary mother of Jesus? Cuz it doesn't have the same PUNCH when evangelizing the pagans of Ephesus, where the council met to discuss these things.

If Chrsit cannot be seperated out, humanity nd divinity, then Mother of Chrsit is equally as valid since to mention ihis humanity is to recognize his divinity and visa versa.

The heavenly woman in REvelation.. this woman is the "holy spirit" who births all of us. WE are to be born from above thru what? The holy spirit... The vision is of a heavenly figure.... However, it's pattern wsa seen on earth as MAry taking on the earthly role. (just like Moses' tabernacle wsa the pattern of the heavenly), Mary was the earthly pattern of the heavenly..... WE are all born thru the heavenly woman....

And it was the overshadowing of this heavenly woman upon MAry, the earthly woman, that Chrsit was born.... The heavenly woman provided the seed, Mary provided the womb.

At some point, it gets real "dangerous" to give to Mary the role of the holy spirit or identifying MAry as such , as if you cn't seperate out the earthly mother and the heavenly one.... ONE was overshadowed, MAry has one nature, not two...

as a RCC christian, ew have to learn to distinguish between this... otehrwise, you end up down a slippery slope.

REmember, tradition cannot contradict scripture.. MAry's role is distinct from teh spriit's role.

Carmine

Carmine

Dave.. I would like to add something regarding MAry as Mother of God...

The issue wsa really, in that dayt, that some said Mary wsa the Mother of JEsus,(focusing on the flesh attribute) in his flesh while others thought to say, no she was the Mother of God, (focusing on the godly attribute)..

as far as I am concerned, each is as heretical as teh other.. IF, as you state, they are inseperaable, it is JUST as correctto focus in on Mother of JEsus or Mother of God cuz both point ot Chrsit. To say Motehr of God lessens his flesh and visa versa.... ADDITIONALLY, the council ofEphasus where this wsa determined, was somewhat questionable and it is undestandable. Ephasus wa teh city of the pagan goddess, Diana Lucifera and many thought pagan identity of Diana wa being transfered to MAry and thus, they wanted to remove any appearance of goddess nature, being mother of God.

However, in John we read, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God....

This word wsa "begotten", NOT "made".... Christ, as God appeared to us, pre existing, in the flesh. however, he gave up all divinity to become man... (was made a little lower than the angels) IT wsa only by the power of the indwelling spirit in Chrsit that he did miracles, not his own divinity as he also refers to the FAther as my God and your God. So, in essense, Christ became man... So Mary wsa the vehicle by which God manifested as man on earth...

Did God die on the cross or did Jesus' body die on the cross?

When JEsus wsa broght into the desert to be tempted, was God tempted? Since you can't seperate out his divinity from his humanity and you do this with MAry, then we have to follow logic and be consistent..(equal weights and measures).. Was God tempted in the desert wilderness as Christ if the bible elsewhere says God cannot be tempted?

The disagreements wit the Nestorian church, (today called trhe assyrian church of the east) was minute and I pesonally feel, (opinion), tht the council chose to use MAry as Mother of God, (SEPERATING OUT his humanity by focusing on hs divinity in the title) to cater to evangelization of the cult of Diana Luciferia.. (she looks like the statue of liberty, with a torch in hand...) While the nestorians said She was the mother of Christ, focusing on his her role in his brith into humanity.... Why not just say Mary mother of Jesus? Cuz it doesn't have the same PUNCH when evangelizing the pagans of Ephesus, where the council met to discuss these things.

If Chrsit cannot be seperated out, humanity nd divinity, then Mother of Chrsit is equally as valid since to mention ihis humanity is to recognize his divinity and visa versa.

The heavenly woman in REvelation.. this woman is the "holy spirit" who births all of us. WE are to be born from above thru what? The holy spirit... The vision is of a heavenly figure.... However, it's pattern wsa seen on earth as MAry taking on the earthly role. (just like Moses' tabernacle wsa the pattern of the heavenly), Mary was the earthly pattern of the heavenly..... WE are all born thru the heavenly woman....

