whiterock said:
Whatever else can be said, Leo is an improvement over Francis.
Time will tell. This is my prayer. Don't forget 90% of the voting cardinals were installed by Francis
first American pope
67,605 Views |
965 Replies |
Last: 2 mo ago by Assassin
Time will tell. This is my prayer. Don't forget 90% of the voting cardinals were installed by Francis
ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:So, in other words it's NOT something that Catholics believe.ShooterTX said:It's right next to the part in the Catechism which describes the Pope mobile and the funny looking hat that the Pope wears. You might find it next to the part in the Catechism were Mary is stated to be the "Queen of Heaven"... and yet catholics around the globe are very familiar with that as one of her titles.Coke Bear said:Please cite from the Catechism where Catholics believe that the pope "speaks on behalf of God."ShooterTX said:
So they basically admit that the selection of a Pope is purely political... but the Catholics still believe that this guy speaks on behalf of God??
That is not just pure blasphemy, but outside of Biblical truth and Christian beliefs, it's just logically foolish. How can anyone believe that someone who get elected because of a corrupt political system, is also going to be the highest voice of morality or theology?? Ridiculous!
The reality is that you can fill St. Peter's with all of the Catholic teachings, practices & traditions which are not found in the official Catechism.
If you want to know why Catholics around the globe believe that the Pope speaks on behalf of God, you can simply read about the Vatican I Council and Pope Pius IX.
The reality is that the Pope is just a man. He is no better or worse than any other man on the planet. He may claim to be the leader of the Universal Church... but that just makes him a blasphemer. Jesus Christ is the leader of the Universal Church... not some guy from Chicago!
Likewise, he may claim to be the "Vicar of Christ" but he certainly is not! Christ does not need a human "vicar". We have the Holy Spirit... we do not need a guy in a funny hat to claim that role.
You mention Vatican I, I can only assume (because you're not being specific) that you referring to papal infallibility.
It doesn't mean that they are speaking for God. It means, the Pope exercises infallibility only when he speaks ex cathedra, meaning he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held up by the whole Church. The Holy Spirit protects him error, as promised by Jesus in Matthew 16:18.
It has only been officially used twice in the history of the Church.
With respect to your other "issues", I am happy to discuss them one at a time in any in this thread or by PM. If you're ever in Waco, I'm happy to meet at George's to discuss any of your issues with the Church. Beers will be my treat.
As vulnerable Bishop Fulton J Sheen said, "There are no more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
Edit: in case you are unfamiliar with the Queen of Heaven prayer, I'll copy & paste it for you.
V. Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia.
R. For He whom you did merit to bear, alleluia.
V. Has risen, as he said, alleluia.
R. Pray for us to God, alleluia.
V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.
R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.
Let us pray. O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may obtain the joys of everlasting life. Through the same Christ our Lord.
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
1 Timothy 2:5-6
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
1 John 2:1-2
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
You misunderstand the words written About Jesus as intercesor. Dig into the Greek a little and it will be a revelation for you. Won't change your opinion of course but based on your post it is clear you don't understand the word used in the original text.
Same is made clear in your command to " Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman". I've given you the hint if you choose to seek the knowledge.
Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:It's right next to the part in the Catechism which describes the Pope mobile and the funny looking hat that the Po.....or the sins of the whole world.Coke Bear said:Please cite from the Catechism where Catholics believe that the pope "speaks on behalf of God."ShooterTX said:
So they basically admit that the selection of a Pope is purely political... but the Catholics still believe that this guy speaks on behalf of God??
That is not just pure blasphemy, but outside of Biblical truth and Christian beliefs, it's just logically foolish. How can anyone believe that someone who get elected because of a corrupt political system, is also going to be the highest voice of morality or theology?? Ridiculous!
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
You misunderstand the words written About Jesus as intercesor. Dig into the Greek a little and it will be a revelation for you. Won't change your opinion of course but based on your post it is clear you don't understand the word used in the original text.
Same is made clear in your command to " Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman". I've given you the hint if you choose to seek the knowledge.
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Pope Leo XIV, a scholar of mathematics, is going to publish an encyclical on AI and the Catholic Church is going to leapfrog billions of investment into “AI safety” research non-profits and become one of the authoritative voices on dealing with the results of AGI and the global… https://t.co/RM2HybgRgp
— will o’brien (@willobri) May 10, 2025
Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:So, in other words it's NOT something that Catholics believe.ShooterTX said:It's right next to the part in the Catechism which describes the Pope mobile and the funny looking hat that the Pope wears. You might find it next to the part in the Catechism were Mary is stated to be the "Queen of Heaven"... and yet catholics around the globe are very familiar with that as one of her titles.Coke Bear said:Please cite from the Catechism where Catholics believe that the pope "speaks on behalf of God."ShooterTX said:
So they basically admit that the selection of a Pope is purely political... but the Catholics still believe that this guy speaks on behalf of God??
That is not just pure blasphemy, but outside of Biblical truth and Christian beliefs, it's just logically foolish. How can anyone believe that someone who get elected because of a corrupt political system, is also going to be the highest voice of morality or theology?? Ridiculous!
The reality is that you can fill St. Peter's with all of the Catholic teachings, practices & traditions which are not found in the official Catechism.
If you want to know why Catholics around the globe believe that the Pope speaks on behalf of God, you can simply read about the Vatican I Council and Pope Pius IX.
The reality is that the Pope is just a man. He is no better or worse than any other man on the planet. He may claim to be the leader of the Universal Church... but that just makes him a blasphemer. Jesus Christ is the leader of the Universal Church... not some guy from Chicago!
Likewise, he may claim to be the "Vicar of Christ" but he certainly is not! Christ does not need a human "vicar". We have the Holy Spirit... we do not need a guy in a funny hat to claim that role.
You mention Vatican I, I can only assume (because you're not being specific) that you referring to papal infallibility.
It doesn't mean that they are speaking for God. It means, the Pope exercises infallibility only when he speaks ex cathedra, meaning he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held up by the whole Church. The Holy Spirit protects him error, as promised by Jesus in Matthew 16:18.
It has only been officially used twice in the history of the Church.
With respect to your other "issues", I am happy to discuss them one at a time in any in this thread or by PM. If you're ever in Waco, I'm happy to meet at George's to discuss any of your issues with the Church. Beers will be my treat.
As vulnerable Bishop Fulton J Sheen said, "There are no more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
Edit: in case you are unfamiliar with the Queen of Heaven prayer, I'll copy & paste it for you.
V. Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia.
R. For He whom you did merit to bear, alleluia.
V. Has risen, as he said, alleluia.
R. Pray for us to God, alleluia.
V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.
R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.
Let us pray. O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may obtain the joys of everlasting life. Through the same Christ our Lord.
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
1 Timothy 2:5-6
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
1 John 2:1-2
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
You misunderstand the words written About Jesus as intercesor. Dig into the Greek a little and it will be a revelation for you. Won't change your opinion of course but based on your post it is clear you don't understand the word used in the original text.
Same is made clear in your command to " Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman". I've given you the hint if you choose to seek the knowledge.
I have study the Greek thoroughly and understand the word used in the original text.
There is no Biblical justification for proclaim Mary to be the Queen of Heaven, or to ask her to intercede on our behalf. Prove me wrong... I welcome it.
It is not a "command" but an invitation for you or anyone else to show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman.
The invitation remains open.
I would further ask that you show any evidence in the Word of God, that Mary was born without sin and lived a sinless life. How is that possible, when Romans 3:10 makes it clear that it's impossible. You should also know that Romans 3:10 is referring to the book of Psalms, so this isn't just a new idea that was created by Paul. It is a Biblical truth from the time of David, and reaffirmed during the life of Mary. It is not Biblically possible for Mary to have been born without sin, or to have lived a perfectly sinless life... and yet if you do not believe this, the Roman Catholic church declares you to be damned to hell.
I suppose you believe that when the book of Hebrews was written, the Holy Spirit just forgot to include Mary in there?
24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
(no mention of Mary as our intercessor here)
26 Such a high priest truly meets our needone who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. (no mention of the perfect & sinless Queen of Heaven here either) 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day (better not tell the author of Hebrews about the Catholic Eucharist), first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. - Hebrews 7:24-28
You first. Tell us where it says Mary cannot intercede to Jesus on our behalf
I'll be waiting.
Imagine disparaging the mother of God and making her to be just another woman. Will it prevent your salvation? Unlikely but such an odd thing for a Catholic splinter group to be constantly worked up about
I'll be waiting.
