BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?

[In the US, 27% of Jews identify as "Jews of no religion", meaning they don't practice the religion but still identify with Jewish culture and heritage. This translates to roughly 1.5 million Jewish adults who don't identify with a religious denomination of any kind]

Redbrickbear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?

[In the US, 27% of Jews identify as "Jews of no religion", meaning they don't practice the religion but still identify with Jewish culture and heritage. This translates to roughly 1.5 million Jewish adults who don't identify with a religious denomination of any kind]

---

Excellent point.

You want to see something funny, watch practicing New York Jews interact with Jews from Israel... Went to a BarMitzvah where the guy had ham on the deli tray for the non-Jews. Set off a riot! Bar Mitzvah's are a blast... But there is a huge difference between practicing, ethnic and practicing Israeli...

Redbrickbear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?

[In the US, 27% of Jews identify as "Jews of no religion", meaning they don't practice the religion but still identify with Jewish culture and heritage. This translates to roughly 1.5 million Jewish adults who don't identify with a religious denomination of any kind]

---

I think a little of both; mixed bag. I knew a few that were pretty devout and went to synagogue with regularity and others that just did the bid things like Hanukkah or not much at all. The Muslims I know, in general, are more devout to their faith. Just in my experience

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Fair enough. It is important to note how some of those Church fathers used those quotes.

For example, Augustine (one of the most brilliant men to walk the earth) stated that both his confession and Peter, himself, was the rock.
John Chrysostom often mentioned Peter's faith expressed in his confession as foundational to the Church.
St Hilary of Poiter's discussed his confession as the significance as a declaration of Divine truth of Jesus being the Son of God.

What matters is WHO did Jesus give the Keys to? It was Peter. It wasn't his confession. It wasn't himself. He gave the Keys to him, just like King Hezekiah gave the key to Eliakim in Isaiah 22, which granted him authority to make decisions for the kingdom. Jesus has done this for Peter. Not any other apostle.

Also, the magisterium has recognized that the unbroken line of succession of the Bishop of Rome. It began with Peter and now we have a new Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV.

Finally, we have prominent protestant scholars that believe that Peter is the rock and acknowledged Peter's unique role:

Oscar Cullman held that Peter held a special foundational role in the Church.
D.A. Carson notes that there's a strong case for Peter being the rock.
Craig L. Blomberg the text does indeed highlight Peter himself in the context of the Church leadership.

In the end, it only matter that Jesus gave the keys to Peter to build His Church.

Quote:

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?[In the US

---

Whatever disagreements these two groups have, they stand absolutely united on one opinion: Jesus Christ is not the Messiah.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?[In the US

---

Whatever disagreements these two groups have, they stand absolutely united on one opinion: Jesus Christ is not the Messiah.

---

I've got an eye opener. There is a group of Jews called Messianic Jews that believe like Christians, that Jesus was the Messiah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

I know one.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Fair enough. It is important to note how some of those Church fathers used those quotes.

For example, Augustine (one of the most brilliant men to walk the earth) stated that both his confession and Peter, himself, was the rock.
John Chrysostom often mentioned Peter's faith expressed in his confession as foundational to the Church.
St Hilary of Poiter's discussed his confession as the significance as a declaration of Divine truth of Jesus being the Son of God.

What matters is WHO did Jesus give the Keys to? It was Peter. It wasn't his confession. It wasn't himself. He gave the Keys to him, just like King Hezekiah gave the key to Eliakim in Isaiah 22, which granted him authority to make decisions for the kingdom. Jesus has done this for Peter. Not any other apostle.

Also, the magisterium has recognized that the unbroken line of succession of the Bishop of Rome. It began with Peter and now we have a new Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV.

Finally, we have prominent protestant scholars that believe that Peter is the rock and acknowledged Peter's unique role:

Oscar Cullman held that Peter held a special foundational role in the Church.
D.A. Carson notes that there's a strong case for Peter being the rock.
Craig L. Blomberg the text does indeed highlight Peter himself in the context of the Church leadership.