And it was the overshadowing of this heavenly woman upon MAry, the earthly woman, that Chrsit was born.... The heavenly woman provided the seed, Mary provided the womb.

At some point, it gets real "dangerous" to give to Mary the role of the holy spirit or identifying MAry as such , as if you cn't seperate out the earthly mother and the heavenly one.... ONE was overshadowed, MAry has one nature, not two...

as a RCC christian, ew have to learn to distinguish between this... otehrwise, you end up down a slippery slope.

REmember, tradition cannot contradict scripture.. MAry's role is distinct from teh spriit's role.

Carmine

Carmine

sorry for the several times the last post "posted", computer was frozen and I kept on pressing enter....

here is a reply to the post above I sent a brother in discussions off line.... it clarifies the issue I raised above....

For me, it don't matter because in essense, she is Christ's mother and you can't seperate out that. REmember Elizabeth, MAry's cousin, John the Baptist's mother said, "too what do I owe this suprise, that the mother of my Lord has come to visit me". Mother of my Lord. aka. Mother of my God.... it IS in the bible so it is biblical..

the issue wsa that they caused a schism with the nestorian christians because of pushing this one issue rather than go for unity.... The fact that Ephesus was the captial of goddess worship in those parts caused me to have a closer look at the probable psychology in so naming her mother of God....

In any event, she is and is also our mother spiritually altho it has been a hard road in understanding all of it, I reserved judgment til I received witness which recently , I received many.....

Naming MAry the mother of JEsus or the mother of Christ, (focusing on his humanity) wold have been just sa equivalent in my estimation, as the nestorians did. See, this schism was wrong on the prt of the church.. She could be named both and they both would say the same thing. If you can't seperate out Christ's humanity with his divinity, then it don't matter which way you say it, one always alludes to the other...But like I said, where this occured was what concerned me. But we have to realize, this wsa going on about 300 years after the last apostle.... AND.... the declaration of one united grop was able to excommunicate an antire other group. There was unity, under one leadership.. that is, it wasn't that Rome disagreed with Smyrna or with the church at Corinth or thesellonia or elsewhere, as a unity of one, it was pronounced the nestorians were heretics, (even tho the namessake was a very devout, intellectual christian, full of many insights, etc....) This one issue seperated out one group and this group had no whre to run to for safety.

continuing:

One more issue, the assyrian church of the east claims to be the receptor of the Jerusalem church that left for , waht tradition tells us, Petra at the time of Jerusalem 70 AD. Their first 6 or 7 bishops were all jewish for instance and they still, to this day, maintain a very first century, syriac tradition... For instance, communion is served similarly to the traditions of the first century.. at any rate, they were the ones that were seperated out later as nestorians.... The real reason why was not nestorian dogma but over something else, (i forget) but they claim they were seperated out as an excuse, as being nestorians.....

here is the link to their website.

www.cired.org/

The reason for my offering this is simple. The jerusalem church was absorbed into their church PRE-schism... Theyu maintain the oldest, closest to first century traditions, unaffected by the greek or latin rites, in fact, all 3 rites converge to a time prior to the schism. You get to hear a diffeet perspective on many things thru the link... and maybe, we learn of some insights lost due to emnity or bias elsewhere.. I, for one, received a greater understanding of communion, something no Roman CAtholic priest was able to discuss or teach me, having been an altar boy for almost 17 years of my life and was very devoted.... yet, some of their taeachings on "qurbana"/communion helped me understand in a way that made more sense.... it helped tie in the ancient tradition to the new today.

btw, the catholic church, from what I gather, is the only church of the traditional ones, (pre-300 AD) that uses unleavened bread. All others use raised bread or "artos". Jesus is the living "artos". Why is it living? For the same reason why wine is living. Wine and "artos" contain yeast, a living componenet, (symbolic of the spirit in you)....something within it remains to raise us up. The shewbread was also understoood to be raised bread in the tabernacle of Moses and Melkisidek most likely did not use unleavened bread.... this can be a furthur discussion in another thread...