Imagine disparaging the mother of God and making her to be just another woman. Will it prevent your salvation? Unlikely but such an odd thing for a Catholic splinter group to be constantly worked up about
Obviously, there is difference between the Protestant and Catholic Church. Catholic believe in Church tradition and scripture. Protestants go by the Bible, which they believe is infallible, although it was written by men. We all make leaps of faith. Catholics in Church tradition and Protestants that the Bible is the infallible work of God.ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:So, in other words it's NOT something that Catholics believe.ShooterTX said:It's right next to the part in the Catechism which describes the Pope mobile and the funny looking hat that the Pope wears. You might find it next to the part in the Catechism were Mary is stated to be the "Queen of Heaven"... and yet catholics around the globe are very familiar with that as one of her titles.Coke Bear said:Please cite from the Catechism where Catholics believe that the pope "speaks on behalf of God."ShooterTX said:
So they basically admit that the selection of a Pope is purely political... but the Catholics still believe that this guy speaks on behalf of God??
That is not just pure blasphemy, but outside of Biblical truth and Christian beliefs, it's just logically foolish. How can anyone believe that someone who get elected because of a corrupt political system, is also going to be the highest voice of morality or theology?? Ridiculous!
The reality is that you can fill St. Peter's with all of the Catholic teachings, practices & traditions which are not found in the official Catechism.
If you want to know why Catholics around the globe believe that the Pope speaks on behalf of God, you can simply read about the Vatican I Council and Pope Pius IX.
The reality is that the Pope is just a man. He is no better or worse than any other man on the planet. He may claim to be the leader of the Universal Church... but that just makes him a blasphemer. Jesus Christ is the leader of the Universal Church... not some guy from Chicago!
Likewise, he may claim to be the "Vicar of Christ" but he certainly is not! Christ does not need a human "vicar". We have the Holy Spirit... we do not need a guy in a funny hat to claim that role.
You mention Vatican I, I can only assume (because you're not being specific) that you referring to papal infallibility.
It doesn't mean that they are speaking for God. It means, the Pope exercises infallibility only when he speaks ex cathedra, meaning he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held up by the whole Church. The Holy Spirit protects him error, as promised by Jesus in Matthew 16:18.
It has only been officially used twice in the history of the Church.
With respect to your other "issues", I am happy to discuss them one at a time in any in this thread or by PM. If you're ever in Waco, I'm happy to meet at George's to discuss any of your issues with the Church. Beers will be my treat.
As vulnerable Bishop Fulton J Sheen said, "There are no more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
Edit: in case you are unfamiliar with the Queen of Heaven prayer, I'll copy & paste it for you.
V. Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia.
R. For He whom you did merit to bear, alleluia.
V. Has risen, as he said, alleluia.
R. Pray for us to God, alleluia.
V. Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.
R. For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.
Let us pray. O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may obtain the joys of everlasting life. Through the same Christ our Lord.
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
1 Timothy 2:5-6
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, [6] who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
1 John 2:1-2
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
You misunderstand the words written About Jesus as intercesor. Dig into the Greek a little and it will be a revelation for you. Won't change your opinion of course but based on your post it is clear you don't understand the word used in the original text.
Same is made clear in your command to " Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman". I've given you the hint if you choose to seek the knowledge.
I have study the Greek thoroughly and understand the word used in the original text.
There is no Biblical justification for proclaim Mary to be the Queen of Heaven, or to ask her to intercede on our behalf. Prove me wrong... I welcome it.
It is not a "command" but an invitation for you or anyone else to show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman.
The invitation remains open.
I would further ask that you show any evidence in the Word of God, that Mary was born without sin and lived a sinless life. How is that possible, when Romans 3:10 makes it clear that it's impossible. You should also know that Romans 3:10 is referring to the book of Psalms, so this isn't just a new idea that was created by Paul. It is a Biblical truth from the time of David, and reaffirmed during the life of Mary. It is not Biblically possible for Mary to have been born without sin, or to have lived a perfectly sinless life... and yet if you do not believe this, the Roman Catholic church declares you to be damned to hell.
I suppose you believe that when the book of Hebrews was written, the Holy Spirit just forgot to include Mary in there?
24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
(no mention of Mary as our intercessor here)
26 Such a high priest truly meets our needone who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. (no mention of the perfect & sinless Queen of Heaven here either) 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day (better not tell the author of Hebrews about the Catholic Eucharist), first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. - Hebrews 7:24-28
We all choose our poison. Sorry, don't believe that Bible is more infallible than the Pope and the Church Tradition. Men made and make the decisions. Why are some books in and some out? The Vulgate is the earliest Bible closest to St Jerome, yet you go by the King James. So which Bible is more believable?
I already said I like Chicago Pope’s Florida brother, no need to sell me on him. https://t.co/myNDfiRB5G
— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) May 12, 2025
Well, actually I am a cradle Catholic of 55 years and VERY deep into my faith. I've been on a journey of learning for the last 15 years. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never heard of, nor recited the Queen of Heaven prayer. I'm VERY familiar with the Hail, Holy Queen prayer. I recite it every day. Irrespective, thank you for sharing the Queen of Heaven prayer. It's beautiful.ShooterTX said:
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?
Yes, the famous Romans 3:23, "all have fallen short of the glory of God…" passage. Since it says "all", does that mean that Jesus sinned? What about babies? Or those individuals with mental ******ation? Do they have sin? Romans 9:11 state that Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad,". They didn't have sin yet.ShooterTX said:
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
St Paul is referring to humanity needing salvation. The "ALL" wasn't necessarily ALL humans because we can list exceptions.
ShooterTX said:
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
Vicar "representative of Christ on Earth."
Pontiff means "bridge builder"
As mentioned in Matt 16:18, Christ built the Church upon Peter, the leader of the Church, who, after his death, was succeeding by another Bishop of Rome, hence apostolic succession.
Please show me where in the bible that only God should be called "Holy Father".ShooterTX said:
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
In Matt 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham father.
In Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul calls Abraham father of all of us.
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 St Paul says that he has "became your father through the gospel."
ShooterTX said:
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.
Why specifically is it heretical? The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when speaking ex cathedra. If the Church was to teach error, it would be in direct violation of Matthew 16:18 and Jesus would be a liar.ShooterTX said:
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?
Of course we Catholics read the bible. Do you realize that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world?ShooterTX said:
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.
Great challenge question. The "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 7/44 is a pagan goddess. By calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, are they referring to her as a goddess? No, we are not.ShooterTX said:
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
In the OT, who was the queen? She was the mother of the King. Who is the King of the World, Universe, and Heaven? Jesus. Who was Jesus' mother? Mary.
Can we find this anywhere in the Bible? Let's look at Rev 12:1:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. … And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,"
Who is the child who is to rule all the nations? Jesus
Who is the woman in heaven with a crown who was about to bear this child? Mary. She's wearing a crown and she's in heaven. She is the Queen of Heaven. This is biblical, not heretical.
Your paragraph as a few flaws.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
First, you have confused intercessor with mediator. If you pray for someone, you are an intercessor.
Second, as others have stated, please tell me where Mary cannot be an intercessor. James 5:16 tells us to "… pray for one another,".
Finally, you seemed to have fallen prey to the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
Why does it bother you, that Mary is revered by Catholics? Do you believe that Jesus gets jealous that we also love His mother?
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Conservative?
Liberal?
Liberal on mass migration and climate change. Conservative on female priests, and gay marriage although the RCC will continue to bless gay relationships under Frank's rules.
He was made a cardinal by Frank and a supermajority of the cardinals who chose him were installed by Frank. Sort of like the packing of the federal judiciary and flag officer ranks Obama did when he was in power.
My take is that the gay lobby in the Vatican realized they had outkicked their coverage and settled for a couple more decades of trying to undermine western civilization through mass migration and climate change before making the inevitable push for gay marriage in the RCC.
https://www.amazon.com/Closet-Vatican-Power-Homosexuality-Hypocrisy/dp/1472966147
Hope everyone had a great Easter.
Coke Bear said:Well, actually I am a cradle Catholic of 55 years and VERY deep into my faith. I've been on a journey of learning for the last 15 years. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never heard of, nor recited the Queen of Heaven prayer. I'm VERY familiar with the Hail, Holy Queen prayer. I recite it every day. Irrespective, thank you for sharing the Queen of Heaven prayer. It's beautiful.ShooterTX said:
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?Yes, the famous Romans 3:23, "all have fallen short of the glory of God…" passage. Since it says "all", does that mean that Jesus sinned? What about babies? Or those individuals with mental ******ation? Do they have sin? Romans 9:11 state that Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad,". They didn't have sin yet.ShooterTX said:
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
St Paul is referring to humanity needing salvation. The "ALL" wasn't necessarily ALL humans because we can list exceptions.ShooterTX said:
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
Vicar "representative of Christ on Earth."