In the end, it only matter that Jesus gave the keys to Peter to build His Church.

---

If we are going to continue the scripture theme, it is pretty clear in scripture when looking at the whole exchange in context. He was talking to Simon Bar-Jonah and he was Peter the rock to build the Church.

This is where I always wondered about Paul. If Peter was to team with Paul, wouldn't Christ have prepared them for another??? No mention. Nothing.

You guys have a problem with Church Tradition. I have a problem with Paul... The only thing I can come up with is that they needed Paul's organizational skills. But, why no mention in the Gospels??? Don't get it.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

I refuse to accept it, as anyone should, because none of this is evidence of Peter as being the pope. Jesus telling Peter to strengthen his brothers may indicate a kind of leadership role among the disciples, but this is not evidence of his discipleship being anything more than being "first among equals", as it is quite evident throughout the New Testament that the disciples had shared responsibilities. And in the council at Jerusalem, it was James who had the final say, not Peter. Paul or James didn't said anything about a single apostle being the leader of the church in their writings. Even Peter didn't address himself as such. Even after Peter was supposedly given the "keys" (an authority which was also given to the other disciples two chapters later), the disciples were debating who was the greatest in the kingdom. Kind of curious that they would be arguing this, if Peter was named by Jesus himself to be the supreme leader over his church.

Jesus praying for Peter does not necessarily indicate his supreme leadership role either. This is yet another example of a complete non sequitur used to work towards the conclusion you want. I'm pretty sure Jesus prayed for all his apostles. Plus, Jesus could have prayed specifically for Peter, because of the weakness he had previously shown when denying him.

Roman Catholicism argues with the conclusion it wants already in mind, and looks for biblical evidence to fit it's conclusion. This isn't proper exegesis or intellectual honesty when dealing with biblical church history. The fact remains that you still have NO evidence which names Peter as the head over all of Jesus' church in explicit terms. You would think that something of such preeminent importance to the church would have been mentioned somewhere in the Bible, or even in history, if it truly existed. It's virtual absence makes Roman Catholicism rest its case entirely on innuendo from scripture, and that clearly indicates just how weak this claim is.

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Fair enough. It is important to note how some of those Church fathers used those quotes.

For example, Augustine (one of the most brilliant men to walk the earth) stated that both his confession and Peter, himself, was the rock.
John Chrysostom often mentioned Peter's faith expressed in his confession as foundational to the Church.
St Hilary of Poiter's discussed his confession as the significance as a declaration of Divine truth of Jesus being the Son of God.

What matters is WHO did Jesus give the Keys to? It was Peter. It wasn't his confession. It wasn't himself. He gave the Keys to him, just like King Hezekiah gave the key to Eliakim in Isaiah 22, which granted him authority to make decisions for the kingdom. Jesus has done this for Peter. Not any other apostle.

Also, the magisterium has recognized that the unbroken line of succession of the Bishop of Rome. It began with Peter and now we have a new Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV.

Finally, we have prominent protestant scholars that believe that Peter is the rock and acknowledged Peter's unique role:

Oscar Cullman held that Peter held a special foundational role in the Church.
D.A. Carson notes that there's a strong case for Peter being the rock.
Craig L. Blomberg the text does indeed highlight Peter himself in the context of the Church leadership.

In the end, it only matter that Jesus gave the keys to Peter to build His Church.

---

You guys have a problem with Church Tradition. I have a problem with Paul... The only thing I can come up with is that they needed Paul's organizational skills. But, why no mention in the Gospels??? Don't get it.

---

Paul's writings was deemed as Scripture by fellow apostle Peter. Your non-biblical church tradition is untraceable to the original apostles. Why wouldn't Christians have a problem with it?

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Fair enough. It is important to note how some of those Church fathers used those quotes.

For example, Augustine (one of the most brilliant men to walk the earth) stated that both his confession and Peter, himself, was the rock.
John Chrysostom often mentioned Peter's faith expressed in his confession as foundational to the Church.
St Hilary of Poiter's discussed his confession as the significance as a declaration of Divine truth of Jesus being the Son of God.