Carmine

See link below:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38788

So, Catholic Watch, using your logic we would have to argue that Jesus isn't really God, right? After all, one of his disciples was a terrible sinner that betrayed him. That must mean the Bible is wrong . . . right?

Hope you have more to back up your claim than this! The fact that you post it shows you understand what actually happened even less than the guy that wrote that article (and he's clueless).

God bless,
Jay

GOD Bless to all that shall read and respond.
I have this question and I hope that someone can Biblically respond.

Why is so much imphasis placded on Mary and Peter In the Catholic faith. They were esteemed vessels used my GOD. Jesus is and should be the focus of our faith and worship. When Jesus taught his deciples to pray he said, Our father who art in heaven not Mother Mary Full of Grace.

1Cor 2:2
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

What are protestants "protesting"?I am not a pro-
testant or catholic or jewish does that mean that I am going to hell...be carefull how anyone an-
swers this?It will be very interesting to see who
or what responses I get!!

I have a few questions for the "pro-Catholic" bloggers (Jay, Joe, etc...)

1. I sometimes go back and read my previous posts and think to myself "I can't believe I wrote such an insensitive and insulting comment" - do you ever do that too?

2. Does the following comment-thread sound all to familiar?
P where in the bible does it say ... ?
C it says so here here and here
P thats not what those verses mean
C yes it is
P no it isnt, you are distorting the plain meaning of scripture
C you are distorting the plain meaning of scripture with your protestant bias
P you are distorting the plain meaning of scriputre with you catholic bias
P2 you people are arguing over pointless things
C these things arent pointless
P2 why do you argue with people? shouldn't you love them instead?
C we argue because we are sharing truth, that is what love is
P2 you people make me sick, you should do what I say because ...
C well then by your logic then we should ...

3. Have you noticed that if you delete from the thread every comment by a catholic that is not an answer to a question, what you are left with is a mature and informative thread?
P where in the bible does it say ...?
C it says so here here and here
P thats not what those verses mean

P2 why do you argue with people? shouldn't you love them instead?
C we argue because we are sharing truth, that is what love is

P2 you people make me sick, you should do what I say because ...

4. Did you notice that it means letting someone else have the last word?

5. Does this bother you as much as it bothers me?

6. Do you think the comments section would improve if we refrained from everything except asking questions and answering them? (Remember that Our Lord was often silent at times when we would have spoken and that he often waits for us to ask him before he answers us)

7. Do you think the following case might be an exception to that principle?
P The Catholic Church teaches the following heinous thing
C no it does not, you misunderstand
P yes it does, you are playing word games
C dont put words in our mouths
P if the shoe fits, wear it
C it does not fit
P yes it does, I've seen Catholics do it all the time
C maybe you misunderstood them, maybe they act or believe wrongly, it does not matter because the Church does not teach that
P well you did not correct them, hypocrites and pharisees every one of you, I see it all the time!
C Judas betrayed Jesus but Jesus teachings still remain true, so too the Catholic Church teachings remain true even if its members misunderstand them or do not live up to them

8. Am I the only one who sounds like a Broken Record?

Hi Richard,
Interesting post here and one that resonates with me personally. I'll follow your numbering scheme.
1) Absolutely. It's one of those things I'm personally praying about and working on. Really it has two parts: (a) when I'm frustrated with someone's answer and it shows or (b) when my answer isn't written as clearly as it should be, so a post I intended to be "friendly" sounds harsh because of my limited writing skills. Hopefully I'm getting better at this over time (more mellow with experience).

Having said that, I think there is some benefit to making the other person a little agitated or angry. Here's where I'm coming from. As a protestant, I would argue with my Catholic friend. If the argument was more of a cordial "discussion," I would often blow off whatever he said. However, if he really ticked me off in some way, I would take the time to do research in order to prove him wrong. This is the research that finally lead to my conversion - and it may have never happened without some agitation and heated discussions.