Pontiff means "bridge builder"
As mentioned in Matt 16:18, Christ built the Church upon Peter, the leader of the Church, who, after his death, was succeeding by another Bishop of Rome, hence apostolic succession.Please show me where in the bible that only God should be called "Holy Father".ShooterTX said:
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
In Matt 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham father.
In Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul calls Abraham father of all of us.
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 St Paul says that he has "became your father through the gospel."ShooterTX said:
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.Why specifically is it heretical? The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when speaking ex cathedra. If the Church was to teach error, it would be in direct violation of Matthew 16:18 and Jesus would be a liar.ShooterTX said:
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?Of course we Catholics read the bible. Do you realize that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world?ShooterTX said:
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.Great challenge question. The "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 7/44 is a pagan goddess. By calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, are they referring to her as a goddess? No, we are not.ShooterTX said:
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
In the OT, who was the queen? She was the mother of the King. Who is the King of the World, Universe, and Heaven? Jesus. Who was Jesus' mother? Mary.
Can we find this anywhere in the Bible? Let's look at Rev 12:1:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. … And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,"
Who is the child who is to rule all the nations? Jesus
Who is the woman in heaven with a crown who was about to bear this child? Mary. She's wearing a crown and she's in heaven. She is the Queen of Heaven. This is biblical, not heretical.Your paragraph as a few flaws.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
First, you have confused intercessor with mediator. If you pray for someone, you are an intercessor.
Second, as others have stated, please tell me where Mary cannot be an intercessor. James 5:16 tells us to "… pray for one another,".Finally, you seemed to have fallen prey to the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
Why does it bother you, that Mary is revered by Catholics? Do you believe that Jesus gets jealous that we also love His mother?
Thanks for your responses.
I really appreciate that you are willing to admit to the catholic teachings including that Catholics do not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God.
I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I will be happy to do that in a few days. I have written followed by graduation duties today and tomorrow night.
I think the crux of the division can be found in that one belief... either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. Everything else pretty much flows from that basic point.
I'm not sure where I stated that, "Catholics do not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God."ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Well, actually I am a cradle Catholic of 55 years and VERY deep into my faith. I've been on a journey of learning for the last 15 years. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never heard of, nor recited the Queen of Heaven prayer. I'm VERY familiar with the Hail, Holy Queen prayer. I recite it every day. Irrespective, thank you for sharing the Queen of Heaven prayer. It's beautiful.ShooterTX said:
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?Yes, the famous Romans 3:23, "all have fallen short of the glory of God…" passage. Since it says "all", does that mean that Jesus sinned? What about babies? Or those individuals with mental ******ation? Do they have sin? Romans 9:11 state that Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad,". They didn't have sin yet.ShooterTX said:
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
St Paul is referring to humanity needing salvation. The "ALL" wasn't necessarily ALL humans because we can list exceptions.ShooterTX said:
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
Vicar "representative of Christ on Earth."
Pontiff means "bridge builder"
As mentioned in Matt 16:18, Christ built the Church upon Peter, the leader of the Church, who, after his death, was succeeding by another Bishop of Rome, hence apostolic succession.Please show me where in the bible that only God should be called "Holy Father".ShooterTX said:
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
In Matt 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham father.
In Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul calls Abraham father of all of us.
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 St Paul says that he has "became your father through the gospel."ShooterTX said:
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.Why specifically is it heretical? The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when speaking ex cathedra. If the Church was to teach error, it would be in direct violation of Matthew 16:18 and Jesus would be a liar.ShooterTX said:
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?Of course we Catholics read the bible. Do you realize that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world?ShooterTX said:
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.Great challenge question. The "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 7/44 is a pagan goddess. By calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, are they referring to her as a goddess? No, we are not.ShooterTX said:
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
In the OT, who was the queen? She was the mother of the King. Who is the King of the World, Universe, and Heaven? Jesus. Who was Jesus' mother? Mary.
Can we find this anywhere in the Bible? Let's look at Rev 12:1:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. … And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,"
Who is the child who is to rule all the nations? Jesus
Who is the woman in heaven with a crown who was about to bear this child? Mary. She's wearing a crown and she's in heaven. She is the Queen of Heaven. This is biblical, not heretical.Your paragraph as a few flaws.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
First, you have confused intercessor with mediator. If you pray for someone, you are an intercessor.
Second, as others have stated, please tell me where Mary cannot be an intercessor. James 5:16 tells us to "… pray for one another,".Finally, you seemed to have fallen prey to the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
Why does it bother you, that Mary is revered by Catholics? Do you believe that Jesus gets jealous that we also love His mother?
Thanks for your responses.
I really appreciate that you are willing to admit to the catholic teachings including that Catholics do not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God.
I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I will be happy to do that in a few days. I have written followed by graduation duties today and tomorrow night.
I think the crux of the division can be found in that one belief... either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. Everything else pretty much flows from that basic point.
We absolutely do believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. It is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
The Church came before the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world.
I realize that we have nearly a dozen different topics here to discuss. I would strongly suggest that you pick just ONE topic for us to discuss at a time. It makes it easier to dialogue and for others to follow. It shouldn't be a debate "trying to score points". I feel it should be a discussion to seek understanding. I am happy to discuss any subject concerning the Church. Nothing is off limits. Pick your favorite or the worst "offense." Let's just do one at a time.
Coke Bear said:I'm not sure where I stated that, "Catholics do not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God."ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Well, actually I am a cradle Catholic of 55 years and VERY deep into my faith. I've been on a journey of learning for the last 15 years. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never heard of, nor recited the Queen of Heaven prayer. I'm VERY familiar with the Hail, Holy Queen prayer. I recite it every day. Irrespective, thank you for sharing the Queen of Heaven prayer. It's beautiful.ShooterTX said:
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?Yes, the famous Romans 3:23, "all have fallen short of the glory of God…" passage. Since it says "all", does that mean that Jesus sinned? What about babies? Or those individuals with mental ******ation? Do they have sin? Romans 9:11 state that Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad,". They didn't have sin yet.ShooterTX said:
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
St Paul is referring to humanity needing salvation. The "ALL" wasn't necessarily ALL humans because we can list exceptions.ShooterTX said:
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
Vicar "representative of Christ on Earth."
Pontiff means "bridge builder"
As mentioned in Matt 16:18, Christ built the Church upon Peter, the leader of the Church, who, after his death, was succeeding by another Bishop of Rome, hence apostolic succession.Please show me where in the bible that only God should be called "Holy Father".ShooterTX said:
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
In Matt 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham father.
In Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul calls Abraham father of all of us.
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 St Paul says that he has "became your father through the gospel."ShooterTX said:
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.Why specifically is it heretical? The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when speaking ex cathedra. If the Church was to teach error, it would be in direct violation of Matthew 16:18 and Jesus would be a liar.ShooterTX said:
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?Of course we Catholics read the bible. Do you realize that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world?ShooterTX said:
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.Great challenge question. The "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 7/44 is a pagan goddess. By calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, are they referring to her as a goddess? No, we are not.ShooterTX said:
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
In the OT, who was the queen? She was the mother of the King. Who is the King of the World, Universe, and Heaven? Jesus. Who was Jesus' mother? Mary.
Can we find this anywhere in the Bible? Let's look at Rev 12:1:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. … And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,"
Who is the child who is to rule all the nations? Jesus
Who is the woman in heaven with a crown who was about to bear this child? Mary. She's wearing a crown and she's in heaven. She is the Queen of Heaven. This is biblical, not heretical.Your paragraph as a few flaws.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
First, you have confused intercessor with mediator. If you pray for someone, you are an intercessor.
Second, as others have stated, please tell me where Mary cannot be an intercessor. James 5:16 tells us to "… pray for one another,".Finally, you seemed to have fallen prey to the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
Why does it bother you, that Mary is revered by Catholics? Do you believe that Jesus gets jealous that we also love His mother?
Thanks for your responses.
I really appreciate that you are willing to admit to the catholic teachings including that Catholics do not believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God.
I don't have time to respond to everything right now, but I will be happy to do that in a few days. I have written followed by graduation duties today and tomorrow night.
I think the crux of the division can be found in that one belief... either the Bible is the Word of God or it is not. Everything else pretty much flows from that basic point.
We absolutely do believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. It is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
The Church came before the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world.
I realize that we have nearly a dozen different topics here to discuss. I would strongly suggest that you pick just ONE topic for us to discuss at a time. It makes it easier to dialogue and for others to follow. It shouldn't be a debate "trying to score points". I feel it should be a discussion to seek understanding. I am happy to discuss any subject concerning the Church. Nothing is off limits. Pick your favorite or the worst "offense." Let's just do one at a time.