What matters is WHO did Jesus give the Keys to? It was Peter. It wasn't his confession. It wasn't himself. He gave the Keys to him, just like King Hezekiah gave the key to Eliakim in Isaiah 22, which granted him authority to make decisions for the kingdom. Jesus has done this for Peter. Not any other apostle.

Also, the magisterium has recognized that the unbroken line of succession of the Bishop of Rome. It began with Peter and now we have a new Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV.

Finally, we have prominent protestant scholars that believe that Peter is the rock and acknowledged Peter's unique role:

Oscar Cullman held that Peter held a special foundational role in the Church.
D.A. Carson notes that there's a strong case for Peter being the rock.
Craig L. Blomberg the text does indeed highlight Peter himself in the context of the Church leadership.

In the end, it only matter that Jesus gave the keys to Peter to build His Church.

---

We'll address the "keys" and "unbroken line" later. For right now, let's just cut to the chase:

You agree, then, that the idea that Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 was not what the church had always and constantly believed? And thus, it was NOT always believed by the church that Peter had a primacy role over the whole church?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

What matters is WHO did Jesus give the Keys to? It was Peter. It wasn't his confession. It wasn't himself. He gave the Keys to him, just like King Hezekiah gave the key to Eliakim in Isaiah 22, which granted him authority to make decisions for the kingdom. Jesus has done this for Peter. Not any other apostle.

---

Two "key" points here:

• 1) The "keys" were in reference to the authority of "binding and loosing", which Jesus did in fact give to all the other apostles as well, two chapters later in Matthew 18.
• 2) Nowhere does Jesus or anyone else in the New Testament for that matter, declare that this authority could be passed down in line of succession.

Two points are absolutely necessary to unequivocably establish as clear and evident the ruling office of the papacy - the "keys" are only given to Peter, and the keys can be passed down in succession. In light of the fact that Roman Catholicism binds salvation to believing this (it damns anyone to Hell who denies it), I would say that it absolutely requires them to not leave any doubt, since they are adding to the gospel like this. I think one can easily claim that they have NOT made it clear and evident.

EXPOSED 🚨 Tax Forms reveal the secret relationship between Democrats and The Pope

“Joe Biden meets with Pope Francis in 2021. Guess what else happens in 2021. Catholic Charities USA, which is the NGO nonprofit arm of the Catholic Church, they get selected to serve as the leader… pic.twitter.com/sZmGZSeFXv

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 13, 2025

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

---

Jesus said they were established in the seat of Moses and therefore the people should do as they said--but not as they did. They had legitimate authority in the realm of Jewish teaching. Jesus was preparing his disciples for a new teaching. He wasn't rejecting the concept of authority outright.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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)

---

Also, the magisterium has recognized that the unbroken line of succession of the Bishop of Rome. It began with Peter and now we have a new Bishop of Rome, Leo XIV.

---

You'll continue to repeat this, despite repeatedly being shown that it is NOT supported by history. I'll repeat: the majority of modern historians agree that there is no evidence of a single, ruling bishop in Rome until around the 150's AD. Up until then, the church was overseen by a plurality of elders (which is what the New Testament prescribes for the organization of the church - (see how in Revelation, Jesus wrote to the heads of seven churches in Revelation, not to a single ruling bishop in Rome).

Eamon Duffy, emeritus professor of Christian History at the University of Cambridge, agrees with this consensus:

"To begin with, indeed, there was no 'pope', no bishop as such, for the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter, or bishop. By the end of the first century the loose pattern of Christian authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many places to the more organised rule of a single bishop for each city, supported by a college of elders. …There is no sure way to settle on a date by which the office of ruling bishop had emerged in Rome, and so to name the first Pope, but the process was certainly complete by the time of Anicetus in the mid-150s…"

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

---

Jesus said they were established in the seat of Moses and therefore the people should do as they said--but not as they did. They had legitimate authority in the realm of Jewish teaching. Jesus was preparing his disciples for a new teaching. He wasn't rejecting the concept of authority outright.

