BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that one.

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

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:

---

Are you also unaware that the catholic Catechism teaches that Mary was born without sin, never had sex, and lived her life without sinning?

---

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:

---

The Word of God clearly states that ALL have sinned and there are NONE righteous, no not one.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

Please show me where in the bible that only God should be called "Holy Father".

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.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

You mention Matthew 16:18... are you saying that verse somehow grants infallibility to the pope?

---

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:

---

I'm glad that you are at least referring to the Bible... so few Catholics are willing to recognize the authority of scripture.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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!

---

Your paragraph as a few flaws.

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,".

ShooterTX said:

---

Show me in the Word of God where Mary is anything other than a very honorable & blessed woman. Can you do that?

---

Finally, you seemed to have fallen prey to the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

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.

---

Catholics absolutely believe the Bible is the word of God and that it's inerrant on matters of faith and morals.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.

Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.

---

This was my response in the heaven thread:

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.

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?

---

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).

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??

---

It's not exactly the same authority, but he does give authority to the Apostles and all their successors.

Peter and Paul eventually worked together in Rome, but it was Peter who founded the church there. Paul alludes to this in Romans 15:20-24.

Of course bishops had authority in their respective regions, sort of like we have governors in our separate states. That doesn't mean there's no supreme authority.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that one.

---

Is there anything here that is supposed to argue against anything I've said?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.

Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.

---

This was my response in the heaven thread:

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.

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?

---

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).

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??

---

It's not exactly the same authority, but he does give authority to the Apostles and all their successors.

Peter and Paul eventually worked together in Rome, but it was Peter who founded the church there. Paul alludes to this in Romans 15:20-24.

Of course bishops had authority in their respective regions, sort of like we have governors in our separate states. That doesn't mean there's no supreme authority.

---

Where are you getting it's not the same authority? Based on what?

"...he(Jesus) does give authority to...all their successors" - where??

Peter founding the church in Rome does nothing to negate any argument I've made.

A governor doesn't rule over his region AND the whole of the United States. The bishop of Rome was only given jurisdiction over his territory in the Council of Nicaea. There isn't a sngle mention or hint of the Roman bishop having supreme authority over the church. You would think that something so important would have been mentioned at a major ecumenical council discussing ruling jurisdictions. You need positive evidence to make a positive claim, not rely on the absence of a positive claim against your claim. According to your argument, I could've been the supreme leader of the church - I mean, the Council of Nicaea didn't explicitly say I wasn't, did it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.

Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.

---

This was my response in the heaven thread:

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.

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?

---

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).

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??

---

It's not exactly the same authority, but he does give authority to the Apostles and all their successors.

Peter and Paul eventually worked together in Rome, but it was Peter who founded the church there. Paul alludes to this in Romans 15:20-24.

Of course bishops had authority in their respective regions, sort of like we have governors in our separate states. That doesn't mean there's no supreme authority.

---

Where are you getting it's not the same authority? Based on what?

"...he(Jesus) does give authority to...all their successors" - where??

Peter founding the church in Rome does nothing to negate any argument I've made.

A governor doesn't rule over his region AND the whole of the United States. The bishop of Rome was only given jurisdiction over his territory in the Council of Nicaea. There isn't a sngle mention or hint of the Roman bishop having supreme authority over the church. You would think that something so important would have been mentioned at a major ecumenical council discussing ruling jurisdictions. You need positive evidence to make a positive claim, not rely on the absence of a positive claim against your claim. According to your argument, I could've been the supreme leader of the church - I mean, the Council of Nicaea didn't explicitly say I wasn't, did it?

---

Congress and the president do rule over their region, but Peter's position might better be compared to that of a medieval king. He was lord of his own fiefdom and also "primus inter pares."

Jesus sent the Apostles in the same way the Father sent him, that is with the authority to send others as his representatives, and with the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23). No one was to preach unless he was sent (Romans 10:15). The ministry is a divine commission, granted by the laying on of hands, much like the Jewish priesthood.

"It's called soccer now." pic.twitter.com/EuvVR7xRhg

— Flappr (@flapprdotnet) May 9, 2025

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that oe.I

---

Is there anything here that is supposed to argue against anything I've said?

---

In what regard? You don't agree. We are at an impasse. Every item I or other Catholics bring forward you disagree. You ignore what you don't like, such as the Vulgate vs the King James who is just disregarding whole books of the Bible? Or, Luther's agenda and who he was supported by. Crickets.

All you seem to want to discuss is your version of Mariology and that by not being a fan of Paul I am not worthy of this discussion. Pretty standard Protestant stuff... Go ask your Church council what you should believe and be happy... I am very secure in my believes and faith.

This reminds me of that joke

A man goes to Heaven. St Peter asks him what denomination. He says I was Catholic. St Peter says very good go to room 10, but be very quiet going by Room 2. The man asks why? St Peter says that's the Baptists, they think they are the only ones here. If they hear you, they will never shut up about how they know who should be here better than we do...

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.

Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.

---

This was my response in the heaven thread:

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.

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?

---

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).

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??

---

It's not exactly the same authority, but he does give authority to the Apostles and all their successors.

Peter and Paul eventually worked together in Rome, but it was Peter who founded the church there. Paul alludes to this in Romans 15:20-24.

Of course bishops had authority in their respective regions, sort of like we have governors in our separate states. That doesn't mean there's no supreme authority.

---

Where are you getting it's not the same authority? Based on what?

"...he(Jesus) does give authority to...all their successors" - where??

Peter founding the church in Rome does nothing to negate any argument I've made.

A governor doesn't rule over his region AND the whole of the United States. The bishop of Rome was only given jurisdiction over his territory in the Council of Nicaea. There isn't a sngle mention or hint of the Roman bishop having supreme authority over the church. You would think that something so important would have been mentioned at a major ecumenical council discussing ruling jurisdictions. You need positive evidence to make a positive claim, not rely on the absence of a positive claim against your claim. According to your argument, I could've been the supreme leader of the church - I mean, the Council of Nicaea didn't explicitly say I wasn't, did it?