Ok.
I'll respond to one thing for now.
Matthew 23:9
Jesus told the people not to refer to the religious leaders as "father" because we have one Father in Heaven.
And yet the Catholics not only can their priests "Father ____", they can the Pope the "Holy Father".
How is this not in direct disobedience to the words of Christ?
You are a very patient and thoughtful individual.Coke Bear said:Well, actually I am a cradle Catholic of 55 years and VERY deep into my faith. I've been on a journey of learning for the last 15 years. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never heard of, nor recited the Queen of Heaven prayer. I'm VERY familiar with the Hail, Holy Queen prayer. I recite it every day. Irrespective, thank you for sharing the Queen of Heaven prayer. It's beautiful.ShooterTX said:
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?Yes, the famous Romans 3:23, "all have fallen short of the glory of God…" passage. Since it says "all", does that mean that Jesus sinned? What about babies? Or those individuals with mental ******ation? Do they have sin? Romans 9:11 state that Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad,". They didn't have sin yet.ShooterTX said:
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
St Paul is referring to humanity needing salvation. The "ALL" wasn't necessarily ALL humans because we can list exceptions.ShooterTX said:
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
Vicar "representative of Christ on Earth."
Pontiff means "bridge builder"
As mentioned in Matt 16:18, Christ built the Church upon Peter, the leader of the Church, who, after his death, was succeeding by another Bishop of Rome, hence apostolic succession.Please show me where in the bible that only God should be called "Holy Father".ShooterTX said:
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
In Matt 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham father.
In Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul calls Abraham father of all of us.
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 St Paul says that he has "became your father through the gospel."ShooterTX said:
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.Why specifically is it heretical? The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when speaking ex cathedra. If the Church was to teach error, it would be in direct violation of Matthew 16:18 and Jesus would be a liar.ShooterTX said:
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?Of course we Catholics read the bible. Do you realize that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world?ShooterTX said:
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.Great challenge question. The "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 7/44 is a pagan goddess. By calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, are they referring to her as a goddess? No, we are not.ShooterTX said:
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
In the OT, who was the queen? She was the mother of the King. Who is the King of the World, Universe, and Heaven? Jesus. Who was Jesus' mother? Mary.
Can we find this anywhere in the Bible? Let's look at Rev 12:1:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. … And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,"
Who is the child who is to rule all the nations? Jesus
Who is the woman in heaven with a crown who was about to bear this child? Mary. She's wearing a crown and she's in heaven. She is the Queen of Heaven. This is biblical, not heretical.Your paragraph as a few flaws.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
First, you have confused intercessor with mediator. If you pray for someone, you are an intercessor.
Second, as others have stated, please tell me where Mary cannot be an intercessor. James 5:16 tells us to "… pray for one another,".Finally, you seemed to have fallen prey to the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
Why does it bother you, that Mary is revered by Catholics? Do you believe that Jesus gets jealous that we also love His mother?
Got me beat by a mile.
As I simply let haters..... hate.
Its what massages their egos and provides them comfort in a changing world.
Meanwhile I am increasingly pleased about our American Pope.
KaiBear said:You are a very patient and thoughtful individual.Coke Bear said:Well, actually I am a cradle Catholic of 55 years and VERY deep into my faith. I've been on a journey of learning for the last 15 years. I'm embarrassed to say that I've never heard of, nor recited the Queen of Heaven prayer. I'm VERY familiar with the Hail, Holy Queen prayer. I recite it every day. Irrespective, thank you for sharing the Queen of Heaven prayer. It's beautiful.ShooterTX said:
Let me get this straight.... you never pray the "Queen of Heaven" prayer? If so, I seriously doubt you are an actual Catholic.Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?Yes, the famous Romans 3:23, "all have fallen short of the glory of God…" passage. Since it says "all", does that mean that Jesus sinned? What about babies? Or those individuals with mental ******ation? Do they have sin? Romans 9:11 state that Jacob and Esau, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad,". They didn't have sin yet.ShooterTX said:
The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.
St Paul is referring to humanity needing salvation. The "ALL" wasn't necessarily ALL humans because we can list exceptions.ShooterTX said:
Please explain exactly what the Vicar of Christ means.
Do the same for the Pontiff of the Universal Church.
Vicar "representative of Christ on Earth."
Pontiff means "bridge builder"
As mentioned in Matt 16:18, Christ built the Church upon Peter, the leader of the Church, who, after his death, was succeeding by another Bishop of Rome, hence apostolic succession.Please show me where in the bible that only God should be called "Holy Father".ShooterTX said:
In my lifetime, I have never seen a Pope who rejected these titles. Quite the opposite... they were proud to have these titles. Likewise, they were proud to be referred to as "Holy Father"... a title that clearly should only apply to our Father in Heaven.
In Matt 3:9 Jesus calls Abraham father.
In Romans 4:16-17 St. Paul calls Abraham father of all of us.
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 St Paul says that he has "became your father through the gospel."ShooterTX said:
And back to the original point.... the pope is NEVER infallible. He is a man not God. His words and decrees are NOT the inspired word of God, therefore to declare that he holds the power of infallibility in any way (even only twice in history) is heretical.Why specifically is it heretical? The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when speaking ex cathedra. If the Church was to teach error, it would be in direct violation of Matthew 16:18 and Jesus would be a liar.ShooterTX said:
You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?Of course we Catholics read the bible. Do you realize that it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world?ShooterTX said:
I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.Great challenge question. The "Queen of Heaven" in Jeremiah 7/44 is a pagan goddess. By calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, are they referring to her as a goddess? No, we are not.ShooterTX said:
So long as you are looking at the Bible... please explain the Catholic title for Mary as the "Queen of Heaven" in light of Jeremiah chapter 44.
In the OT, who was the queen? She was the mother of the King. Who is the King of the World, Universe, and Heaven? Jesus. Who was Jesus' mother? Mary.
Can we find this anywhere in the Bible? Let's look at Rev 12:1:
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. … And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,"
Who is the child who is to rule all the nations? Jesus
Who is the woman in heaven with a crown who was about to bear this child? Mary. She's wearing a crown and she's in heaven. She is the Queen of Heaven. This is biblical, not heretical.Your paragraph as a few flaws.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Bible where anyone claimed that Mary is our intercessor? In fact, the scriptures are very clear. There is only ONE intercessor and only ONE who gives eternal life.... and it ain't Mary!
First, you have confused intercessor with mediator. If you pray for someone, you are an intercessor.
Second, as others have stated, please tell me where Mary cannot be an intercessor. James 5:16 tells us to "… pray for one another,".Finally, you seemed to have fallen prey to the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.ShooterTX said:
Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?
Why does it bother you, that Mary is revered by Catholics? Do you believe that Jesus gets jealous that we also love His mother?
Got me beat by a mile.
As I simply let haters..... hate.
Its what massages their egos and provides them comfort in a changing world.
Meanwhile I am increasingly pleased about our American Pope.
With you, I like him a great deal. I am very in line with his positions. Interesting, Benedict to Francis too much swing. This guy seems to be in middle, enough doctrine to be credible but remembering that the Church is here to bring people to God and help their blight.
Awesome question! Thanks!ShooterTX said:
Ok.
I'll respond to one thing for now.
Matthew 23:9
Jesus told the people not to refer to the religious leaders as "father" because we have one Father in Heaven.
And yet the Catholics not only can their priests "Father ____", they can the Pope the "Holy Father".
How is this not in direct disobedience to the words of Christ?
Yes, Matthew 23:9 has Jesus' "famous call no man father" command.
Let's look a few other passages -
Matthew 3:9 - Jesus calls Abraham father.
Matthew 19:19 - Jesus confirms the commandment of honor thy father and mother.
Romans 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is father of all of us.
I Cor 4:14-15 - Paul dares to say that he "become our father through the gospel."
We know that Paul wouldn't break one of Jesus' commandments and Jesus would NEVER do something that he just told others not to do. So there, obviously, must be something more to his statement in verse 9.
Going back to your original chapter, let's look at what Matthew was discussing in Chapter 23 -
A Warning Against Hypocrisy
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 "Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others.
8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
The passage begins with Jesus addressing the crowds telling them to obey the Pharisees, but don't act like them. They are puffed up with conceit. Jesus is chastising the Pharisees for their seeking of honor and exaltation.
Jesus tells them not to called "Rabbi" which means "teacher" or "doctor". We use these terms today with no issue, because people today aren't using them as a title as a source of pride.
St Paul, in 1 Cor 4, is referring to himself as a spiritual father who is their "guide in Christ."