2) It does. On this site we often find this type as well:
P You're wrong because of x
C But if you look at these verses, x is a false assumption
(P never returns)
- or -
P You're wrong because of x
C But if you look at these verses, x is a false assumption
P You're wrong because of y
C But if you look at these verses, y is a false assumption
P You're wrong because of z
(etc)

Basically, I see my (our) job as simply to be a harbringer of Truth. No one has to listen to us and they are free to ignore our answers or change the subject. But, since there are probably 100 readers for every 1 poster (at least on this site), I feel an obligation to try and answer the questions even if I think the person posing the question has no interest in my answer. Then it becomes the responsibility of the Holy Spirit, who can do a significantly better job than I can. ;-)

It does get frustrating, especially when you face those who would not convert if the Bible said "The Catholic Church is and will always be the one true Church." But it's just part of the cross (if we could help one person, etc.)

3) I'll have to think about this one.

4) Personally, I don't mind letting someone else have the last word as long as that last statement (a) doesn't have an open question about what Catholics believe, (b) doesn't mischaracterize or slander the Catholic position, and (c) wouldn't lead the average person to believe we conceded the argument. Typically the other person gets just as frustrated in the discussion (two points of view) and eventually just never comes back.

5) ;-) It gets better with time . . . you eventually just accept that you cannot convert a single person. You cannot even move their position a tiny bit. The decision to convert is not a decision that can be made based on knowledge - it's a moral choice. I think our job is to simply present Catholic teaching clearly and explain differences from protestant teaching. We remove the roadblocks in terms of perception and knowledge about Catholicism - the Holy Spirit has to do the actual converting.

6) I don't think I agree with this. When I was protestant and I read a Catholic argument, my response would always be "oh, but he intentionally left out these verses" or "but he misconstrued this part of protestant teaching." So personally, I like the fact that a protestant who thinks I've done something incorrect in creating my post can attempt to point it out to me. This opens the dialogue and can begin an honest discussion on the issues. This way no one walks away saying "he's wrong, but I don't really have a question so I won't post" (I know that's a simplification of reality, but it gets the point across). I think in a perfect world you would actually have multiple streams of comments - one for each commenter. That way you get to true one-on-one discussion over the issues. When ten people are involved in the same discussion it tends to get very murky and often veers off in an odd direction.

7) Possibly. Thank God we now have the Catechism ("Please point out where the Church teaches that in the Catechism, since I can point out where it is condemned there')

8) No. Joseph and I repeat ourselves continually. You get to know exactly which post to refer someone to for more detail - that way you don't rewrite things over and over. It's typically from someone who reads one post and comments. I've considered going back and adding "More detail" links to earlier posts, which might help.

From my point of view, I feel this is an obligation. I was a convert who would have never even looked into the Church if I had not been confronted. Joseph (who posts here as well) grew up Catholic and he and I often got into pretty heated arguments over virtually every protestant/Catholic issue out there. We both would go do research and try and prove the other wrong (we're Type-A personalities). In the end, this research (and the Holy Spirit) led me to conversion. So I feel obligated to offer the Truth to others as well, even if they will not accept it.

Hope this helps.

God bless,
Jay

Excuse me for putting in my two cents. But while you all are arguing about who was the first pope. There are people in the world dying without Jesus, going into eternity without hope!! It does not matter wether Peter or Paul or David or Julio was the first pope, what matters is that Jesus still saves, heals, and delivers. So, go preach that!!!
Quit wasting your time with silly arguments!!!!

William,

Here's a question for you. If those same people in the world are dying without knowing Jesus how is it that they have no hope? It would seem obvious to me that one would not be able to hope for something that one has no idea exists in the first place...namely everlasting life.

Secondly, we are preaching the truth revealed to the world by Christ through His Church and, "hopefully" it is allowing Christ to save, heal, and deliver those who do not know Him.

Keep in mind that even Jesus would engage the Scribes and Pharisees in debate and theological discussions...

Just my two cents...

In Christ,
Joe

i think that all this is not true. 1. peter was never in rome. 2. peter was married. 3. if jesus is god then why are we puttuing our faith on somebody who is not.