---

Congress and the president do rule over their region, but Peter's position might better be compared to that of a medieval king. He was lord of his own fiefdom and also "primus inter pares."

Jesus sent the Apostles in the same way the Father sent him, that is with the authority to send others as his representatives, and with the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23). No one was to preach unless he was sent (Romans 10:15). The ministry is a divine commission, granted by the laying on of hands, much like the Jewish priesthood.

---

What exactly are you arguing? Do you think any of this is positive evidence for the papacy, papal succession, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the early church?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that oe.I

---

Is there anything here that is supposed to argue against anything I've said?

---

In what regard? You don't agree. We are at an impasse. Every item I or other Catholics bring forward you disagree. You ignore what you don't like, such as the Vulgate vs the King James who is just disregarding whole books of the Bible? Or, Luther's agenda and who he was supported by. Crickets.

All you seem to want to discuss is your version of Mariology and that by not being a fan of Paul I am not worthy of this discussion. Pretty standard Protestant stuff... Go ask your Church council what you should believe and be happy... I am very secure in my believes and faith.

This reminds me of that joke

A man goes to Heaven. St Peter asks him what denomination. He says I was Catholic. St Peter says very good go to room 10, but be very quiet going by Room 2. The man asks why? St Peter says that's the Baptists, they think they are the only ones here. If they hear you, they will never shut up about how they know who should be here better than we do...

---

What are you talking about? Vulgate vs King James? Who quoted the King James? Why does that even matter? Why does any of this matter to what I said? Martin Luther's agenda?

I'm well aware of the strategy people use to redirect away from their arguments being wrong. They throw things out there to see if anything sticks. The fact remains that you don't have any argument against what I've said, so you're just trying to find something wrong with me personally to get a "win".

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.

Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.

---

This was my response in the heaven thread:

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.

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?

---

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).

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??

---

It's not exactly the same authority, but he does give authority to the Apostles and all their successors.

Peter and Paul eventually worked together in Rome, but it was Peter who founded the church there. Paul alludes to this in Romans 15:20-24.

Of course bishops had authority in their respective regions, sort of like we have governors in our separate states. That doesn't mean there's no supreme authority.

---

Show us where Paul days that Peter established a church in Rome:
Romans 15:20-24 ASV

[20] yea, making it my aim so to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man's foundation; [21] but, as it is written, They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came, And they who have not heard shall understand. [22] Wherefore also I was hindered these many times from coming to you: [23] but now, having no more any place in these regions, and having these many years a longing to come unto you, [24] whensoever I go unto Spain (for I hope to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first in some measure I shall have been satisfied with your company)

how do you read that Peter established a church in Rome from this?

History teaches that Paul wrote many letters while in prison in Rome. He mentions those that came to visit him, but never talks about Peter.
He also names numerous folks by name in Rome, but never mentions Peter. Did he forget that Peter was the church leader in Rome? In Chapter 16 alone, Paul mentions around 27 people by name... but never mentions Peter. In fact, I don't recall Paul mentioning Peter once in the entire letter to the church in Rome.
Where is your evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome? Is there even one single mention of Peter establishing a church outside of Jerusalem anywhere in the Bible?
By the way, the book of Acts makes it pretty clear that the very first church, the church in Jerusalem, was lead by James not Peter. How is it possible that the very first Christians didn't appoint Peter as their leader? Why did they look to James to have the final word on doctrine, when Peter was there with them?

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Majority, obviously, implies more than 50%.

Please list those in their specific categories that support your claim.

---

This was my response in the heaven thread:

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.

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?

---

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).

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??

---

It's not exactly the same authority, but he does give authority to the Apostles and all their successors.

Peter and Paul eventually worked together in Rome, but it was Peter who founded the church there. Paul alludes to this in Romans 15:20-24.

Of course bishops had authority in their respective regions, sort of like we have governors in our separate states. That doesn't mean there's no supreme authority.

---

Show us where Paul days that Peter established a church in Rome:
Romans 15:20-24 ASV

[20] yea, making it my aim so to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man's foundation; [21] but, as it is written, They shall see, to whom no tidings of him came, And they who have not heard shall understand. [22] Wherefore also I was hindered these many times from coming to you: [23] but now, having no more any place in these regions, and having these many years a longing to come unto you, [24] whensoever I go unto Spain (for I hope to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first in some measure I shall have been satisfied with your company)

how do you read that Peter established a church in Rome from this?

History teaches that Paul wrote many letters while in prison in Rome. He mentions those that came to visit him, but never talks about Peter.
He also names numerous folks by name in Rome, but never mentions Peter. Did he forget that Peter was the church leader in Rome? In Chapter 16 alone, Paul mentions around 27 people by name... but never mentions Peter. In fact, I don't recall Paul mentioning Peter once in the entire letter to the church in Rome.
Where is your evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome? Is there even one single mention of Peter establishing a church outside of Jerusalem anywhere in the Bible?
By the way, the book of Acts makes it pretty clear that the very first church, the church in Jerusalem, was lead by James not Peter. How is it possible that the very first Christians didn't appoint Peter as their leader? Why did they look to James to have the final word on doctrine, when Peter was there with them?

---

As I said, Paul alludes to the establishment of the church in Rome. It confirms what the Church Fathers wrote about in more detail.

ShooterTX said:

---

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".

---

Like I said, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

The title of the passage is literally called "A Warning Against Hypocrisy."

It's not about the titles; the passage is concerning the Pharisees seeking honor and glory with titles. He also said call no man Rabbi, which means "teacher" or "doctor." Surely you don't use those terms.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

I would just call him Pope Leo.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Where does the Bible state that the title is "reserved for God the Father"?