We use the same term (Father) for priests, as they are our spiritual guides in Christ.
"Holy Father" - this is a term used for the Pope, as you stated. Once again, the Pope is the shepherd of his folk and spiritual father to the 1.4 billion Catholics in the world. The word "holy" means "to be set apart for God."
The Catholic Church has holy water, oils, salt, candles, etc.
"Holy Father" doesn't mean that he's a saint, or Jesus, or God. His office and duties are "set apart" for shepherding Catholics in their journey of faith.
I don't expect you to accept this, but it least you understand that we (Catholics) are certainly aware of verse 9, but we understand the greater concept of his command.
If you want to discuss this further or touch on another topic, just let me know.
Peace!
Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?
CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
I still owe you answers from the other thread and I will get to them when I make time.BusyTarpDuster2017CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity[i said:
. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.
I have refuted each of your false assertions.
If you want to discuss a SPECIFIC issue, I will only do so one at a time.
With respect to agnostics, remember they may have be the first to reject that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. And yet, you find yourself in that camp.
You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itself regarding atonement and justification.
I've been in many lobbies. Didn't know they had a sexual orientation. Will look at the decor more closely next time.Realitybites said:LIB,MR BEARS said:
Conservative?
Liberal?
Liberal on mass migration and climate change. Conservative on female priests, and gay marriage although the RCC will continue to bless gay relationships under Frank's rules.
He was made a cardinal by Frank and a supermajority of the cardinals who chose him were installed by Frank. Sort of like the packing of the federal judiciary and flag officer ranks Obama did when he was in power.
My take is that the gay lobby in the Vatican realized they had outkicked their coverage and settled for a couple more decades of trying to undermine western civilization through mass migration and climate change before making the inevitable push for gay marriage in the RCC.
https://www.amazon.com/Closet-Vatican-Power-Homosexuality-Hypocrisy/dp/1472966147
Hope everyone had a great Easter.
You keep saying you refuted my assertions, but you never do. It's just something you have to say to find some way to counter. And what you "think" is a rebuttal isn't really one at all, because your logic and reason are terribly flawed, to be honest.Quote:
I still owe you answers from the other thread and I will get to them when I make time.
I have refuted each of your false assertions.
If you want to discuss a SPECIFIC issue, I will only do so one at a time.
With respect to agnostics, remember they may have be the first to reject that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. And yet, you find yourself in that camp.
Everything I said about marian beliefs are true. I've demonstrated it repeatedly in other threads. You are welcome to address any one of them singularly.
But since this thread is about the pope, address this one: The Roman Catholic Church declares the "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church" was that Peter was the "rock" in Matthew 16, "as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church". This is patently false, and easily demonstrated historically to be so. The majority of early church fathers, theologians, and writers did not hold this belief. Most of them interpreted the "rock" to either be Jesus himself or the truth of Peter's confession, NOT Peter. I've already told you this on other threads and supported it with historical facts.
Wish I could articulate all this even half as well.Coke Bear said:Awesome question! Thanks!ShooterTX said:
Ok.
I'll respond to one thing for now.
Matthew 23:9
Jesus told the people not to refer to the religious leaders as "father" because we have one Father in Heaven.
And yet the Catholics not only can their priests "Father ____", they can the Pope the "Holy Father".
How is this not in direct disobedience to the words of Christ?
Yes, Matthew 23:9 has Jesus' "famous call no man father" command.
Let's look a few other passages -
Matthew 3:9 - Jesus calls Abraham father.
Matthew 19:19 - Jesus confirms the commandment of honor thy father and mother.
Romans 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is father of all of us.
I Cor 4:14-15 - Paul dares to say that he "become our father through the gospel."
We know that Paul wouldn't break one of Jesus' commandments and Jesus would NEVER do something that he just told others not to do. So there, obviously, must be something more to his statement in verse 9.
Going back to your original chapter, let's look at what Matthew was discussing in Chapter 23 -
A Warning Against Hypocrisy
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 "Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others.
8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
The passage begins with Jesus addressing the crowds telling them to obey the Pharisees, but don't act like them. They are puffed up with conceit. Jesus is chastising the Pharisees for their seeking of honor and exaltation.
Jesus tells them not to called "Rabbi" which means "teacher" or "doctor". We use these terms today with no issue, because people today aren't using them as a title as a source of pride.
St Paul, in 1 Cor 4, is referring to himself as a spiritual father who is their "guide in Christ."
We use the same term (Father) for priests, as they are our spiritual guides in Christ.
"Holy Father" - this is a term used for the Pope, as you stated. Once again, the Pope is the shepherd of his folk and spiritual father to the 1.4 billion Catholics in the world. The word "holy" means "to be set apart for God."
The Catholic Church has holy water, oils, salt, candles, etc.
"Holy Father" doesn't mean that he's a saint, or Jesus, or God. His office and duties are "set apart" for shepherding Catholics in their journey of faith.
I don't expect you to accept this, but it least you understand that we (Catholics) are certainly aware of verse 9, but we understand the greater concept of his command.
If you want to discuss this further or touch on another topic, just let me know.
Peace!
+ 1
Ok, gloves are off...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did
I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.
But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...
So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?
"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav
"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh
It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together
You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?
But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...
Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You keep saying you refuted my assertions, but you never do. It's just something you have to say to find some way to counter. And what you "think" is a rebuttal isn't really one at all, because your logic and reason are terribly flawed, to be honest.Quote:
I still owe you answers from the other thread and I will get to them when I make time.
I have refuted each of your false assertions.
If you want to discuss a SPECIFIC issue, I will only do so one at a time.
With respect to agnostics, remember they may have be the first to reject that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. And yet, you find yourself in that camp.
Everything I said about marian beliefs are true. I've demonstrated it repeatedly in other threads. You are welcome to address any one of them singularly.
But since this thread is about the pope, address this one: The Roman Catholic Church declares the "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church" was that Peter was the "rock" in Matthew 16, "as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church". This is patently false, and easily demonstrated historically to be so. The majority of early church fathers, theologians, and writers did not hold this belief. Most of them interpreted the "rock" to either be Jesus himself or the truth of Peter's confession, NOT Peter. I've already told you this on other threads and supported it with historical facts.
Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.
Relevance to anything you just said??FLBear5630 said:Ok, gloves are off...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did
I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.
But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...
So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?
"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav
"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh
It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together
You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?
But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...
By "removed" you removed the authority of Paul, at least for yourself. If you don't consider the whole New Testament authoritative, then you're not going to get agreement even from the Roman Catholics you are trying to support. And to say the least, this makes your views on Christianity extremely suspect. No one guided in truth by the Holy Spirit would ever express what you just did.
And can you tell me one Roman Catholic tradition not in the Bible - ONE - that they can trace back to the original apostles? Has Roman Catholicism defined any infallible saying or teaching of Jesus and the apostles that is NOT in the Bible?
Did Jesus ever hold as infallibly authoritative for his people including Christians, any Jewish oral tradition that was NOT written in their Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanakh)? In fact, Jesus utterly lambasted the Pharisees when they used their oral traditions to void the written law (The Corban Rule, Mark 7:11), saying that they corrupted the written word with their man-made traditions. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism is doing, and it's simply incredible that you guys don't see it.
Coke Bear said:Awesome question! Thanks!ShooterTX said:
Ok.
I'll respond to one thing for now.
Matthew 23:9
Jesus told the people not to refer to the religious leaders as "father" because we have one Father in Heaven.
And yet the Catholics not only can their priests "Father ____", they can the Pope the "Holy Father".
How is this not in direct disobedience to the words of Christ?
Yes, Matthew 23:9 has Jesus' "famous call no man father" command.
Let's look a few other passages -
Matthew 3:9 - Jesus calls Abraham father.
Matthew 19:19 - Jesus confirms the commandment of honor thy father and mother.
Romans 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is father of all of us.
I Cor 4:14-15 - Paul dares to say that he "become our father through the gospel."
We know that Paul wouldn't break one of Jesus' commandments and Jesus would NEVER do something that he just told others not to do. So there, obviously, must be something more to his statement in verse 9.
Going back to your original chapter, let's look at what Matthew was discussing in Chapter 23 -
A Warning Against Hypocrisy
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 "Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others.
8 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
The passage begins with Jesus addressing the crowds telling them to obey the Pharisees, but don't act like them. They are puffed up with conceit. Jesus is chastising the Pharisees for their seeking of honor and exaltation.
Jesus tells them not to called "Rabbi" which means "teacher" or "doctor". We use these terms today with no issue, because people today aren't using them as a title as a source of pride.
St Paul, in 1 Cor 4, is referring to himself as a spiritual father who is their "guide in Christ."