---

Jesus also said that they were voiding the written Law of God in favor of their man-made traditions, and that they were preventing people from entering the kingdom, for which he pronounced upon them the most serious "woes" in the Bible.

Jesus also said to "beware the leaven (teaching) of the Pharisees" because they corrupted the heart of the Law and his Gospel. I don't believe that when Jesus said to do obey them, that he was talking about obeying the leaven of their fallible, man-made tradition if it contradicted or voided the written Law and Jesus' teachings.

Some really important lessions here.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I don't think you are really aware of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. They distort the central tenet of Christianity, the gospel of salvation itself, by adding works to faith. Their Eucharist is an affront to the once for all saving sacrifice of Jesus, thus distoring central concepts like the atonement and justification. They promote the belief in a "co-mediator" in Mary, who they have raised to the level of goddess, thus leading who knows how many away from the actual Savior, Jesus. And they keep their adherents under their foot, by claiming infallible authority in circular fashion and the power to send them to Hell. I can NOT in good conscience call Roman Catholicism part of Christianity, but rather it's a corruption of Christianity. We are on the same side on many societal and moral issues, yes, but I can NOT say we are on the same side of God's truth. I'm sure it's uncomfortable for Roman Catholics to hear someone lay it out there directly and firmly like this, but if I were in your shoes, that's what I would want someone to do to me. Don't view what I'm doing as "attacking" or being hateful, there just isn't any way to do this directly without appearing like that. I do, however, believe there are many Roman Catholics out there who are indeed saved; but it is in spite of Rome's teachings and influence, not because of them. So I fully agree, these discussions are vitally important to say the least.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

---

Jesus said they were established in the seat of Moses and therefore the people should do as they said--but not as they did. They had legitimate authority in the realm of Jewish teaching. Jesus was preparing his disciples for a new teaching. He wasn't rejecting the concept of authority outright.

---

Jesus also said that they were voiding the written Law of God in favor of their man-made traditions, and that they were preventing people from entering the kingdom, for which he pronounced upon them the most serious "woes" in the Bible.

Jesus also said to "beware the leaven (teaching) of the Pharisees" because they corrupted the heart of the Law and his Gospel. I don't believe that when Jesus said to do obey them, that he was talking about obeying the leaven of their fallible, man-made tradition if it contradicted or voided the written Law and Jesus' teachings.

Some really important lessions here.

---

No tradition is valid if it contradicts Scripture. Yet not all traditions are "man-made" in that sense.

"Moses' seat" refers to a succession of teaching authority found in the Mishna, not the Old Testament. Jesus clearly endorses it here. There are several other references to non-canonical traditions in the NT, for example Jude 9 and 2 Timothy 3:8. 1 Peter 3:19 refers to Purgatory, a teaching handed down through oral tradition. The idea of resurrection was received in the same way.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I don't think you are really aware of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. They distort the central tenet of Christianity, the gospel of salvation itself, by adding works to faith. Their Eucharist is an affront to the once for all saving sacrifice of Jesus, thus distoring central concepts like the atonement and justification. They promote the belief in a "co-mediator" in Mary, who they have raised to the level of goddess, thus leading who knows how many away from the actual Savior, Jesus. And they keep their adherents under their foot, by claiming infallible authority in circular fashion and the power to send them to Hell. I can NOT in good conscience call Roman Catholicism part of Christianity, but rather it's a corruption of Christianity. We are on the same side on many societal and moral issues, yes, but I can NOT say we are on the same side of God's truth. I'm sure it's uncomfortable for Roman Catholics to hear someone lay it out there directly and firmly like this, but if I were in your shoes, that's what I would want someone to do to me. Don't view what I'm doing as "attacking" or being hateful, there just isn't any way to do this directly without appearing like that. I do, however, believe there are many Roman Catholics out there who are indeed saved; but it is in spite of Rome's teachings and influencre, not because of them. So I fully agree, these discussions are vitally important to say the least.