Do Catholics mean "holy" in that (bolded) way? No, we don't when used in conjunction with his title.

Interesting, that you didn't include the two sentences in Webster that they used as an example:
a holy relic worn by one of the saints
the holy monk spent many hours on his knees in prayer

They actually fit more the way Catholics use the term "holy."

Dictionary.com also defines "holy" as "dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion". This is also more closely how the Church uses the term.

ShooterTX said:

---

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?

---

I never claimed that he did this. He referred to himself as father. He was a spiritual leader. Just like priests and bishops are spiritual leaders.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Actually, Jesus gave him that authority in Matthew 16:18. Peter is consistently mentioned first in lists of the apostles, underscoring his importance. He is mentioned by name approximately 154 times. Which more than the others combined.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

This is incorrect. He was NOT confronted because of doctrine. Please read Galatians 2 more carefully. Paul rebuked Peter because of his hypocrisy and behavior. Peter removed himself from the Gentiles out of fear of criticism from the Jews.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that oe.I

---

Is there anything here that is supposed to argue against anything I've said?

---

In what regard? You don't agree. We are at an impasse. Every item I or other Catholics bring forward you disagree. You ignore what you don't like, such as the Vulgate vs the King James who is just disregarding whole books of the Bible? Or, Luther's agenda and who he was supported by. Crickets.

All you seem to want to discuss is your version of Mariology and that by not being a fan of Paul I am not worthy of this discussion. Pretty standard Protestant stuff... Go ask your Church council what you should believe and be happy... I am very secure in my believes and faith.

This reminds me of that joke

A man goes to Heaven. St Peter asks him what denomination. He says I was Catholic. St Peter says very good go to room 10, but be very quiet going by Room 2. The man asks why? St Peter says that's the Baptists, they think they are the only ones here. If they hear you, they will never shut up about how they know who should be here better than we do...

---

What are you talking about? Vulgate vs King James? Who quoted the King James? Why does that even matter? Why does any of this matter to what I said? Martin Luther's agenda?

I'm well aware of the strategy people use to redirect away from their arguments being wrong. They throw things out there to see if anything sticks. The fact remains that you don't have any argument against what I've said, so you're just trying to find something wrong with me personally to get a "win".

---

Wrong? Dont think so. You only believe Sola Scriptura, I don't. The Vulgate Bible is one source, tradition is the other. Some answers are contained in Church tradition. You do not even recognize the Bible, never mind Church tradition. So, we are at an impasse

Do you know what impasse means? We are not going to agree. No issues here, I did my best but ultimately people need to accept the truth. I tried. Good luck. Us Catholics believe in a loving God, effort counts. So, you get points there.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that oe.I

---

Is there anything here that is supposed to argue against anything I've said?

---

In what regard? You don't agree. We are at an impasse. Every item I or other Catholics bring forward you disagree. You ignore what you don't like, such as the Vulgate vs the King James who is just disregarding whole books of the Bible? Or, Luther's agenda and who he was supported by. Crickets.

All you seem to want to discuss is your version of Mariology and that by not being a fan of Paul I am not worthy of this discussion. Pretty standard Protestant stuff... Go ask your Church council what you should believe and be happy... I am very secure in my believes and faith.

This reminds me of that joke

A man goes to Heaven. St Peter asks him what denomination. He says I was Catholic. St Peter says very good go to room 10, but be very quiet going by Room 2. The man asks why? St Peter says that's the Baptists, they think they are the only ones here. If they hear you, they will never shut up about how they know who should be here better than we do...

---

What are you talking about? Vulgate vs King James? Who quoted the King James? Why does that even matter? Why does any of this matter to what I said? Martin Luther's agenda?

I'm well aware of the strategy people use to redirect away from their arguments being wrong. They throw things out there to see if anything sticks. The fact remains that you don't have any argument against what I've said, so you're just trying to find something wrong with me personally to get a "win".

---

Wrong? Dont think so.

Do you know what impasse means? We are not going to agree. No issues here, I did my best but ultimately people need to accept the truth. I tried. Good luck. Us Catholics believe in a loving God, effort counts. So, you get points there.

---

Of course you're not going to agree. You won't accept facts. I've given you historical evidence that the early church did not always believe that Peter was the "rock" in Matthew 16, contrary to the what the Roman Catholic Church declared in Vatican I, and you still believe the Church even when you have no facts to counter it. This is the mindset of being in a cult. Do you really think you have the "truth" if you believe things about Mary and about the papacy that is NOWHERE in Scripture or the early church? And do you honestly believe the Roman Catholic Church can damn people to Hell for not believing these things that are nowhere in Scripture or the early church, and still be Jesus' true church? I'm just trying to get you guys to wake up and open your eyes.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that oe.I

---

Is there anything here that is supposed to argue against anything I've said?

---

In what regard? You don't agree. We are at an impasse. Every item I or other Catholics bring forward you disagree. You ignore what you don't like, such as the Vulgate vs the King James who is just disregarding whole books of the Bible? Or, Luther's agenda and who he was supported by. Crickets.

All you seem to want to discuss is your version of Mariology and that by not being a fan of Paul I am not worthy of this discussion. Pretty standard Protestant stuff... Go ask your Church council what you should believe and be happy... I am very secure in my believes and faith.

This reminds me of that joke

A man goes to Heaven. St Peter asks him what denomination. He says I was Catholic. St Peter says very good go to room 10, but be very quiet going by Room 2. The man asks why? St Peter says that's the Baptists, they think they are the only ones here. If they hear you, they will never shut up about how they know who should be here better than we do...

---

What are you talking about? Vulgate vs King James? Who quoted the King James? Why does that even matter? Why does any of this matter to what I said? Martin Luther's agenda?