Miguel,
Did you even read the article? I find it amusing when anyone suggests that "Peter was never in Rome" - the evidence is so overwhelming that you have to ignore history to reach this conclusion. Read this article to clear up your misconceptions.

Peter was married, but his wife died before he became an apostle. We're putting our faith in Jesus Himself when we trust His Church. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says He will build His Church on Peter (Peter means "Rock" in Arabic, the language Jesus was speaking) and Jesus promised that nothing will prevail against it. When you don't trust Jesus' promise, it is you who doesn't put faith in Christ.

God bless,
Jay

I find Aaron the high priest as GOD'S representive over the Old Covenant Church, and I find Jesus our High Priest as GOD'S representive over the New Covenant Church(which is Christ's body,because He is the Head), and since scripture interprets scripture, I guess you have to look in another book to find a pope. Remember, Paul said to the corintians that the Old Covenant came first and was for their (our) example. Therefore, what you find in New Testament will be explained in the Old Testament.

Right, Jim: you have to look in the New Testament to see the papacy. Did you even read the points above? In essence, Jesus [God] told Peter (a) He would build His church on Peter, (b) that Peter was to "feed His sheep" and "strengthen his brethren." In fact, if you read the above list (I won't go through all of it), Jesus did everything but dance a jig to get the point across! For those who have eyes, let them see.

God bless,
Jay

Jay, The WORD OF GOD says;"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel (people of GOD,THE CHURCH TODAY) after those days,' declares the LORD,I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it;and I will be their God,and they shall be My people. "They will not teach again,each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD,...(Jeremiah 31:33,34 NASB) Jesus told ALL the disciples that he had to go away so that the FATHER could sent the HELPER to ALL that would belive on Him (John 14:16-31). "They will not teach again, each man..." because the Father has sent the Holy Spirit to be within each believer, we the CHURCH of the LORD JESUS CHRIST(not the catholic church) are coming to Him as Peter says;"And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood,to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture:...But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's own POSSESSION,so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD;you had not RECEIVED MERCY,but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.(1Peter 2:4-10) Jesus did not leave His Church in the hands of sinful men. He is directing all believers(the elect) throught the Holy Spirit as given by God in the covenant because of one MAN, the last Adam... JESUS THE CHRIST!!! When we as believers recognize the CHRIST as did Peter we also become the living stones as Peter said in his text. Therefore he (Peter) was the bedrock (Matthew 16:18), the first to recognize the CHRIST, but he was not a pope. He was a believer as we ALL are who are in CHRIST.Matthew is not telling us that Peter is the first pope,he's telling us that all authority has been given to Jesus and who Jesus is. The CHRIST is only revealed by the HOLY SPIRIT to those that believe. GOD is no respecter of persons, as we see the mother of the sons of Zebedee(Matthew 20:20-28) asking for special favors for her sons; or in Matthew 18:1 when the disciples asked "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?". The prayer of our HIGH PRIEST Jesus,in John 17:1-26, is for all who believe in Him through the words of the deciples. He does not name Peter as a special person on earth, He prays for those who preach the gospel...HIS CHURCH and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Lost in the love of Christ and his finished work. Jim

Jay; Thank you for posting my comments above. I am suprised that you did that, because I'm sure you could have trashed them just as easily. I just happened to stumble onto your informational website, and it answers a lot of questions about the Roman Catholic doctrines that I have wondered about. I do not agree with many things I see here,but now I know for sure that your church doctrines are simply the traditions of men combined with the Word of God, as are the foundations of most denominational churches. I love the way King Soloman sums up the writings of men; "The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well driven nails; they are given by One Shepherd. But beyond this, my son, be warned; the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body. The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring every act to judgement, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil." (Ecclesiastes 12:11-14,NASB); Lost in Love of Christ and His Finished Work. Jim