---

Ok, I can see this is going to go nowhere. Thanks for the conversation and I appreciate your views.

I sincerely hope you narrow view doesn't put you in a position at the end where you are informed that you missed the point of Christ's message. It wasn't about following a book, if that were the case he wouldn't have come at all. The Jews did that. Christ came to change the game, which involved a much broader view of the world. Is the Roman Catholic Church perfect, no. None are. Good luck.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

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.

---

Practicing religious Jewish...or just ethnically Jewish?

[In the US, 27% of Jews identify as "Jews of no religion", meaning they don't practice the religion but still identify with Jewish culture and heritage. This translates to roughly 1.5 million Jewish adults who don't identify with a religious denomination of any kind]

---

Excellent point.

You want to see something funny, watch practicing New York Jews interact with Jews from Israel... Went to a BarMitzvah where the guy had ham on the deli tray for the non-Jews. Set off a riot! Bar Mitzvah's are a blast... But there is a huge difference between practicing, ethnic and practicing Israeli...

---

Isn't the correct term really "culturally" not "ethnically." Ashkenazi Jews are ethnically European, Sephardi Jews ethnically Iberian, and Mizrahi Jews ethnically Semitic. Not sure there really is a single, unified ethnic group that could be considered particularly Jewish ... and that's not even throwing in the African Jews.

While I reject the overall Identity Politics narrative, most American Jews are White and for them being Jewish is more of a cultural tradition than an ethnic reality.

Assassin said:

---

EXPOSED 🚨 Tax Forms reveal the secret relationship between Democrats and The Pope

“Joe Biden meets with Pope Francis in 2021. Guess what else happens in 2021. Catholic Charities USA, which is the NGO nonprofit arm of the Catholic Church, they get selected to serve as the leader… pic.twitter.com/sZmGZSeFXv

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 13, 2025

---

Honestly, the Catholic church needs to excommunicate Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi if they want to retain some legitimacy. Those two people are just pure evil, and yet they are openly and proudly using their "Catholic Faith" as a shield from accountability.

I truly mourn for all you catholics out there... you should put pressure on Rome to do the right thing, and eternally separate from the wolves in your midst.

No person is perfect, and everyone deserves a chance to repent... but those two have had decades of chances and they have NEVER repented.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

---

Jesus said they were established in the seat of Moses and therefore the people should do as they said--but not as they did. They had legitimate authority in the realm of Jewish teaching. Jesus was preparing his disciples for a new teaching. He wasn't rejecting the concept of authority outright.

---

Of course he wasn't rejecting authority, he was resetting it to the correct understanding that no man has the authority of God the Father.
And Jesus did rebuke them for creating a burdensome yoke... that doesn't sound like he was calling them legitimate at all.

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

---

Jesus said they were established in the seat of Moses and therefore the people should do as they said--but not as they did. They had legitimate authority in the realm of Jewish teaching. Jesus was preparing his disciples for a new teaching. He wasn't rejecting the concept of authority outright.

---

Of course he wasn't rejecting authority, he was resetting it to the correct understanding that no man has the authority of God the Father.
And Jesus did rebuke them for creating a burdensome yoke... that doesn't sound like he was calling them legitimate at all.

---

burdensome yoke, sounds about right... : )

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I don't think you are really aware of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. They distort the central tenet of Christianity, the gospel of salvation itself, by adding works to faith. Their Eucharist is an affront to the once for all saving sacrifice of Jesus, thus distoring central concepts like the atonement and justification. They promote the belief in a "co-mediator" in Mary, who they have raised to the level of goddess, thus leading who knows how many away from the actual Savior, Jesus. And they keep their adherents under their foot, by claiming infallible authority in circular fashion and the power to send them to Hell. I can NOT in good conscience call Roman Catholicism part of Christianity, but rather it's a corruption of Christianity. We are on the same side on many societal and moral issues, yes, but I can NOT say we are on the same side of God's truth. I'm sure it's uncomfortable for Roman Catholics to hear someone lay it out there directly and firmly like this, but if I were in your shoes, that's what I would want someone to do to me. Don't view what I'm doing as "attacking" or being hateful, there just isn't any way to do this directly without appearing like that. I do, however, believe there are many Roman Catholics out there who are indeed saved; but it is in spite of Rome's teachings and influencre, not because of them. So I fully agree, these discussions are vitally important to say the least.