I'm well aware of the strategy people use to redirect away from their arguments being wrong. They throw things out there to see if anything sticks. The fact remains that you don't have any argument against what I've said, so you're just trying to find something wrong with me personally to get a "win".

---

Wrong? Dont think so. You only believe Sola Scriptura, I don't. The Vulgate Bible is one source, tradition is the other. Some answers are contained in Church tradition. You do not even recognize the Bible, never mind Church tradition. So, we are at an impasse

---

What in the world are you talking about? I don't recognize the Bible? Vulgate Bible? You're not making any sense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Don't get all squeamish on the personal attacks. You started this discussion, as the rest of us just commented on liking the new Papal selection.

Also, don't get on me because you goosestep to what you are told to believe and don't seem to have had an original thought on it in your life. You do realize that religion is to be lived, it is not a test. I bet you identified with the Pharisees in the Passion, huh. Follow the written law, don't think...

Have you ever thought about what Paul says? Not the ability to recite or name the right verse, but thought about it? Can you have a discussion on any of this? Or, just tell me what you are supposed to think. Case in point, my discussion of Paul. Your response was right down the Party line, in bold no less, not how it is different but what you are supposed to tell me. What is YOUR opinion, not what you are supposed to believe? Same with the Oral Tradition, I went back to Judaism and Apostles. You quoted King James...

Is your religion and believes alive? Or is it a history lesson and Scan-Tron test? The answer is C... Curious...
By the way, just to answer your question. Which of the Mary dogmas say that we worship her? I missed that oe.I

---

Is there anything here that is supposed to argue against anything I've said?

---

In what regard? You don't agree. We are at an impasse. Every item I or other Catholics bring forward you disagree. You ignore what you don't like, such as the Vulgate vs the King James who is just disregarding whole books of the Bible? Or, Luther's agenda and who he was supported by. Crickets.

All you seem to want to discuss is your version of Mariology and that by not being a fan of Paul I am not worthy of this discussion. Pretty standard Protestant stuff... Go ask your Church council what you should believe and be happy... I am very secure in my believes and faith.

This reminds me of that joke

A man goes to Heaven. St Peter asks him what denomination. He says I was Catholic. St Peter says very good go to room 10, but be very quiet going by Room 2. The man asks why? St Peter says that's the Baptists, they think they are the only ones here. If they hear you, they will never shut up about how they know who should be here better than we do...

---

What are you talking about? Vulgate vs King James? Who quoted the King James? Why does that even matter? Why does any of this matter to what I said? Martin Luther's agenda?

I'm well aware of the strategy people use to redirect away from their arguments being wrong. They throw things out there to see if anything sticks. The fact remains that you don't have any argument against what I've said, so you're just trying to find something wrong with me personally to get a "win".

---

Wrong? Dont think so. You only believe Sola Scriptura, I don't. The Vulgate Bible is one source, tradition is the other. Some answers are contained in Church tradition. You do not even recognize the Bible, never mind Church tradition. So, we are at an impasse

---

What in the world are you talking about? I don't recognize the Bible? Vulgate Bible? You're not making any sense.

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

About that Vulgate.

"I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the Septuagint, whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language."

- Letter from Saint Augustine to Jerome, 394 A.D.

Basically, "Son, don't disregard the scriptures we've been using and use source material from people who have been rejecting Jesus for 400 years."

Saint Augustine's warning was prescient as the alteration of the geneaologies of the patriarchs in the Torah to discredit Jesus' claim to be messiah by Jewish scribes shows us - an alteration that affects most English language Bibles today.

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

This is incorrect. He was NOT confronted because of doctrine. Please read Galatians 2 more carefully. Paul rebuked Peter because of his hypocrisy and behavior. Peter removed himself from the Gentiles out of fear of criticism from the Jews.

---

You're not dealing with his points. Peter never addressed himself as anything more than a "fellow elder". Obviously, he didn't get the memo that he was the supreme leader of the church. Paul must've not gotten the memo either, because he doesn't acknowledge and treat him as such. James neither.

There just isn't any solid biblical evidence that Peter functioned as the supreme leader over all the church. You'd think that such a preeminent, vital role in Jesus' church would have been mentioned somewhere - anywhere -in the New Testament in explicit terms. Such an oversight by the Holy Spirit would be akin to U.S. historians failing to mention George Washington as the first president.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

Mary was a sinner. The only exception to Romans 3:23 in all of human history was Jesus Christ. There is no reason to believe Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. She was married to Joseph after all and the gospels do mention Jesus's brothers and sisters, some by name. Like many other ordinary people in the Bible (Abraham, Moses, David, Esther, Ruth, Daniel, all of the disciples, Barnabas, John Mark, Timothy, etc), Mary played an extraordinary role in events because God chose her and she was willing to serve His purpose.

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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".

---

Like I said, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

The title of the passage is literally called "A Warning Against Hypocrisy."

It's not about the titles; the passage is concerning the Pharisees seeking honor and glory with titles. He also said call no man Rabbi, which means "teacher" or "doctor." Surely you don't use those terms.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

I would just call him Pope Leo.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Where does the Bible state that the title is "reserved for God the Father"?

Do Catholics mean "holy" in that (bolded) way? No, we don't when used in conjunction with his title.

Interesting, that you didn't include the two sentences in Webster that they used as an example:
a holy relic worn by one of the saints
the holy monk spent many hours on his knees in prayer

They actually fit more the way Catholics use the term "holy."

Dictionary.com also defines "holy" as "dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion". This is also more closely how the Church uses the term.

ShooterTX said:

---

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?