Protestants are blind. If everyone including Catholics dropped there bias on the bible and looked at it objectively everyone would be surprised at what they find like the fact that the Catholic Church is the most biblical of any Protestant denominations, though they won't see this they never do because they simply want to continue there hatred of the catholic church(like it or not constantly telling us where wrong despite the fact we have the same God and Savior is hatred not love.) No matter what one says to a protestant they will never accept us unless God gives them the grace to understand. You say it's not in the bible we find it and we get thats not what it means or you hit us with another passage that has nothing to do with it. On the papacy those biblical passages are strong evidence for it and if there not then what are they suggesting. Luke 1. 28-29 "Hail Thou that are highly favoured, the lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Luke 1. 48-49 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for,behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." King James Version, Jesus would look at the word of his father and be more pleased with Catholics then Protestants they follow both the Catholic and Protestant Canon better then you. No arguing it gets you nowhere lets have a scholarly discussion instead. The Catholic truly are the persecuted church, so everytime I am attacked for my faith I jump for Joy. Yours in Christ Kevin.

Somewhere in The New Testament it states that the church is the final interpreter on Scripture. I'll find that for you and post it. Mary was called Full Of Grace in Luke and refered to as blessed. What can I do to make you understand, remember Jesus was accused of blasphemy and his miracles were said to be of the devil.Constanly the pharisees and scribes hit Jesus with points that he was not the Son of God and the people themselves as well John 8. 31-60. If Protestants truly believed in the bible they would understand John 5. 46-48 KJV "For had Ye believed Moses, Ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if Ye believe not his writings, how shall Ye believe my words? Jesus was also told many times that he was wrong and not in accordance with God.

It's too bad that all of the denominations don't have a handle on the Word of God. All say that they do but man made denominational doctrines just keep interfering with the WORD OF GOD.
The Bible interprets itself and needs no man to do it for Him. Him being the Holy Spirit of God, and as Jesus said to his disciples about the Holy Spirit; "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you(John 14:25,26;ESV)." Now since the Father has given all of us in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ His Spirit, we would do well to listen to what the Spirit has to say, since He used the prophets to pen the Word of God that we read, and no church on earth has authority to interpret. So who better to interpret Scripture than the Writer Himself?
Peter tells the church in 1Peter 1:10-12;(ESV); "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look."
And again Peter tells the church what he and the other disciples saw and penned; "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory,"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do wellto pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in yuor hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someones's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But false prophets also arose among the people, "just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive Heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing up on themselves swift destruction(2Peter 1:16-2:1; ESV)."
Peter also speaks of "our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures (2Peter 3:15-17;(ESV)."Also check out Jer.31:31-34;
Lost in the Love of Christ and His Finished Work, Jim.

Read your post later. It says somewhere in the bible that it is up to the church intrepret the word of God, I have no problem with individuals interpreting it as long as they don't get something crazy from it like Richard Potock did(he's a white supremisist.) The church intreprets the word of God with the help of the holy spirit. All I can say is that all of us need to unite the Blessed Mother Mary said that it is time for a unity of Christian churches. Now all I want is for both sides to stop arguing, God accepts all churches that accept christ and teach love and understanding. Now I am a devout Catholic and am very happy with my church as I am sure that many Protestants are happy with there church. So I have decided not to argue instead to explain and help people to understand my Catholic faith, because as you can see have over 100 comments on this one thread. So Yours in Christ Kevin Gibbs

Jim,
If the Holy Spirit interprets the Bible perfectly through normal men as you say, why do we have thousands of protestant denominations all teaching differently?

Think about it. This means either you believe the Holy Spirit is ineffective at this job (He can't accurately lead us) or you are suggesting that virtually all denominations except one are deliberately not following the Holy Spirit.

Remember also the story in Acts, where the man states plainly that he cannot understand Scripture without someone to teach him (Acts 8;26-40). Philip didn't say to him, "Don't worry, the Holy Spirit will lead you!" No, instead Philip taught him, which implicitly agrees with the man's statement.

The reason we have so many denominations is because Christ left us the Catholic Church lead by the Holy Spirit. It is, we are assured by Scripture, the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Those who don't follow it are bound to be confused about things.

