Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The year is 2026. Non-Roman Catholic scholars have been on the scene for centuries, yet you seem to imagine that the oldest claim is de facto accurate simply because it's the oldest.

Your logic simply says Roman Catholics create credibility for a Roman Catholic claim. How would you win over an agnostic or atheist, or simply a Christian seeking clarification on doctrine? I showed you how the Muslims and Mormons have scholars every bit as eminent in their domain as your sources in yours, but you seem to imagine that arguing in circles is a compelling method.

---

I'm struggling to expand this so that you can understand it.

You claim that these (Catholic) men are created credibility for the Catholic claim. Fair enough, but when these men wrote, there were ONLY Catholic men (and women). The were reporting HISTORY.

ALL of the early Church fathers agree that Peter was the bishop of Rome and the leader of the Church. That is an historical fact.

If a Muslim (in 850 AD) or LDS (in 1895) gave their opine about a specific verse in their books, we should take this as their early belief. If we see a significant change in that belief over time, then we should call that out.

I see no change in what was believed by all.

As I mentioned, I realize that this angers you, but it is historic fact that Peter was the leader of the early Church. It has been believed since the beginning of the Church. If you can find historical evidence that states otherwise, I'll certainly investigate it.

But help me better understand your position here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If I might, I would suggest you consider some of the exchanges between C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. They explored faith from the Protestant/Roman Catholic perspectives while maintaining courtesy and intellectual honesty which we could all do to see more of today.

---

If familiar with their exchanges. Many theologians believe that C.S. Lewis would have converted to Catholicism, if he had lived long enough, but that's not the point.

I, too, hope that we can have civil exchanges.

---

Sorry but no, as historian demonstrated, Peter was one of a number of early Church leaders.

And no, there is absolutely no evidence Peter led the Church in Rome during his lifetime, especially since we know that congregation was founded by Paul. I am more than a little sure that if Paul had handed over leadership of the Rome congregation to Peter, he would have mentioned it in the book of Romans.

---

Quite frankly biblically, the 12 disciples are not part of the church. They we're ministers to the 12 tribes of israel. So it really doesn't make sense that Peter would be the head of the church. If anyone would be the head of the church it would be Paul. Peter was the head of the Disciples for a time. But if you notice later on it's not Peter anymore it's James I think. The point is that I tend to agree with you that it really isn't any evidence showing that Peter was the first pope or head of the church other than the word of the Catholic Church which I don't believe was even established until Constantine.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The year is 2026. Non-Roman Catholic scholars have been on the scene for centuries, yet you seem to imagine that the oldest claim is de facto accurate simply because it's the oldest.

Your logic simply says Roman Catholics create credibility for a Roman Catholic claim. How would you win over an agnostic or atheist, or simply a Christian seeking clarification on doctrine? I showed you how the Muslims and Mormons have scholars every bit as eminent in their domain as your sources in yours, but you seem to imagine that arguing in circles is a compelling method.

---

I'm struggling to expand this so that you can understand it.

You claim that these (Catholic) men are created credibility for the Catholic claim. Fair enough, but when these men wrote, there were ONLY Catholic men (and women). The were reporting HISTORY.

ALL of the early Church fathers agree that Peter was the bishop of Rome and the leader of the Church. That is an historical fact.

If a Muslim (in 850 AD) or LDS (in 1895) gave their opine about a specific verse in their books, we should take this as their early belief. If we see a significant change in that belief over time, then we should call that out.

I see no change in what was believed by all.

As I mentioned, I realize that this angers you, but it is historic fact that Peter was the leader of the early Church. It has been believed since the beginning of the Church. If you can find historical evidence that states otherwise, I'll certainly investigate it.

But help me better understand your position here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If I might, I would suggest you consider some of the exchanges between C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. They explored faith from the Protestant/Roman Catholic perspectives while maintaining courtesy and intellectual honesty which we could all do to see more of today.

---

If familiar with their exchanges. Many theologians believe that C.S. Lewis would have converted to Catholicism, if he had lived long enough, but that's not the point.

I, too, hope that we can have civil exchanges.

---

Sorry but no, as historian demonstrated, Peter was one of a number of early Church leaders.