---

I never claimed that he did this. He referred to himself as father. He was a spiritual leader. Just like priests and bishops are spiritual leaders.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Actually, Jesus gave him that authority in Matthew 16:18. Peter is consistently mentioned first in lists of the apostles, underscoring his importance. He is mentioned by name approximately 154 times. Which more than the others combined.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

This is incorrect. He was NOT confronted because of doctrine. Please read Galatians 2 more carefully. Paul rebuked Peter because of his hypocrisy and behavior. Peter removed himself from the Gentiles out of fear of criticism from the Jews.

---

If the passage was just about hypocrisy, then why would he specifically say "you have one Father, and he is in heaven". Why did Jesus use this statement to directly correct hypocrisy? It makes no sense.
In fact, Jesus was correcting those who would usurp the title of "Father" in a religious authority context. Yes, he did rebuke the hypocrisy as well. He did that directly and then he addressed the idea that men should usurp the religious authority of our heavenly father. He did not say, don't call these hypocrites "father"because they are hypocrites. He said don't call ANYONE Father because you have one Father and he is in heaven. Jesus did not say that is cool to give the heavenly father's title & authority to a non-hypocrite. To infer that from the passage is to take out your pen and rewrite the passage to suit your own desires.
It is clear that Jesus is rebuking religious leaders who are requiring the use of these titles & the assumed authority that they confer.
And this teaching is backed up by the fact that none of the Apostles used it or required the use of these titles in the manner of these religious leaders.
Yes, Paul refers to Timothy as "my true son in the faith" but it is clear that this is a term of endearment, not a religious title of authority. And I've never seen any writings in the NT where any apostle requires or requests to be called by a title. They declare that they are apostles & elders, but none of them attempt to usurp the authority of God by declaring themselves to be the "Holy Father".
If you truly believe that the use of Holy is as you described in the catholic church... then please explain why your local priest will rebuke you if you refer to him as "Holy Father".
If it as innocent as you say, then I encourage you to go on Sunday and greet you local guy as "Holy Father" and see what happens. I bet you he will correct you and explain that he is just "Father _____", not the "Holy Father". If you are lucky, your local guy will know the Bible enough to tell you that there is only one Holy Father and he is in heaven. If he's a true catholic, he will tell you that the title of "Holy Father" is reserved for the Bishop of Rome and not some lowly local priest.
I kinda doubt you will do this, as most Catholics are too afraid to test the authority of the catholic priesthood in this manner.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Oh come on man!
It's not like the pope gave them the green light to pray a blessing over same sex relationships or something!
The traditions of men are totally infallible! LOL

Just because God calls it an abomination doesn't mean that He knows more than the dead pope.

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

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?

---

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.

---

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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

---

Ok, gloves are off...

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...

---

Relevance to anything you just said??

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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.

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.

---

Mary was a sinner. The only exception to Romans 3:23 in all of human history was Jesus Christ. There is no reason to believe Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. She was married to Joseph after all and the gospels do mention Jesus's brothers and sisters, some by name. Like many other ordinary people in the Bible (Abraham, Moses, David, Esther, Ruth, Daniel, all of the disciples, Barnabas, John Mark, Timothy, etc), Mary played an extraordinary role in events because God chose her and she was willing to serve His purpose.

---

I think Catholics don't understand it. No one in Christianity hates Mary. We only hate the idolatry of Mary.
Don't claim it's not idolatry when you literally pray to her, make statues of her, have pilgrimages to places where her likeness appears in a potato chip or a street light or a the side of a building, and you sing worship songs to get & about her.... how can anyone claim that this is not idolatry.
There are literal catholic shrines made to honor Mary... but don't call it idolatry?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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".

---

Like I said, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

The title of the passage is literally called "A Warning Against Hypocrisy."

It's not about the titles; the passage is concerning the Pharisees seeking honor and glory with titles. He also said call no man Rabbi, which means "teacher" or "doctor." Surely you don't use those terms.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

I would just call him Pope Leo.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Where does the Bible state that the title is "reserved for God the Father"?

Do Catholics mean "holy" in that (bolded) way? No, we don't when used in conjunction with his title.

Interesting, that you didn't include the two sentences in Webster that they used as an example:
a holy relic worn by one of the saints
the holy monk spent many hours on his knees in prayer

They actually fit more the way Catholics use the term "holy."

Dictionary.com also defines "holy" as "dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion". This is also more closely how the Church uses the term.

ShooterTX said:

---

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?

---

I never claimed that he did this. He referred to himself as father. He was a spiritual leader. Just like priests and bishops are spiritual leaders.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Actually, Jesus gave him that authority in Matthew 16:18. Peter is consistently mentioned first in lists of the apostles, underscoring his importance. He is mentioned by name approximately 154 times. Which more than the others combined.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

This is incorrect. He was NOT confronted because of doctrine. Please read Galatians 2 more carefully. Paul rebuked Peter because of his hypocrisy and behavior. Peter removed himself from the Gentiles out of fear of criticism from the Jews.

---

If the passage was just about hypocrisy, then why would he specifically say "you have one Father, and he is in heaven". Why did Jesus use this statement to directly correct hypocrisy? It makes no sense.
In fact, Jesus was correcting those who would usurp the title of "Father" in a religious authority context. Yes, he did rebuke the hypocrisy as well. He did that directly and then he addressed the idea that men should usurp the religious authority of our heavenly father. He did not say, don't call these hypocrites "father"because they are hypocrites. He said don't call ANYONE Father because you have one Father and he is in heaven. Jesus did not say that is cool to give the heavenly father's title & authority to a non-hypocrite. To infer that from the passage is to take out your pen and rewrite the passage to suit your own desires.
It is clear that Jesus is rebuking religious leaders who are requiring the use of these titles & the assumed authority that they confer.
And this teaching is backed up by the fact that none of the Apostles used it or required the use of these titles in the manner of these religious leaders.
Yes, Paul refers to Timothy as "my true son in the faith" but it is clear that this is a term of endearment, not a religious title of authority. And I've never seen any writings in the NT where any apostle requires or requests to be called by a title. They declare that they are apostles & elders, but none of them attempt to usurp the authority of God by declaring themselves to be the "Holy Father".
If you truly believe that the use of Holy is as you described in the catholic church... then please explain why your local priest will rebuke you if you refer to him as "Holy Father".
If it as innocent as you say, then I encourage you to go on Sunday and greet you local guy as "Holy Father" and see what happens. I bet you he will correct you and explain that he is just "Father _____", not the "Holy Father". If you are lucky, your local guy will know the Bible enough to tell you that there is only one Holy Father and he is in heaven. If he's a true catholic, he will tell you that the title of "Holy Father" is reserved for the Bishop of Rome and not some lowly local priest.
I kinda doubt you will do this, as most Catholics are too afraid to test the authority of the catholic priesthood in this manner.