We use the same term (Father) for priests, as they are our spiritual guides in Christ.
"Holy Father" - this is a term used for the Pope, as you stated. Once again, the Pope is the shepherd of his folk and spiritual father to the 1.4 billion Catholics in the world. The word "holy" means "to be set apart for God."
The Catholic Church has holy water, oils, salt, candles, etc.
"Holy Father" doesn't mean that he's a saint, or Jesus, or God. His office and duties are "set apart" for shepherding Catholics in their journey of faith.
I don't expect you to accept this, but it least you understand that we (Catholics) are certainly aware of verse 9, but we understand the greater concept of his command.
If you want to discuss this further or touch on another topic, just let me know.
Peace!
First of all, I think we can both agree that the context of this statement by Jesus means that it does not apply to lineage or familial applications. Jesus wouldn't contradict the law which says to honor your father and mother.
Likewise he specifically said to not call the religious leaders "father" and explains the reason to not do this is because "you have one Father, and he is in heaven. "
So clearly this isn't about the man who married your mother, got her pregnant, and raised you from childhood. This is specifically about religious leaders who require their followers to use their self appointed title of "Father".
And your explanation of "Holy Father" is just not correct. We both know that there would be tons of angry rebukes if someone in Vatican City referred to the pope as Mr Prevost or just Father.
Do you also think that the Holy Spirit is just another normal spirit but it has been "set apart for God"?
This is a very incorrect explanation of the term Holy.
Websters says that Holy means " exalted or worthy of complete devotion, particularly as one perfect in goodness and righteousness".
I will never agree that calling a human being "Holy Father" is anything other than blasphemy. That title is specifically reserved for God the Father.
As for Paul, he described himself as a spiritual father... this is a fact. However, I have never seen a writing of Paul where he required anyone to refer to him as Father or Holy Father. Can you show those verses where he did that?
Can you show a verse where Peter instructed others to call him Holy Father? Catholics do claim that Peter was the first pope... even though he never claimed such authority and no one ever expressed such authority to Peter.
Peter called himself a "fellow elder" and was recognized as a fellow apostle. He was a great man, but clearly wasn't infallible. He had to be confronted & corrected on his doctrine by Paul and others.
In conclusion, there is only one Holy Father, and he is in heaven.
Geez, not being a fan and totally disregarding are two different things. But, being Baptist I can see how Paul is attractive to you. Personally, I have never cared for Paul or his condescending, paternalistic, and judgmental style.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Relevance to anything you just said??FLBear5630 said:Ok, gloves are off...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did
I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.
But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...
So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?
"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav
"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh
It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together
You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?
But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...
By "removed" you removed the authority of Paul, at least for yourself. If you don't consider the whole New Testament authoritative, then you're not going to get agreement even from the Roman Catholics you are trying to support.
And can you tell me one Roman Catholic tradition not in the Bible - ONE - that they can trace back to the original apostles? Has Roman Catholicism defined any infallible saying or teaching of Jesus and the apostles that is NOT in the Bible?
Did Jesus ever hold as infallibly authoritative for his people including Christians, any Jewish oral tradition that was NOT written in their Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanakh)? In fact, Jesus utterly lambasted the Pharisees when they used their oral traditions to void the written law (The Corban Rule, Mark 7:11), saying that they corrupted the written word with their man-made traditions. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism is doing, and it's simply incredible that you guys don't see it.
Of the whole resurrection narrative, I have always found his part sensationalistic and inconsistent with the rest of New Testament. How did Jesus appear to the Apostles? Very low key and stayed with them in a room. How did he appear to Paul? Bombastic, knocking him off his horse and blinding him. Sound like any other time Christ came and made himself known? Birth in a stable, trip to Egypt, wedding a Canna, Sermon on the Mount, Herod, Crucifixon, resurrection, and Pentacost. Any seem like Paul's story?
So, yes. I put the Gospels and Revelation above Paul's letters. I value Mark the most, being the oldest and closest to Christ. I value Augustine over Aquinas. Why? Closer to the event. You don't think about this information and have some that you find more credible than others? Identify with one over the other? Or even like more than others? Have a favorite story as a kid???
As for tracing to the Apostles, honoring Mary, mother of Jesus. It is supported in numerous places in the Gospels and the Apostles placed her in high esteem and even asked her several times to speak to Jesus. SO, why wouldn't we emulate that? That is not worshipping, it is honoring. Following what the Angel Gabriel said, you are honored among women. Was Gabriel worshipping Mary?
This was my response in the heaven thread:Coke Bear said:Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You keep saying you refuted my assertions, but you never do. It's just something you have to say to find some way to counter. And what you "think" is a rebuttal isn't really one at all, because your logic and reason are terribly flawed, to be honest.Quote:
I still owe you answers from the other thread and I will get to them when I make time.
I have refuted each of your false assertions.
If you want to discuss a SPECIFIC issue, I will only do so one at a time.
With respect to agnostics, remember they may have be the first to reject that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. And yet, you find yourself in that camp.
Everything I said about marian beliefs are true. I've demonstrated it repeatedly in other threads. You are welcome to address any one of them singularly.
But since this thread is about the pope, address this one: The Roman Catholic Church declares the "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church" was that Peter was the "rock" in Matthew 16, "as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church". This is patently false, and easily demonstrated historically to be so. The majority of early church fathers, theologians, and writers did not hold this belief. Most of them interpreted the "rock" to either be Jesus himself or the truth of Peter's confession, NOT Peter. I've already told you this on other threads and supported it with historical facts.
Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.
French Catholic historian Jean de Launoy surveyed all the patristic quotations and found that eighty percent (80%) said that the "rock" referred either to Jesus himself or Peter's confession of Jesus. Only 20% said that it was Peter. (The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow)
So, who was he giving the keys? Himself? In context with the rest of the passage and the three items concerning the Apostle Peter, it makes sense that Peter was the leader Jesus wanted to lead his Church.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This was my response in the heaven thread:Coke Bear said:Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You keep saying you refuted my assertions, but you never do. It's just something you have to say to find some way to counter. And what you "think" is a rebuttal isn't really one at all, because your logic and reason are terribly flawed, to be honest.Quote:
I still owe you answers from the other thread and I will get to them when I make time.
I have refuted each of your false assertions.
If you want to discuss a SPECIFIC issue, I will only do so one at a time.
With respect to agnostics, remember they may have be the first to reject that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. And yet, you find yourself in that camp.
Everything I said about marian beliefs are true. I've demonstrated it repeatedly in other threads. You are welcome to address any one of them singularly.
But since this thread is about the pope, address this one: The Roman Catholic Church declares the "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church" was that Peter was the "rock" in Matthew 16, "as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church". This is patently false, and easily demonstrated historically to be so. The majority of early church fathers, theologians, and writers did not hold this belief. Most of them interpreted the "rock" to either be Jesus himself or the truth of Peter's confession, NOT Peter. I've already told you this on other threads and supported it with historical facts.
Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.
French Catholic historian Jean de Launoy surveyed all the patristic quotations and found that eighty percent (80%) said that the "rock" referred either to Jesus himself or Peter's confession of Jesus. Only 20% said that it was Peter. (The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow)
Now, the rest of the Pope stuff, I get the ambiguity. But, if the argument that it is not in the Gospels so it is not so is valid. That would go to Paul as well, nothing in the Gospels talks of Jesus telling the Apostles of Paul's coming. Isn't that inconsistent? Gospels talked of John the Baptist as announcing Jesus? Wouldn't Jesus tell the Apostles of Paul?
Jesus appeared in power to Paul, because it was after he had ascended into heaven and became glorified. When he appeared to his apostles, he was risen, but not yet had ascended and glorified. See how Jesus appeared to John in Revelation, also after his ascension and glorification - John reacted almost the same way as Paul.FLBear5630 said:Geez, not being a fan and totally disregarding are two different things. But, being Baptist I can see how Paul is attractive to you. Personally, I have never cared for Paul or his condescending, paternalistic, and judgmental style.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Relevance to anything you just said??FLBear5630 said:Ok, gloves are off...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did
I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.
But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...
So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?
"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav
"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh
It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together
You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?
But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...
By "removed" you removed the authority of Paul, at least for yourself. If you don't consider the whole New Testament authoritative, then you're not going to get agreement even from the Roman Catholics you are trying to support.
And can you tell me one Roman Catholic tradition not in the Bible - ONE - that they can trace back to the original apostles? Has Roman Catholicism defined any infallible saying or teaching of Jesus and the apostles that is NOT in the Bible?