And no, there is absolutely no evidence Peter led the Church in Rome during his lifetime, especially since we know that congregation was founded by Paul. I am more than a little sure that if Paul had handed over leadership of the Rome congregation to Peter, he would have mentioned it in the book of Romans.

---

Quite frankly biblically, the 12 disciples are not part of the church. They we're ministers to the 12 tribes of israel. So it really doesn't make sense that Peter would be the head of the church. If anyone would be the head of the church it would be Paul. Peter was the head of the Disciples for a time. But if you notice later on it's not Peter anymore it's James I think. The point is that I tend to agree with you that it really isn't any evidence showing that Peter was the first pope or head of the church other than the word of the Catholic Church which I don't believe was even established until Constantine.

---

That's one of the most bizarre things I've ever read.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Finally, there is a huge difference between asking someone you know and can physically ask to pray for you, from hoping that a dead person you never met will do so.

---

"whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
- Jesus
John 11:26

Simple statement, simple question. Why do some people insist on calling those whose physical bodies have fallen asleep in Christ, "dead"?

Oldbear, that difference you identify is only a difference in the mind of a secular materialist. It is not so in the teaching of Christ.

---

Really, Realitybites?

OK, first off, my post was in regards to people praying to people who have passed on, yet you decided to change the point.

Ironically, you also continued the cherry-picking I pointed out. The verse you quoted was about the soul, if you bother to check the context.

We know this because of how Scripture has referred to the non-breathing. And also important, how we do not hear from those who died.

Jesus had great respect for John the Baptist, yet there is no scene reported where John speaks with Christ after his execution.

Paul certainly repented of his part in the death of Stephen, but again there is no passage where we hear of Paul speaking with Stephen to express his regrets.

There is a true barrier between our world and the afterlife, and word games will not change that in the least.

Certainly we believe in the promised Resurrection, but that is a very different thing from pretending you can (much less should) try to converse with someone after they have passed on (do I really need to remind you of what happened when Saul wanted to speak with the deceased prophet Samuel?)

You actually mentioned the phrase 'asleep in Christ', yet you still pretend it's appropriate to try communing with them to get what you want.

Stop for a moment and think about what you are doing. When we ask someone in our congregation to pray for us, we are not only speaking to a person we can see and actually speak with (this is not possible with the dead, even as they sleep in Christ), we know with whom we are speaking, and we are not tricked into trusting
a stranger.

But when someone wants us to address our thoughts and words to someone we have never personally met, whose image and voice we do not even know, simply in the desire that they will intercede for us in place of our Lord who already assured us He would do so, and also sent the Paraclete to provide help and support for us from the Father.

At best this is human arrogance, trying to replace God's promise to us with a human hack. At worst it is far more dangerous.

What does Reformation day mean to you?

Have a GREAT Sunday.

Sam Lowry said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The year is 2026. Non-Roman Catholic scholars have been on the scene for centuries, yet you seem to imagine that the oldest claim is de facto accurate simply because it's the oldest.

Your logic simply says Roman Catholics create credibility for a Roman Catholic claim. How would you win over an agnostic or atheist, or simply a Christian seeking clarification on doctrine? I showed you how the Muslims and Mormons have scholars every bit as eminent in their domain as your sources in yours, but you seem to imagine that arguing in circles is a compelling method.

---

I'm struggling to expand this so that you can understand it.

You claim that these (Catholic) men are created credibility for the Catholic claim. Fair enough, but when these men wrote, there were ONLY Catholic men (and women). The were reporting HISTORY.

ALL of the early Church fathers agree that Peter was the bishop of Rome and the leader of the Church. That is an historical fact.

If a Muslim (in 850 AD) or LDS (in 1895) gave their opine about a specific verse in their books, we should take this as their early belief. If we see a significant change in that belief over time, then we should call that out.

I see no change in what was believed by all.

As I mentioned, I realize that this angers you, but it is historic fact that Peter was the leader of the early Church. It has been believed since the beginning of the Church. If you can find historical evidence that states otherwise, I'll certainly investigate it.

But help me better understand your position here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If I might, I would suggest you consider some of the exchanges between C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton. They explored faith from the Protestant/Roman Catholic perspectives while maintaining courtesy and intellectual honesty which we could all do to see more of today.

---

If familiar with their exchanges. Many theologians believe that C.S. Lewis would have converted to Catholicism, if he had lived long enough, but that's not the point.