---

Paul also declares that he was appointed as a teacher. If we took Jesus literally in Matthew 23:8-10, this would be forbidden. So would modern titles like "doctor" and even "mister." Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father to Timothy and others.

Jesus was exaggerating in order to call out the Pharisees and make a point. He doesn't want us to put our faith in men or to be led astray by those who are unworthy.

sassy, snarky ...........

- el KKM

... this papal darky!

D!!

{ sipping covfefe }

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

I appreciate your honesty. So few Catholics are willing to admit that they don't believe in the infallibility of scripture and that they believe the traditions over scripture whenever the two are in opposition.
I totally disagree with you, but at least you are open and honest about it.

I will say that I do value traditions but only when they are affirmed by scripture. I believe scripture is supposed to be our highest authority as Christians.

Honestly, how do you know what Jesus said or did without reading it from the Bible?

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

I appreciate your honesty. So few Catholics are willing to admit that they don't believe in the infallibility of scripture and that they believe the traditions over scripture whenever the two are in opposition.
I totally disagree with you, but at least you are open and honest about it.

I will say that I do value traditions but only when they are affirmed by scripture. I believe scripture is supposed to be our highest authority as Christians.

Honestly, how do you know what Jesus said or did without reading it from the Bible?

---

I get it, I was married to a Lutheran RN for 20 years before she converted. You are looking for a definitive answer, one source that answers the questions. I also shared an office with a devout Moslem engineer for 10 years and had these types of conversations. He loved the Koran because it is logical. My RN wife that worked ICU wanted an answer book, she was raised that the Bible was that.

I was raised Catholic in a heavy Jewish area. You were either Catholic or Jewish. I knew Protestants existed, but never met one until 15. So, my conversations revolved around Peter and the Jewish beginnings of our Church (I mean all of us Christians). So, Paul was not a big influence, even called a false Apostle by some. So, my perspective is different than the typical Bible Belt.

I do not have a cardinal rule that Bible or Tradition overrule the other. It is not that cut and dry. Jesus acted through Oral Tradition and sent Apostles out to spread the word. He didn't put anything he said in writing. There is no record he even asked anyone to write it down. The Bible is a man made. I get it. I get the need, but I do believe that Sola Scriptura has just as much man made bias as oral tradition.

Bottomline, Christianity is about faith. There is a leap of faith. Is everything exactly right? No. If you want a playbook, Islam is much more that way - prescriptive. My view is what is important? One true God, Jesus died for our sins, the resurrection happened and believing in faith is required. The rest, to me, is style. What denomination brings you closer to God? You like the Bible based Protestant. I like the Tradition and social service aspect of the Catholic Church. Etc... You and I are arguing minutia within the same context. It is not like discussing with a Moslem or Buddist.

Although I am more comfortable with the Jewish faith than a lot of Protestants. I can't get my arms around a lot of the positions you and Shooter say. Seems like sacrificing the forest for a tree.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

william said:

---

sassy, snarky ...........

- el KKM

... this papal darky!

D!!

{ sipping covfefe }

---

That is fantastic

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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".

---

Like I said, I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

The title of the passage is literally called "A Warning Against Hypocrisy."

It's not about the titles; the passage is concerning the Pharisees seeking honor and glory with titles. He also said call no man Rabbi, which means "teacher" or "doctor." Surely you don't use those terms.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

I would just call him Pope Leo.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Where does the Bible state that the title is "reserved for God the Father"?

Do Catholics mean "holy" in that (bolded) way? No, we don't when used in conjunction with his title.

Interesting, that you didn't include the two sentences in Webster that they used as an example:
a holy relic worn by one of the saints
the holy monk spent many hours on his knees in prayer

They actually fit more the way Catholics use the term "holy."

Dictionary.com also defines "holy" as "dedicated or devoted to the service of God, the church, or religion". This is also more closely how the Church uses the term.

ShooterTX said:

---

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?

---

I never claimed that he did this. He referred to himself as father. He was a spiritual leader. Just like priests and bishops are spiritual leaders.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Actually, Jesus gave him that authority in Matthew 16:18. Peter is consistently mentioned first in lists of the apostles, underscoring his importance. He is mentioned by name approximately 154 times. Which more than the others combined.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

This is incorrect. He was NOT confronted because of doctrine. Please read Galatians 2 more carefully. Paul rebuked Peter because of his hypocrisy and behavior. Peter removed himself from the Gentiles out of fear of criticism from the Jews.