God bless,
Jay

Gentlemen,
The Word of God always breaks mens' doctrines like a hammer breaks a stone doesn't it-Jeremiah 23:29? The Word of God will always prevail because it is the Final Word in all things that we know. It is denominational doctrines' that both of you are fighting and trying to defend. Religious Men of tradition and Religious men of today who hold onto those traditions will be brought to their own destruction as the Holy Spirit has so clearly stated through Peter to The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ already. Maybe you didn't see that in my post above on July 16,2005; or maybe you will just deny The Truth of The Word of God.
I do not have to defend or present anything too you but the Word of God Itself, because it speaks for Itself as the Holy Spirit has said thur the apostle Paul; "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, The righteous shall live by faith." For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him,but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lust of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."(Romans 1:16-25;ESV)
Lost in the Love of Christ and His Finished work, Jim.

Kevin,
I mean you no harm, and I also would like to see The Body of Christ come together on this earth, but I do not believe that will ever happen in a huge world wide mass until the day of judgement comes,and the elect of God are rewarded with eternal life, the belivers promised inhertiance.
It is up to each individual to personally know God; and come to God only through His finished Promise of the seed of Genesis, the final blood sacrifice of The Lord Jesus Christ."For the life of the flesh is in the blood,and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."(Leviticus 17:11;ESV) Then and only then can we have faith and believe in the written Word of God that He has given His elect-The Church.
The church does interpret the Word of God as I have posted before on May 21 and July 16, 2005."...no prophecy of Scripiture comes from someone's own interpretation.For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."(2 Peter1:20,21;ESV) In 1 Peter 2:1-10 he defines "The Church" as individuals being build up into a holy temple offering up spiritual sacrifices; "So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation---if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you youselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture:..."(1 Peter 2:1-6;ESV)
Paul also Defines "The Church"; "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.(1 Corinthians 3:16,17;ESV)
"The Church" is made up of individuals who believe in The Finished Word Of God. "The Church" is not a denomination. Denominations contradict the Word of God and promote mens false teachings. However Christians (The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ) are found in all denominations (including the catholic church) that preach the gospel of the Christ; because John tells us that the Bride of Christ(Revelation 21:9-14) is the new Jerusalem coming by the Spirit to those who believe in their hearts and confess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord. Lost in the Love of Christ and His Finished Work, Jim.

Hi Jay, catch you later.
Lost in the Love of Christ and His finished work,Jim.

Jay,
I don't think that I need to give you a history of creation and that man is made in the image of God. "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."(Genesis 1:26;ESV) Since "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and truth."(John 4:24;ESV) Therefore "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."(John 3:36;ESV) God knew he was going to have to redeem His creation even before man became wicked. "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart....,for I am sorry that I have made them. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."(Genesis 6:5-8;ESV)Only one man was obedient to do the will of God, and the rest of mankind and the world was destroyed by water. This time judgement will be by fire because of mankinds' disobedience(2Peter 3:1-13).
Therefore in an attempt to answer your first question, not all men have the mind of Christ and their imaginations and thoughts our different, thus denominations are born including the Catholic Church of the third century. Sorry have to go now, be back later.
Lost in the Love of Christ and His Finished Work, Jim.

For you are right it is not man that interprets scripture but the Holy Spirit taking the form of the church. Though in order for the faithful to fully understand there must be a church that which faithful can go to. I believe this to be the Catholic Church the early christians were in fact pretty close to the Catholic Church. You are right when you say all Christian denominations that preach the gospel of the Lord are Christians because I have heard it said and I believe it that God accepts all churches that except his Son. You have the right mindset. Only if we pray will someday all Christians unite, I am glad to see you accept us as Christians. May God Bless you Jim.
Yours In Christ Kevin Gibbs