I, too, hope that we can have civil exchanges.

---

Sorry but no, as historian demonstrated, Peter was one of a number of early Church leaders.

And no, there is absolutely no evidence Peter led the Church in Rome during his lifetime, especially since we know that congregation was founded by Paul. I am more than a little sure that if Paul had handed over leadership of the Rome congregation to Peter, he would have mentioned it in the book of Romans.

---

Quite frankly biblically, the 12 disciples are not part of the church. They we're ministers to the 12 tribes of israel. So it really doesn't make sense that Peter would be the head of the church. If anyone would be the head of the church it would be Paul. Peter was the head of the Disciples for a time. But if you notice later on it's not Peter anymore it's James I think. The point is that I tend to agree with you that it really isn't any evidence showing that Peter was the first pope or head of the church other than the word of the Catholic Church which I don't believe was even established until Constantine.

---

That's one of the most bizarre things I've ever read.

---

It's because you don't know dispensational theology.

A PRAYER OF SALVATION:

If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christians Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:

https://www.lesfeldick.org/

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hello again, Coke Bear, and thank you for your response. Because of its length, I think I should respond by section:

Coke Bear: "It doesn't anger me at all. I think it is a misunderstanding of scripture. Protestants do the same thing, to an even greater extent. They've created the 5 solas out of different verses in different books. What's worse about that, is that they've taken many of them out of context."

I found your response strange here. I pointed out that you have been applying individual, cherry-picked verses, out of context, in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture. I mentioned as well that this behavior is common among all groups making arguments for extra-Scriptural claims, yet you simply returned to attacking Protestants for the same behavior I just called you on. You even mentioned the same context I bought up, ignoring that I noted the need to study Scripture holistically in the very post you answered.

How very odd.

---

I don't believe anything that I stated there was an attack. I merely pointed out that the 5 solas are also "cherry-picking," if you want to call it that.

I'm lost now as to what you are claiming that Catholic 'Cherry-pick' "in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture."

Is it that Peter was the leader of the early Church?

Let's get specific so that we can discuss one item at a time.

---

OK, so try number 3.

You (and some others) have been posting single verses in defense of your opinion. The problem there is that a verse without context can be, and sometimes is, misunderstood. This is why it matters to use the whole of a chapter at least, to show how and why the verse was applied.

Taking one verse and ignoring the rest of the chapter, especially if that chapter does not say what you claim in that cut-out verse, is cherry-picking on its face.

Do you follow now?

---

Politely, please cite the specific verse taken out of context and how the rest of the chapter is ignored.

Would you agree that some protestants have attempted to do the very same thing with single verses like Romans 3:28 to make up Sola Fide, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to make up Sola Scriptura, and John 10:28 to make up OSAS?

It appears that they are taking one verse from a chapter and forming a new theology when several other verses appear contradictory to them.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sorry but no, as historian demonstrated, Peter was one of a number of early Church leaders.

---

Most, if not all apostles were leaders in the early church, but Peter was the preeminent leader.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And no, there is absolutely no evidence Peter led the Church in Rome during his lifetime, especially since we know that congregation was founded by Paul. I am more than a little sure that if Paul had handed over leadership of the Rome congregation to Peter, he would have mentioned it in the book of Romans.

---

I feel quite certain that shown how Peter in 1 Pet 5:13 writes,

"She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings"

Babylon was code for Rome. He is stating that 'She' the Church send her greetings.

1 Clement mentions the martyrdom of Peter and Paul as examples from "among us" (to the Roman Christian community).

Ignatius of Antioch - In his Letter to the Romans, Ignatius writes: "I do not command you as Peter and Paul did," indicating a known tradition that Peter held direct supervisory authority over Rome.

Irenaeus of Lyons - In Against Heresies (3.3.2), Irenaeus directly describes the Roman Church as "founded and organized by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul".

Tertullian records that Peter was crucified in Rome under Nero in the same manner as Christ.

W. D. Davies & W. F. Albright (Protestant NT Scholars, Anchor Bible Commentary): They famously acknowledged that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus makes Peter himself the "rock" upon which the church is built, noting: "The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts."

R. T. France (Evangelical Anglican Theologian & Broadman/Tyndale Scholar): "Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name... it describes his function as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church... The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community."