---

If the passage was just about hypocrisy, then why would he specifically say "you have one Father, and he is in heaven". Why did Jesus use this statement to directly correct hypocrisy? It makes no sense.
In fact, Jesus was correcting those who would usurp the title of "Father" in a religious authority context. Yes, he did rebuke the hypocrisy as well. He did that directly and then he addressed the idea that men should usurp the religious authority of our heavenly father. He did not say, don't call these hypocrites "father"because they are hypocrites. He said don't call ANYONE Father because you have one Father and he is in heaven. Jesus did not say that is cool to give the heavenly father's title & authority to a non-hypocrite. To infer that from the passage is to take out your pen and rewrite the passage to suit your own desires.
It is clear that Jesus is rebuking religious leaders who are requiring the use of these titles & the assumed authority that they confer.
And this teaching is backed up by the fact that none of the Apostles used it or required the use of these titles in the manner of these religious leaders.
Yes, Paul refers to Timothy as "my true son in the faith" but it is clear that this is a term of endearment, not a religious title of authority. And I've never seen any writings in the NT where any apostle requires or requests to be called by a title. They declare that they are apostles & elders, but none of them attempt to usurp the authority of God by declaring themselves to be the "Holy Father".
If you truly believe that the use of Holy is as you described in the catholic church... then please explain why your local priest will rebuke you if you refer to him as "Holy Father".
If it as innocent as you say, then I encourage you to go on Sunday and greet you local guy as "Holy Father" and see what happens. I bet you he will correct you and explain that he is just "Father _____", not the "Holy Father". If you are lucky, your local guy will know the Bible enough to tell you that there is only one Holy Father and he is in heaven. If he's a true catholic, he will tell you that the title of "Holy Father" is reserved for the Bishop of Rome and not some lowly local priest.
I kinda doubt you will do this, as most Catholics are too afraid to test the authority of the catholic priesthood in this manner.

---

Paul also declares that he was appointed as a teacher. If we took Jesus literally in Matthew 23:8-10, this would be forbidden. So would modern titles like "doctor" and even "mister." Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father to Timothy and others.

Jesus was exaggerating in order to call out the Pharisees and make a point. He doesn't want us to put our faith in men or to be led astray by those who are unworthy.

---

Paul never assumed the authority of God as the ultimate teacher, nor did Paul ever assume the religious title of father in the way the Pharisees did. The pope is totally using the religious title in the same way as the Pharisees.
Paul said he was a spiritual father to Timothy. He never said he was THE spiritual father over all the Christians in earth.
In not sure how you cannot see the vast difference.

Paul claimed to be a teacher of the gospel, but he never attempted to teach things that were not already found in the OT or already spoken by Jesus.

In Matthew Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees because they assumed the title & authority of God. They had silent years creating new doctrines that were not found in the scriptures. They created new requirements for the Jews and the created their own rules. They used there authority for their own gain, and their own glory. They made sure that everyone gave them deference and they wielded their titles & offices over them. This is a theme the Jesus brings up over & over again when rebuking the Pharisees.

Luke 20:45-47 NIV

[45] While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, [46] "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. [47] They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely."

Earlier in the chapter we see that the Pharisees were questioning Jesus on his authority. They were consumed with this topic of religious authority.
Then Jesus says this:

Luke 20:9-19 NIV
[9] He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. [10] At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. [11] He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. [12] He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out. [13] "Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.' [14] "But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' [15] So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? [16] He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "God forbid!" [17] Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written: " 'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone' ? [18] Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed." [19] The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

The farmers assumed the authority over the vineyard to the point that they murdered the owner of the vineyards own son.
The Pharisees were so consumed with keeping their religious authority, that they murdered the one who was supposed to be their own Messiah.
Jesus wasn't just rebuking them for hypocrisy, he was rebuking them for assuming the authority of the one and only Holy Father. How did they assume this authority? By adding to the law.

Mark 7:6-9 NIV
[6] He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [7] They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' [8] You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions." [9] And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

There were just over 600 commands in the scriptures, but the Pharisees taught over 1,500 commands for the people to follow, by the time Jesus was rebuking them. This assumption of authority and the creation of new rules... this is the same problem we see in the catholic church today with the pope and the catholic decrees.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

I appreciate your honesty. So few Catholics are willing to admit that they don't believe in the infallibility of scripture and that they believe the traditions over scripture whenever the two are in opposition.
I totally disagree with you, but at least you are open and honest about it.

I will say that I do value traditions but only when they are affirmed by scripture. I believe scripture is supposed to be our highest authority as Christians.

Honestly, how do you know what Jesus said or did without reading it from the Bible?

---

I get it, I was married to a Lutheran RN for 20 years before she converted. You are looking for a definitive answer, one source that answers the questions. I also shared an office with a devout Moslem engineer for 10 years and had these types of conversations. He loved the Koran because it is logical. My RN wife that worked ICU wanted an answer book, she was raised that the Bible was that.

I was raised Catholic in a heavy Jewish area. You were either Catholic or Jewish. I knew Protestants existed, but never met one until 15. So, my conversations revolved around Peter and the Jewish beginnings of our Church (I mean all of us Christians). So, Paul was not a big influence, even called a false Apostle by some. So, my perspective is different than the typical Bible Belt.

I do not have a cardinal rule that Bible or Tradition overrule the other. It is not that cut and dry. Jesus acted through Oral Tradition and sent Apostles out to spread the word. He didn't put anything he said in writing. There is no record he even asked anyone to write it down. The Bible is a man made. I get it. I get the need, but I do believe that Sola Scriptura has just as much man made bias as oral tradition.

Bottomline, Christianity is about faith. There is a leap of faith. Is everything exactly right? No. If you want a playbook, Islam is much more that way - prescriptive. My view is what is important? One true God, Jesus died for our sins, the resurrection happened and believing in faith is required. The rest, to me, is style. What denomination brings you closer to God? You like the Bible based Protestant. I like the Tradition and social service aspect of the Catholic Church. Etc... You and I are arguing minutia within the same context. It is not like discussing with a Moslem or Buddist.

Although I am more comfortable with the Jewish faith than a lot of Protestants. I can't get my arms around a lot of the positions you and Shooter say. Seems like sacrificing the forest for a tree.