---

Ok, I can see this is going to go nowhere. Thanks for the conversation and I appreciate your views.

I sincerely hope you narrow view doesn't put you in a position at the end where you are informed that you missed the point of Christ's message. It wasn't about following a book, if that were the case he wouldn't have come at all. The Jews did that. Christ came to change the game, which involved a much broader view of the world. Is the Roman Catholic Church perfect, no. None are. Good luck.

---

What was Jesus' message, in your view, that I missed?

ShooterTX said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EXPOSED 🚨 Tax Forms reveal the secret relationship between Democrats and The Pope

“Joe Biden meets with Pope Francis in 2021. Guess what else happens in 2021. Catholic Charities USA, which is the NGO nonprofit arm of the Catholic Church, they get selected to serve as the leader… pic.twitter.com/sZmGZSeFXv

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 13, 2025

---

Honestly, the Catholic church needs to excommunicate Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi if they want to retain some legitimacy. Those two people are just pure evil, and yet they are openly and proudly using their "Catholic Faith" as a shield from accountability.

I truly mourn for all you catholics out there... you should put pressure on Rome to do the right thing, and eternally separate from the wolves in your midst.

No person is perfect, and everyone deserves a chance to repent... but those two have had decades of chances and they have NEVER repented.

---

Pelosi is currently banned from communion in San Francisco. Biden is or was banned in Scranton, though not in Delaware.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

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.

---

Assuming religious authority wasn't the Pharisees' sin. Jesus himself recognizes their teaching authority, but he condemns their hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:1-3.

---

He recognized their teaching authority??
Jesus literally tells the people to NOT call them teachers... are you serious in your statement?

Tell me how this has anything to do with hypocrisy:

Matthew 23:7-10 NIV
[7] they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called 'Rabbi' by others. [8] "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. [9] And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. [10] Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

How can you possibly read this as only being about hypocrisy? You seriously read this and only see a rebuke of hypocrites?

Did Jesus rebuke them for hypocrisy... of course he did. Did he also rebuke them for assuming titles and authority that was not legitimately theirs... of course he did.

---

Jesus said they were established in the seat of Moses and therefore the people should do as they said--but not as they did. They had legitimate authority in the realm of Jewish teaching. Jesus was preparing his disciples for a new teaching. He wasn't rejecting the concept of authority outright.

---

Of course he wasn't rejecting authority, he was resetting it to the correct understanding that no man has the authority of God the Father.
And Jesus did rebuke them for creating a burdensome yoke... that doesn't sound like he was calling them legitimate at all.

---

He wasn't rejecting the authority of men ordained to act as shepherds for his flock.

Man, these arguments have not been going on for 2,000 years ... let's get back to TDS ... it's so much more fun to hear about how if Trump cured cancer tomorrow it would be horrible for BIPOCs and gays.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Assassin said:

---

EXPOSED 🚨 Tax Forms reveal the secret relationship between Democrats and The Pope

“Joe Biden meets with Pope Francis in 2021. Guess what else happens in 2021. Catholic Charities USA, which is the NGO nonprofit arm of the Catholic Church, they get selected to serve as the leader… pic.twitter.com/sZmGZSeFXv

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 13, 2025

---

Honestly, the Catholic church needs to excommunicate Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi if they want to retain some legitimacy. Those two people are just pure evil, and yet they are openly and proudly using their "Catholic Faith" as a shield from accountability.

I truly mourn for all you catholics out there... you should put pressure on Rome to do the right thing, and eternally separate from the wolves in your midst.

No person is perfect, and everyone deserves a chance to repent... but those two have had decades of chances and they have NEVER repented.