F. F. Bruce (Evangelical Scholar): Bruce acknowledged Peter as the "chief apostle" and the primary leader during the Church's initial formation as documented in Acts 112.

I could like more, but I honestly ask you, what more evidence would it take for you to believe that Peter was in Rome and the leader of the early church?

What is lacking in any of the evidence that I have present between the biblical, historical, and even protestant views?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hello again, Coke Bear, and thank you for your response. Because of its length, I think I should respond by section:

Coke Bear: "It doesn't anger me at all. I think it is a misunderstanding of scripture. Protestants do the same thing, to an even greater extent. They've created the 5 solas out of different verses in different books. What's worse about that, is that they've taken many of them out of context."

I found your response strange here. I pointed out that you have been applying individual, cherry-picked verses, out of context, in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture. I mentioned as well that this behavior is common among all groups making arguments for extra-Scriptural claims, yet you simply returned to attacking Protestants for the same behavior I just called you on. You even mentioned the same context I bought up, ignoring that I noted the need to study Scripture holistically in the very post you answered.

How very odd.

---

I don't believe anything that I stated there was an attack. I merely pointed out that the 5 solas are also "cherry-picking," if you want to call it that.

I'm lost now as to what you are claiming that Catholic 'Cherry-pick' "in order to fabricate a claim which is not actually there in Scripture."

Is it that Peter was the leader of the early Church?

Let's get specific so that we can discuss one item at a time.

---

OK, so try number 3.

You (and some others) have been posting single verses in defense of your opinion. The problem there is that a verse without context can be, and sometimes is, misunderstood. This is why it matters to use the whole of a chapter at least, to show how and why the verse was applied.

Taking one verse and ignoring the rest of the chapter, especially if that chapter does not say what you claim in that cut-out verse, is cherry-picking on its face.

Do you follow now?

---

Politely, please cite the specific verse taken out of context and how the rest of the chapter is ignored.

Would you agree that some protestants have attempted to do the very same thing with single verses like Romans 3:28 to make up Sola Fide, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to make up Sola Scriptura, and John 10:28 to make up OSAS?

It appears that they are taking one verse from a chapter and forming a new theology when several other verses appear contradictory to them.

---

Your second and third paragraph explain the problem. Taking one single verse and building everything on it is dangerous, and ignoring the context is simply wrong.

But you are correct, human pride has led man after man to think his opinion is as valid as Scripture, and there lies disaster.

" Peter was the preeminent leader."

You are welcome to that opinion. Please respect others who note that Scripture never says that.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now as to the point of praying to Mary. You are being dishonest to change my words, as I was clear the issue was not the statue of Mary but praying to Mary. I understand you see no wrong in this, but to Protestants this is seriously wrong, especially when done in a church.

I differ from BTD in calling it heresy, but please understand that Protestants consider the behavior deeply wrong.

Finally, there is a huge difference between asking someone you know and can physically ask to pray for you, from hoping that a dead person you never met will do so.

---

You have called the Saints a dead person that we'll never meet. Would you pray for someone you never met? What about praying for President Trump (assuming your haven't met him.) Would you pray for the family of the people on board the Lear Jet that crashed in Florida? Pray for an injured athlete or someone on the news? God doesn't limit our prayers to those to whom we've met.

As a matter fact, with God being outside of time, it is possible for us to pray for people in the past or even the future we may never meet. We can pray for those souls at Auschwitz. My wife never met her maternal grandparents. They died when before my mother-in-law graduated high school. It's possible that my wife's grandmother could have prayed for her daughter's spouse and any children as she was dying.

As demonstrated, knowing the person in time or place doesn't matter.

But the heart of your concern is whether a person in heaven can pray for us.

The bible NEVER says that we should NOT ask the for the intercession of those in heaven. So right there, we cannot argue that is AGAINST the word of God.

Can they hear our prayers? Are they aware of what's happening on earth?
Revelation 5:8 "...the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God's people."
Revelation 8:3-4 "Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God's people... The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God's people, went up before God from the angel's hand."
The saints are taking our prayers to God. The saints and angels are pure spirits. What ever they are doing is done mentally.

Hebrews 12:1 "Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders..."
Luke 15:7 "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."
In both these passages, the saints are aware of what they see on earth.