Did Jesus ever hold as infallibly authoritative for his people including Christians, any Jewish oral tradition that was NOT written in their Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanakh)? In fact, Jesus utterly lambasted the Pharisees when they used their oral traditions to void the written law (The Corban Rule, Mark 7:11), saying that they corrupted the written word with their man-made traditions. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism is doing, and it's simply incredible that you guys don't see it.
Of the whole resurrection narrative, I have always found his part sensationalistic and inconsistent with the rest of New Testament. How did Jesus appear to the Apostles? Very low key and stayed with them in a room. How did he appear to Paul? Bombastic, knocking him off his horse and blinding him. Sound like any other time Christ came and made himself known? Birth in a stable, trip to Egypt, wedding a Canna, Sermon on the Mount, Herod, Crucifixon, resurrection, and Pentacost. Any seem like Paul's story?
So, yes. I put the Gospels and Revelation above Paul's letters. I value Mark the most, being the oldest and closest to Christ. I value Augustine over Aquinas. Why? Closer to the event. You don't think about this information and have some that you find more credible than others? Identify with one over the other? Or even like more than others? Have a favorite story as a kid???
As for tracing to the Apostles, honoring Mary, mother of Jesus. It is supported in numerous places in the Gospels and the Apostles placed her in high esteem and even asked her several times to speak to Jesus. SO, why wouldn't we emulate that? That is not worshipping, it is honoring. Following what the Angel Gabriel said, you are honored among women. Was Gabriel worshipping Mary?
Here we go with the atrocious logic regarding Mary - so because Mary was merely "honored" by people..... it means that Mary was sinless, a forever-virgin, ascended bodily to heaven, etc?? Remember, these beliefs are REQUIRED by the Roman Catholic Church or you are anathematized, meaning you are separated from the body of Christ and you go to Hell. Don't you think that there should be some semblance, just SOME, of Mary being any of these things in the Gospels for Roman Catholicism to bind one's salvation to it?
Jesus never even called Mary his "mother" anywhere in the New Testament. He even redirected the honor people were trying to give her (Luke 11:27-28). This makes for a really, really hard sell for what Roman Catholicism dogmatizes about her.
FLBear5630 said:Geez, not being a fan and totally disregarding are two different things. But, being Baptist I can see how Paul is attractive to you. Personally, I have never cared for Paul or his condescending, paternalistic, and judgmental style.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Relevance to anything you just said??FLBear5630 said:Ok, gloves are off...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did
I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.
But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...
So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?
"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav
"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh
It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together
You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?
But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...
By "removed" you removed the authority of Paul, at least for yourself. If you don't consider the whole New Testament authoritative, then you're not going to get agreement even from the Roman Catholics you are trying to support.
And can you tell me one Roman Catholic tradition not in the Bible - ONE - that they can trace back to the original apostles? Has Roman Catholicism defined any infallible saying or teaching of Jesus and the apostles that is NOT in the Bible?
Did Jesus ever hold as infallibly authoritative for his people including Christians, any Jewish oral tradition that was NOT written in their Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanakh)? In fact, Jesus utterly lambasted the Pharisees when they used their oral traditions to void the written law (The Corban Rule, Mark 7:11), saying that they corrupted the written word with their man-made traditions. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism is doing, and it's simply incredible that you guys don't see it.
Of the whole resurrection narrative, I have always found his part sensationalistic and inconsistent with the rest of New Testament. How did Jesus appear to the Apostles? Very low key and stayed with them in a room. How did he appear to Paul? Bombastic, knocking him off his horse and blinding him. Sound like any other time Christ came and made himself known? Birth in a stable, trip to Egypt, wedding a Canna, Sermon on the Mount, Herod, Crucifixon, resurrection, and Pentacost. Any seem like Paul's story?
So, yes. I put the Gospels and Revelation above Paul's letters. I value Mark the most, being the oldest and closest to Christ. I value Augustine over Aquinas. Why? Closer to the event. You don't think about this information and have some that you find more credible than others? Identify with one over the other? Or even like more than others? Have a favorite story as a kid???
As for tracing to the Apostles, honoring Mary, mother of Jesus. It is supported in numerous places in the Gospels and the Apostles placed her in high esteem and even asked her several times to speak to Jesus. SO, why wouldn't we emulate that? That is not worshipping, it is honoring. Following what the Angel Gabriel said, you are honored among women. Was Gabriel worshipping Mary?
Peter himself showed respect and honor for Paul and his letter.
So I guess you don't like Peter either? It's interesting that Peter didn't take the opportunity to rebuke or correct Paul when he wrote about him in 2 Peter 3, if what you insinuate is true.
The only person using the word Dogma or worshipping is you. The actual Catholics are saying we don't and the Church doesn't. We have shown where in scripture honoring Christ's mother is located. We have showed you in the Catechism. But, you know the answer better. Funny, when I tell you MY issues with Paul, you tell me the answers to that too.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus appeared in power to Paul, because it was after he had ascended into heaven and became glorified. When he appeared to his apostles, he was risen, but not yet had ascended and glorified. See how Jesus appeared to John in Revelation, also after his ascension and glorification - John reacted almost the same way as Paul.FLBear5630 said:Geez, not being a fan and totally disregarding are two different things. But, being Baptist I can see how Paul is attractive to you. Personally, I have never cared for Paul or his condescending, paternalistic, and judgmental style.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Relevance to anything you just said??FLBear5630 said:Ok, gloves are off...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did
I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.
But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...
So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?
"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav
"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh
It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together
You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?
But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...
By "removed" you removed the authority of Paul, at least for yourself. If you don't consider the whole New Testament authoritative, then you're not going to get agreement even from the Roman Catholics you are trying to support.
And can you tell me one Roman Catholic tradition not in the Bible - ONE - that they can trace back to the original apostles? Has Roman Catholicism defined any infallible saying or teaching of Jesus and the apostles that is NOT in the Bible?
Did Jesus ever hold as infallibly authoritative for his people including Christians, any Jewish oral tradition that was NOT written in their Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanakh)? In fact, Jesus utterly lambasted the Pharisees when they used their oral traditions to void the written law (The Corban Rule, Mark 7:11), saying that they corrupted the written word with their man-made traditions. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism is doing, and it's simply incredible that you guys don't see it.
Of the whole resurrection narrative, I have always found his part sensationalistic and inconsistent with the rest of New Testament. How did Jesus appear to the Apostles? Very low key and stayed with them in a room. How did he appear to Paul? Bombastic, knocking him off his horse and blinding him. Sound like any other time Christ came and made himself known? Birth in a stable, trip to Egypt, wedding a Canna, Sermon on the Mount, Herod, Crucifixon, resurrection, and Pentacost. Any seem like Paul's story?
So, yes. I put the Gospels and Revelation above Paul's letters. I value Mark the most, being the oldest and closest to Christ. I value Augustine over Aquinas. Why? Closer to the event. You don't think about this information and have some that you find more credible than others? Identify with one over the other? Or even like more than others? Have a favorite story as a kid???
As for tracing to the Apostles, honoring Mary, mother of Jesus. It is supported in numerous places in the Gospels and the Apostles placed her in high esteem and even asked her several times to speak to Jesus. SO, why wouldn't we emulate that? That is not worshipping, it is honoring. Following what the Angel Gabriel said, you are honored among women. Was Gabriel worshipping Mary?
Here we go with the atrocious logic regarding Mary - so because Mary was merely "honored" by people..... it means that Mary was sinless, a forever-virgin, ascended bodily to heaven, etc?? Remember, these beliefs are REQUIRED by the Roman Catholic Church or you are anathematized, meaning you are separated from the body of Christ and you go to Hell. Don't you think that there should be some semblance, just SOME, of Mary being any of these things in the Gospels for Roman Catholicism to bind one's salvation to it?
So, you know what Catholics believe, what the Bible "really" means and how we should interpret it. Why are you having this discussion? You know it all, including what Catholics believe. You are a conversation by yourself - question and answer. You don't need us to answer anything.
Just two chapters later where Jesus is said to give Peter the "keys", he gives the same authority to all his disciples (Matthew 18:18).FLBear5630 said:So, who was he giving the keys? Himself? In context with the rest of the passage and the three items concerning the Apostle Peter, it makes sense that Peter was the leader Jesus wanted to lead his Church.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:This was my response in the heaven thread:Coke Bear said:Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You keep saying you refuted my assertions, but you never do. It's just something you have to say to find some way to counter. And what you "think" is a rebuttal isn't really one at all, because your logic and reason are terribly flawed, to be honest.Quote:
I still owe you answers from the other thread and I will get to them when I make time.
I have refuted each of your false assertions.
If you want to discuss a SPECIFIC issue, I will only do so one at a time.
With respect to agnostics, remember they may have be the first to reject that Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. And yet, you find yourself in that camp.