---

Similar experience for me except that I was raised Catholic in a heavy Catholic area. Didn't really have any Protestant friends until Baylor (which is where I found out that Catholics are in the minority lol). Got to be friends with Jewish folks in grad school. And now am friends with people of all faiths. Wife has got me going with her to a nondenominational (Christian) church where I was saved in the Protestant sense.

I don't know which form of Christianity is the best but do appreciate the discussion. I appreciate the passion and knowledge of the posters.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You're not dealing with his points. Peter never addressed himself as anything more than a "fellow elder". Obviously, he didn't get the memo that he was the supreme leader of the church. Paul must've not gotten the memo either, because he doesn't acknowledge and treat him as such. James neither.

There just isn't any solid biblical evidence that Peter functioned as the supreme leader over all the church. You'd think that such a preeminent, vital role in Jesus' church would have been mentioned somewhere - anywhere -in the New Testament in explicit terms. Such an oversight by the Holy Spirit would be akin to U.S. historians failing to mention George Washington as the first president.

---

It does, but you refuse to accept it.

Matthew 16:18
Luke 21 - "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.

Why didn't Jesus pray for all of them? He has given Jesus a specific role as the rock to build his Church.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus asks Peter three times if he loved him (redemption for the three-fold denial) and Jesus instructs him to "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep", and "Feed my sheep", a threefold mandate to signifying Peter's pastoral authority and responsibility over the Church.
Acts 2:14-41 - Peter stands up with the eleven on Pentecost taking the lead in proclaiming the Gospel.
Acts 10 - Peter is instrumental in bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles through his encounter with Cornelius, reflecting his role in opening the Church beyond the Jews.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly, you just don't get it No one can explain it. We will not agree.

We can't even agree on the Bible. You relate everything to scripture, Sola Scriptura. Catholics don't. We say the Latin Vulgate is authoritative, you say the KJ. You constantly quoting the KJ verses as proof means nothing, it is not authoritative to Catholics. Scripture is only part of the equation. Without the oral and Church tradition it is Bible Study. I actually feel bad for you., seems very empty only part of God's message.

---

No, I don't get it because you don't make any sense. You still aren't making sense. Who quoted the KJ?

Latin Vulgate? What does it say that is different than what I quoted? Isn't the Vulgate the work of Jerome, who believed that the apocrypha are not part of canon Scripture, yet Roman Catholicism holds that they are?

Church tradition? You mean fallible, man-made tradition that does not trace back to Jesus and the apostles? By what divine revelation did these traditions come from? How do you know? You don't, yet you're putting it on the same level of authority as Scripture, which we DO know is the infallible word of God. This is why sola scriptura, and abandoning it is the primary reason for all your church's mistakes. That's why you've been led to errant beliefs, even to the point of sheer heresy and idolatry.

---

Once again, you believe in Sola Scriptura. A document that is written by men. We say divinely inspired, so that makes it not of mans making? How is believing a document written by literally hundreds over hundreds of years and voted on in numerous Catholic councils to be "following God's instructions", but following the oral and Church traditions is not!

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, have at it. Sit around your Church Council and have as many little Council of Nicea's as you like. Argue the meaning of a Hebrew, Greek, Latin word ad nauseum. More power to you. Although I think Christ would say you missed the bigger point, but that is just me.

Just don't tell me my believes are wrong. But you can't do that. You have to attack the Catholics in a thread celebrating the naming of a new leader of our Church. No one said a word about your believes, you and your ilk attacked the naming of a new Church leader. Poor form.

---

We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him.

This person Jesus, then, told his disciples they would remember perfectly everything he did and said to tell the world: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26

Thus, Jesus, who had the full stamp of approval from God by his resurrection, in turn gave his full stamp of approval over everything his apostles said and did. Thus, the tradition of the original apostles is the divinely inspired, infallible word of God.

Where do we learn this tradition of the original apostles? Only in Scripture. The only thing the church has that we know came from the original apostles is in the New Testament, thus it is the only thing in the church's possession that is the word of God, thus it is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. Thus, sola scriptura.

Where do Roman Catholic traditions that are not in the Bible come from? Who knows, and when they do know, they can't prove it came from Jesus or the apostles. Neither do they have any kind of divine stamp of approval on it. This most certainly can NOT be relied upon as an infallible rule of faith.

Did the writings of the apostles have to be "voted on in numerous Roman Catholic councils" in order to be accepted as the divine word of God by the early church? NO. The Gospels were already circulated among the first churches as being the infallible word of God. The letters of Paul, Peter, James, etc. were all viewed as Scripture in the early church and circulated among them - hundreds of years before any Roman Catholic council decreed them as such.

---

"We say Scripture is divinely inspired, because Jesus rose from the dead. That pretty much puts a stamp of approval from God on Jesus; it's God saying that everthing Jesus did and said is coming straight from him."

I get that. I am saying that if that is true for those Councils, it is true for the non-Bible councils on decisions the Church makes. You are cherry picking what is "devine" and what is not. Catholics believe that Holy Spirit plays just as big a role in dogmatic decisions as in the choosing the Bible books. As I said, it comes down to Faith. Do you believe? There are no absolutes, there are no guidebooks that don't have as aspect of Faith attached.
By the way, I said that I put the Gospels as the most important books in the New Testament. Much more so than Paul's letters.

You say who knows where decisions come from, each decision is just as documented as the choosing the Bible verses, probably more so.

My question to you is how can you just decide NOT to listen every other Church council, but the ones that chose the Bible books in your version of the Bible? All the others mean nothing, because an Augustinian Monk and his German Noble backers were pissed at Rome? How is that different than Henry the 8th? Seems cherry picking to me. There are some things I don't agree, such as Mary body and soul in heaven or speculating on the sexual habits of Christ's mother. Does it really matter? But, you take the good with the bad, there is no perfect. Or Faith would mean nothing if there was no doubt.