Are the saints alive or dead in heaven?
Matthew 22:31-32 (also Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38 - He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
The three synoptic Gospels all agree that the saints are alive in heaven. Unless one professes soul sleep, then every Christian should believe that those in heaven are MORE alive in Christ than those on earth.

As I mentioned in James 5:16, we are commanded to pray for one another.
Ephesians 6:18 - And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people."

With evidence showing that God wants us to pray for one another and that those in heaven know what's happening on earth AND they can know our prayers and deliver them to God; coupled with the fact that NO express condemnation of asking the saints to pray for us, it can be discerned that asking the saints to pray for us is at least morally neutral, if not outright acceptable and commendable.

Let's look historically -

We find inscriptions on the walls of the catacombs from the mid 3rd century asking, "Peter and Paul, pray for Victor" or "Paul and Peter, petition on behalf of us." From the same time period, we find funerary Inscriptions asking the dead to pray for living family members.

The earliest Marian prayer, Sub Tuum Praesidium, is also written around AD 250, asking for her prayer.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem & St. Gregory of Nazianzus in the 4th century asked for intercession of saints in the Liturgy of the Mass.

These practices all predate Protestantism by more that 1200 years. It was protestants that changed. Not the Church.

Finally, I mentioned the 1000's of healings that have happened with the intercession of a saint. Why would God choose to heal 1000's of people thru intercession if it was a bad thing and something we shouldn't do?

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Peter was the preeminent leader."

You are welcome to that opinion. Please respect others who note that Scripture never says that.

---

Fair enough. Please respect that I, nor the Catholic Church, note that sola Scriptura is unbiblical and it never says that as well.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Peter was the preeminent leader."

You are welcome to that opinion. Please respect others who note that Scripture never says that.

---

Fair enough. Please respect that I, nor the Catholic Church, note that sola Scriptura is unbiblical and it never says that as well.

---

I admit I will never understand counting human opinion as equal to Scripture in veracity.

When you pray to someone you never met, how exactly do you confirm you are speaking to the person you mean, and not someone else?

Pray for America. Bad things coming.

Oldbear83 said:

---

When you pray to someone you never met, how exactly do you confirm you are speaking to the person you mean, and not someone else?

---

God knows who we mean.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Peter was the preeminent leader."

You are welcome to that opinion. Please respect others who note that Scripture never says that.

---

Fair enough. Please respect that I, nor the Catholic Church, note that sola Scriptura is unbiblical and it never says that as well.

---

I admit I will never understand counting human opinion as equal to Scripture in veracity.

---

Let's discuss specifics here. How do you (or anyone) determine what scripture means? Isn't your view (or anyone's view) of scripture a human opinion?

Maybe, I'm misunderstanding your point here. To me, it seems like you are stating that the Catholic viewpoint is human opinion, but everyone else's viewpoint is scripture.

Please help me better understand your point.

Oldbear83 said:

---

When you pray to someone you never met, how exactly do you confirm you are speaking to the person you mean, and not someone else?

---

I truly want to understand this point as well, so that we're not talking past each other.

Are you asking how when a person prays (asks) a saint in heaven to pray for us, how do we know that we are talking to that specific saint?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Peter was the preeminent leader."

You are welcome to that opinion. Please respect others who note that Scripture never says that.

---

Fair enough. Please respect that I, nor the Catholic Church, note that sola Scriptura is unbiblical and it never says that as well.

---

I admit I will never understand counting human opinion as equal to Scripture in veracity.

---

Let's discuss specifics here. How do you (or anyone) determine what scripture means? Isn't your view (or anyone's view) of scripture a human opinion?

Maybe, I'm misunderstanding your point here. To me, it seems like you are stating that the Catholic viewpoint is human opinion, but everyone else's viewpoint is scripture.

Please help me better understand your point.

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Some protestants believe this literally means baptismal regeneration. Some don't. Both sides claim that they are using the Holy Spirit.

Are we to take the literal meaning here? Who gets to make that decision?

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

When you pray to someone you never met, how exactly do you confirm you are speaking to the person you mean, and not someone else?

---

I truly want to understand this point as well, so that we're not talking past each other.

Are you asking how when a person prays (asks) a saint in heaven to pray for us, how do we know that we are talking to that specific saint?