Everything I said about marian beliefs are true. I've demonstrated it repeatedly in other threads. You are welcome to address any one of them singularly.
But since this thread is about the pope, address this one: The Roman Catholic Church declares the "ancient and constant faith of the universal Church" was that Peter was the "rock" in Matthew 16, "as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church". This is patently false, and easily demonstrated historically to be so. The majority of early church fathers, theologians, and writers did not hold this belief. Most of them interpreted the "rock" to either be Jesus himself or the truth of Peter's confession, NOT Peter. I've already told you this on other threads and supported it with historical facts.
Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.
French Catholic historian Jean de Launoy surveyed all the patristic quotations and found that eighty percent (80%) said that the "rock" referred either to Jesus himself or Peter's confession of Jesus. Only 20% said that it was Peter. (The One Volume Bible Commentary, edited by John R. Dummelow)
Now, the rest of the Pope stuff, I get the ambiguity. But, if the argument that it is not in the Gospels so it is not so is valid. That would go to Paul as well, nothing in the Gospels talks of Jesus telling the Apostles of Paul's coming. Isn't that inconsistent? Gospels talked of John the Baptist as announcing Jesus? Wouldn't Jesus tell the Apostles of Paul?
The papacy isn't just not supported in the Gospels, the whole New Testament gives direct evidence against it. So does history, as Rome did not have a single ruling bishop until more than one hundred years after Jesus. And on top of that, the Council of Nicaea (325 AD, nearly three hundred years after Jesus!) ruled that the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome all had separate rules over their respective regions. Do you see the bishop of Rome having a supremacy role over the whole church here??
Okay, so you don't even understand that these beliefs about Mary are actual dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, to be required belief upon pain of anathema. Throw that on top of the fact that you scoff at half of the New Testament, it evidently shows you aren't qualified to be even having a debate on this.FLBear5630 said:The only person using the word Dogma or worshipping is you. The actual Catholics are saying we don't and the Church doesn't. We have shown where in scripture honoring Christ's mother is located. We have showed you in the Catechism. But, you know the answer better. Funny, when I tell you MY issues with Paul, you tell me the answers to that too.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Jesus appeared in power to Paul, because it was after he had ascended into heaven and became glorified. When he appeared to his apostles, he was risen, but not yet had ascended and glorified. See how Jesus appeared to John in Revelation, also after his ascension and glorification - John reacted almost the same way as Paul.FLBear5630 said:Geez, not being a fan and totally disregarding are two different things. But, being Baptist I can see how Paul is attractive to you. Personally, I have never cared for Paul or his condescending, paternalistic, and judgmental style.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Relevance to anything you just said??FLBear5630 said:Ok, gloves are off...BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You just removed 1/2 of the New Testament, then. If anyone's opinion on Christianity is invalid, it would be someone who did this. Even CokeBear is cringing at your comment. If I was CokeBear, I would be second-guessing my beliefs if it had the support of someone who just rejected the New Testament as authoritative. But that's just me.FLBear5630 said:You use the term Christianity. Nothing was put in writing for 70 years after Christ died on the cross. Until the Council of Nicea there was NO one (correct) "Christian Believe", only several factions following different aspects of Christ believes.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.ShooterTX said:
Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?CokeBear has already been shown in another thread that everything he is claiming here is false. This one is a flat out lie. Mary was NOT taught or believed to be any of these things - not in the Bible, not in the early church. These beliefs happened via slow accretion as Roman Catholicism became compromised with pagan beliefs and fallible tradition. All this is historically factual. What Catholics believe today, the early church would not even recognize, and would even believe to be a Satanic corruption of the truth. When CokeBear says that "it's been believed for nearly 2000 years", that may or may not be true, but what IS true is that it wasn't a belief in Christianity. There have been many wrong beliefs that have been held by Christians. Gnosticism has also been believed for nearly 2000 years but it was never accepted by Christianity and was rejected as heresy.Quote:
Absolutely! These facts have been believed for nearly 2000 years. Martin Luther believed the same. It wasn't until less than 500 years ago did protestant believe otherwise when they had to manufacture some differences to separate themselves from Catholics.
The first sign to be wary of false prophets, is when someone says THIS is what was believed you are wrong! Oral and Religious tradition was always part of Christian believe, as it came from Jewish traditions. That only changed when Luther and the German Nobility didn't want their money sent to Rome. Than, the Bible became the ONLY source. So, I take with a grain of salt you are wrong comments. Coke Bear did not say anyone was wrong, only explaining the Catholic believe.
Very Paul-ish. To determine what is right and wrong. Never a fan of Paul...
Every tradition, oral or written, that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church can NOT trace any of their non-biblical traditions to the original apostles. Yet they hold them as equal in authority to Scripture. Therein lies the fatal flaw of Roman Catholicism. If you can't see the problem with this, then either you're a Roman Catholic who is dug in to your beliefs and won't accept facts, or you're not very discerning.
Indulgences were not the only reason for the Reformation. It also involved the very gospel itselfI did
I didn't remove anything. Nice leap there, though. But, if we are going down this road take a look at the Vulgate versus the King James and tell me who left things out.
But, you did come back with another you are wrong, I know comment. Seems to be the go to...
So, tell us how YOU know what is correct, without it being "faith" based the Bible told me so as your answer. Have you ever had a real discussion on these texts and the ambiguity of the times? Or how oral tradition were part of Jewish faith (Torah Shebaal Peh)? Get it?
"The Written Law"Torah Shebichtav
"The Oral Tradition"Torah Shebaal Peh
It comes from the Jewish faith, which Peter (the first Pope) belonged. Starting to see how it comes together
You do realize that the Apostles came from Judaism and would have looked at Christianity as augmenting Judaism, valuing tradition AND the scripture. ? This was the big Peter/Paul disagreement? Any of this sound familiar?
But, I think not. You go to your church every Sunday, wear a suit, and are on Church council and NEVER look at anything outside of the King James... Because you know...
By "removed" you removed the authority of Paul, at least for yourself. If you don't consider the whole New Testament authoritative, then you're not going to get agreement even from the Roman Catholics you are trying to support.
And can you tell me one Roman Catholic tradition not in the Bible - ONE - that they can trace back to the original apostles? Has Roman Catholicism defined any infallible saying or teaching of Jesus and the apostles that is NOT in the Bible?
Did Jesus ever hold as infallibly authoritative for his people including Christians, any Jewish oral tradition that was NOT written in their Law, Prophets, and Writings (the Tanakh)? In fact, Jesus utterly lambasted the Pharisees when they used their oral traditions to void the written law (The Corban Rule, Mark 7:11), saying that they corrupted the written word with their man-made traditions. This is exactly what Roman Catholicism is doing, and it's simply incredible that you guys don't see it.
Of the whole resurrection narrative, I have always found his part sensationalistic and inconsistent with the rest of New Testament. How did Jesus appear to the Apostles? Very low key and stayed with them in a room. How did he appear to Paul? Bombastic, knocking him off his horse and blinding him. Sound like any other time Christ came and made himself known? Birth in a stable, trip to Egypt, wedding a Canna, Sermon on the Mount, Herod, Crucifixon, resurrection, and Pentacost. Any seem like Paul's story?
So, yes. I put the Gospels and Revelation above Paul's letters. I value Mark the most, being the oldest and closest to Christ. I value Augustine over Aquinas. Why? Closer to the event. You don't think about this information and have some that you find more credible than others? Identify with one over the other? Or even like more than others? Have a favorite story as a kid???
As for tracing to the Apostles, honoring Mary, mother of Jesus. It is supported in numerous places in the Gospels and the Apostles placed her in high esteem and even asked her several times to speak to Jesus. SO, why wouldn't we emulate that? That is not worshipping, it is honoring. Following what the Angel Gabriel said, you are honored among women. Was Gabriel worshipping Mary?
Here we go with the atrocious logic regarding Mary - so because Mary was merely "honored" by people..... it means that Mary was sinless, a forever-virgin, ascended bodily to heaven, etc?? Remember, these beliefs are REQUIRED by the Roman Catholic Church or you are anathematized, meaning you are separated from the body of Christ and you go to Hell. Don't you think that there should be some semblance, just SOME, of Mary being any of these things in the Gospels for Roman Catholicism to bind one's salvation to it?
So, you know what Catholics believe, what the Bible "really" means and how we should interpret it. Why are you having this discussion? You know it all, including what Catholics believe. You are a conversation by yourself - question and answer. You don't need us to answer anything.
And, here we go.... as usual, when the arguments all start to be proven wrong, the personal attacks start coming. You can almost set the atomic clock to this level of regularity.