Jay,
Who else but God the Holy Spirit could unfold the mystery of Christ from Genesis to Revelation and interpret the Bible? I know of no man except the prophets' and the apostles' who were chosen by God and moved by the Holy Spirit to give "The Church"; God's people the certain and perfect Word of God. The Catholic Church is no different than the Protestant Churches or any other denominational churchs who fail to humble themselves before God and His WORD. As I said In another post; it is the Word of God that divides and separates men from God.
The church doesn't tell God what His Word says, God tells the church what His Word says and the obedient servant understands and obeys God's commands; "Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua..."(Exodus 17: 14;ESV)"Thus says the LORD,the God of Israel: Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you."(Jeremiah 30:2;ESV) " To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgivness, for we have rebelled against him and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God by walking in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets."(Daniel 9:9,10;ESV) I could go on and on, but it would"t do any good because I BELIEVE EVERY WORD that God has given to His people, and it is plain that you do not. Otherwise you would not have blasphemed the words of Christ, and the Father who sent the Holy Spirit into the heart of each believer. To blaspheme and take away from the Word of God; the Bible, the Holy Spirit's FINISHED WORD, as you have done, means that it is impossible for your church to be led by the Holy Spirit. If your church rejects GOD'S WORD, then you become just another religious group, the blind leading the blind, who will all fall in the ditch. Read what happened to Israel.By the way the Bible does not contain "stories",they are actual accounts of mans' struggle with the world, the flesh and the devil; with THE LORD GOD being the Beginning and the End of everything.
The apostle Paul told Timothy;"But as for you,continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from your childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation thruogh faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work"...."For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."(2Timothy 3:14-17; 4:4;ESV)
Lost in the Love of Christ and His Final Word, Jim.
P>S> You better recheck your assurance of 1 Timothy 3:15, and put it back in the context of Scripture.
.

Did you know that the Old-Testament of the early christians was the Greek Septuagent Bible it is where the Catholics got there Old-Testament Bible from. So basically the Catholics have the Bible of the early christians(Which was the Greek Septuagent.) Just thought I would add this. The Greek Septuagent bible is the Greek translation of the entire Hebrew scriptures and all the deuterocanonical books. It was made from the 3rd century B.C. on and it was widely used by the Jews outside of Palestine, and especially by the New Testament writers and early Christians. There are many ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible including Greek as I mentioned up top, Syriac, Latin and Aramaic.

Yes I am aware of the Greek Old Covenant Scritures as translated by the seventy. It doesn't do me much good though, because I am not a Greek speaking person. However I do have helps to explain the importance of a word, or words from the Greek to English, which sometimes brings across a completely different thought in Scripture.
This is very important to me, to have the most accurate translation of The Word of God that I can have and understand, especially since The Holy Spirit of God took the time to write me and tell me how much God does love me and you. I have read a lot of translations over the last 35 years beginning with the KJV, but personally I find the New American Standard Bible to be the most accurate word fo word translation available, and those who are fluent in Greek, ect. have already taken care of the English translation part for me. I am now reading and studing the new English Standard Version, and so far I believe it will become my favorite translation.
God's Word is the only absolute truth that we have in this life. To remove our take away from what God has said makes God a lair and the person or persons' doing it a blasphemer. "And now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the rules that I am teaching you, and do them, that you may live, and go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you."..." I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."(Deuteronomy 4:1,2; Revelation 22:18,19;ESV)
Kevin, thanks for your comments and infomation.

Lost in the Love of Christ and His Finished Work, Jim.

Jay,
In reference to your post of July 16 about the Holy Spirit. First of all a normal man cannot be taught by the Holy Spirit because he doesn,t know God or His Word and he doesn't have the Holy Spirit to teach him. After any normal person comes to an understanding of who God is, and believes that Jesus died and rose again for them,that person becomes a new creature in Christ. Because when the normal person humbles himself before God in prayer, and gives thanks to God for the blood sacrifice and death of His son Jesus the Christ, the person confessing their sin to God and asking God to cleans them of their sin, the normal person is no longer normal. They are now born again by the Holy Spirit, because the person has recognized, accepted and confessed, that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, by the Holy Spirit.
Paul, a christian, who is a teacher of the Law tells the church at Rome, and us the church today, that the natural person reguards God as an enemy; "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot, Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." Paul now tells those who have received Christ, the church, the christians; "You however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you."(Romans 8:7-11;ESV)
Jesus, who was a teacher of the Law said; "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. D