---

That's a question for you. I do not pray to people.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

Some protestants believe this literally means baptismal regeneration. Some don't. Both sides claim that they are using the Holy Spirit.

Are we to take the literal meaning here? Who gets to make that decision?

---

Let's take that verse you just quoted from.Peter to Jews who still kept then Law, but accepted their Messiah. That was part of the Kingdom Gospel given to Israel, not the Church. PAUL is the Minister of Grace to the Church, NOT Peter. That is wht Paul Says this:

"[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV

It is the GOSPEL that saves, NOT water Baptism:

"[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. "
Romans 1:16 KJV

Paul makes a CLEAR distinction between the Gospel (Pf Grace) that saves and Baptism. Under the Kingdom Gospel to Israel, Baptism is a work to those who serve under the Law of Works.

Here is what Paul says to the Church under Grace:

"[9] that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. "
Romans 10:9-10, 13 KJV


No mention of Baptism.

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. "

---

How can water baptism save you, if according to the RC literal interpretation of John 6 a person's salvation is fully contingent upon whether they literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist, NOT upon water baptism? If water baptism saves you, then Jesus wasn't being literal in John 6. If Jesus was being literal, then water baptism is not what saves you, eating his flesh is what does. You can't believe both.

No Roman Catholic has ever been able to resolve this fatal contradiction (not cogently or rationally, that is). So why do you guys keep repeating this argument?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

When you pray to someone you never met, how exactly do you confirm you are speaking to the person you mean, and not someone else?

---

I truly want to understand this point as well, so that we're not talking past each other.

Are you asking how when a person prays (asks) a saint in heaven to pray for us, how do we know that we are talking to that specific saint?

---

That's a question for you. I do not pray to people.

---

You don't ask people to pray for you?

I was asking a sincere question to try to better understand your post and I was met with a non-answer.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

When you pray to someone you never met, how exactly do you confirm you are speaking to the person you mean, and not someone else?

---

I truly want to understand this point as well, so that we're not talking past each other.

Are you asking how when a person prays (asks) a saint in heaven to pray for us, how do we know that we are talking to that specific saint?

---

That's a question for you. I do not pray to people.

---

You don't ask people to pray for you?

I was asking a sincere question to try to better understand your post and I was met with a non-answer.

---

You don't understand the difference between asking someone you know to pray for you, and praying to someone?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. "

---

How can water baptism save you, if according to the RC literal interpretation of John 6 a person's salvation is fully contingent upon whether they literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist, NOT upon water baptism? If water baptism saves you, then Jesus wasn't being literal in John 6. If Jesus was being literal, then water baptism is not what saves you, eating his flesh is what does. You can't believe both.

No Roman Catholic has ever been able to resolve this fatal contradiction (not cogently or rationally, that is). So why do you guys keep repeating this argument?

---

I JUST answered this question in the post just above this one. Jesus answered the question Himself

It was a SPIRITUAL event. All you have to do is read the very next verse and let Scripture interpret it's self.

"[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "
John 6:63

Water Baptism doesn't save thoae under grace. That's us. It is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel.

"[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
Matthew 24:14 KJV

Gospel.(Good News) of the Kingdom) , NOT the Gospel of Grace:

"[24] But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. "
Acts 20:24

DIFFERENT MESSAGE to a DIFFERENT audience.

The Jews were under the law which was a works based system. Water Baptism is part of their Works based
system.

Under Grace, The Holy Spirit Baptizes the believer into Salvation:

"[13] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. "
1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV

"I was asking a sincere question to try to better understand your post and I was met with a non-answer."

You are dishonest in that post.

First, in no way could a reasonable person take my reply as a "non-answer". I have seen people try that tactic, when they want to coerce someone to say what they want, or only speak as they want them to.

I do not respond well to such tactics, sir.

Second, on this board there is an unfortunate pattern of conflict between people of goodwill who also unfortunately can be very stubborn on opinions. I appreciate the members here who try to build bridges more than those who mostly try to win arguments.

I think all Christians can agree that Christ is not a fan of 'gotcha' questions or traps.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

We have to interpret Scripture Literally unless directed otherwise. We have to compare Scripture with Scripture.


"[20] knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. [21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV

We need the Holy Spirit to help us:

"[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. "
1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV

---

Isn't that human interpretation? The Bible was written in three languages. Word choices by translators have different meanings. People have to choose which translations they prefer to read.

1 Peter 3:21 -

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. "

---

How can water baptism save you, if according to the RC literal interpretation of John 6 a person's salvation is fully contingent upon whether they literally eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in the Eucharist, NOT upon water baptism? If water baptism saves you, then Jesus wasn't being literal in John 6. If Jesus was being literal, then water baptism is not what saves you, eating his flesh is what does. You can't believe both.

No Roman Catholic has ever been able to resolve this fatal contradiction (not cogently or rationally, that is). So why do you guys keep repeating this argument?

---

I JUST answered this question in the post just above this one. Jesus answered the question Himself

It was a SPIRITUAL event. All you have to do is read the very next verse and let Scripture interpret it's self.

"[63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. "
John 6:63

Water Baptism doesn't save thoae under grace. That's us. It is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom to Israel.

"[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."
Matthew 24:14 KJV

Gospel.(Good News) of the Kingdom) , NOT the Gospel of Grace:

"[24] But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. "
Acts 20:24

DIFFERENT MESSAGE to a DIFFERENT audience.

The Jews were under the law which was a works based system. Water Baptism is part of their Works based
system.

Under Grace, The Holy Spirit Baptizes the believer into Salvation:

"[13] For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. "
1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV

---

I don't think you understood my post. The comment was directed to Roman Catholics who based on their interpretation of Scripture, simultaneously hold that water baptism saves, AND that it's the Eucharist that saves. Both can't be true. Therefore, their interpretation of at least one of those verses can't be correct.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Let's take that verse you just quoted from.Peter to Jews who still kept then Law, but accepted their Messiah. That was part of the Kingdom Gospel given to Israel, not the Church. PAUL is the Minister of Grace to the Church, NOT Peter. That is wht Paul Says this:

---

This is one of the dangerous, completely false, and man-made beliefs of Hyper-Dispensationalism that were made up about 200 years ago.

Peter preached to the Gentiles in Acts 10:34-43 when he arrives at Cornelius's house. He goes to Rome and in ultimately martyred there.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

"[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV

---

This is a complete misunderstanding of what Paul is doing here.

I hope that Oldbear83 is reading this now. Here is an example we hopefully can both agree with an individual taking ONE verse from scripture and taking it out of context.

Frodo please read the preceding 7 verses of 1 Corinthians 1-

Quote:

---

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospelnot with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

---

Paul does not want division between the early Christians and they shouldn't be bragging about who baptized them. He is NOT arguing that he wasn't going to baptize. He states in the verses IMMEDIATELY before these that he DID baptize.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

It is the GOSPEL that saves, NOT water Baptism:

---

You stated earlier to take the scripture LITERALLY. I am. Many other protestants do here as well. They also take Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, John 3:5, and Romans 6:3-4 literally too.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

"[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. "
Romans 1:16 KJV

Paul makes a CLEAR distinction between the Gospel (Pf Grace) that saves and Baptism. Under the Kingdom Gospel to Israel, Baptism is a work to those who serve under the Law of Works.

Here is what Paul says to the Church under Grace:

"[9] that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. "
Romans 10:9-10, 13 KJV


No mention of Baptism.

---

Those verses aren't exclusionary of baptism, repentance, love of neighbor, etc. You are once again reading a scripture verse and trying to create an entire theology around it. As Oldbear83 said, we have to look at the whole of scripture.

Finally, you failed to answer:

Are we to take the literal meaning here (in 1 Pet 3:21)? Who gets to make that decision?

A historically accurate summary of the Protestant Reformation in the form of an internet group chat.

Brilliant piece of Youtube production.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You don't understand the difference between asking someone you know to pray for you, and praying to someone?

---

No, I guess I don't.

What do you think pray to means?

Realitybites said:

---

A historically accurate summary of the Protestant Reformation in the form of an internet group chat.

Brilliant piece of Youtube production.

---

I would click on that garbage if you paid me.

The first screen is HORRIBLELY inaccurate and a complete lie. No pope has EVERY demanded payment or being sent to hell.

Try to find a source a little less biased.

Better yet, summarize what said. Prove that you can adequately explain the so-called Reformation.