---

Pelosi is currently banned from communion in San Francisco. Biden is or was banned in Scranton, though not in Delaware.

---

Pelosi and Biden were around when Roe v Wade began. They were in power during a lot of that time. 60 million innocent children were butchered...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

You didn't understand what I said. Again, councils did not determine the authority of the Gospels and letters of Paul, James, Peter, etc. The Christians of the early church did, hundreds of years before any council formally declared it. How did they know? Yes, the Holy Spirit was involved, but in the manner of helping them recognize the authenticity and reliability of the authorship of those writings. Jesus gave infallible authority to his first hand apostles, thus if the writing was truly authored by them, it was to be considered the infallible word of God. People did NOT "vote" to decide on the apostle's infallibility, Jesus had already decided that.

Councils were not given infallibility by Jesus. Councils are made up of fallible men, hopefully being led by the Holy Spirit (but that's no guarantee), who must rely on the infallibility of the original apostles as declared by Jesus, not on their own declaration of infallibility because of their claim of being led by the Holy Spirit. We only know that what comes out of Councils is the work of the Holy Spirit if it is agreement with Scripture. That is the standard of measure. What Roman Cathoicism does, and what you've bought in to, is the idea that fallible men claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit is just as infallible of an authority as Scripture. But as I keep saying, Jesus didn't give infallible authority to men outside of his apostles, that we know of. If you abandon sola scriptura, and you allow another standard of measure outside of what God guaranteed (Scripture), you're opening yourself up to compromise of God's truth and huge errors. As we have seen, this is exactly what has led to heresy and idolatry in the Roman Catholic Church. And the worst of it is, her adherents don't (or won't) even recognize or acknowledge it, because they have been conditioned (upon threat of being sent to Hell, btw) to consider the tradition of fallible men to be just as infallible as Scripture. I really hope I've shown you, in logical and biblical manner, that this isn't the case.

---

The original Apostles were dead when the Gospels were written. By the way, no one on here has had ANY issues with the Gospels. Outside of some Church leadership stuff the one thing we all seem to agree on IS the Gospels. Maybe we all should focus there. It is the other Books that seem to cause the problems. One persons opinion.

You keep missing my one overarching point. We are on the same side. We are arguing details. The Catholic Church, for all the mistakes it has made, still works with other Religions on education, health and other social aspects. I loved Church/Services in the Army in the field. Set up on a Jeep, just the sacraments and a bible reading. Sometimes it was a Priest, many times we had a Lutheran Pastor. It boiled religion down to the basics. I never felt closer to God and Christ than in the field in the Army receiving Communion off a Humvee hood or jumping out of a plane. That will cut through the Religious BS really quick....

There are truly hateful people out there. Maybe all of us should worry less about the details and more about living as Christ said. I am at the front of the line.

It may piss you and Shooter off, but these conversations are good. The more you talk the more you understand each other. Once again, one persons opinion.

---

I am not pissed off... sorry if anyone got that conclusion.
I am very sad that so many who call upon the name of Jesus, do not acknowledge the inspired Word of God as the inspired Word of God.

But I am not pissed off. These conversations are very good. I do want to understand why Catholics worship Mary, but don't call it idolatry. Why they don't accept the authority of scripture, but do accept the authority of a simple mortal man instead... even though catholics will almost always admit that previous Pope's have made mistakes.

---

We answered that early on. Catholics honor Jesus's mother and ask for intervention, not worship. There are several times in the Gospels where people asked Mary to intervene and he listened, Wedding at Cana for example. The Scriptures call for honoring Mary, see Gabriel's intro. Personally, I don't get into Mary stuff. But that is the Catholic view. Is it enough to abandon my faith or religion because others get into Mary as an intermediary? No.

I have a hard time praying to Jesus rather than God or going to Mass on Sunday vs the Sabbath. The Bible says there is no God but I am and the Sabbath is on Saturday. Yet, those and all the dietary stuff were set aside. Since there are no degrees of sin, we are all F-ed IF we were supposed to follow the Old Testimant too.

Who knows, you do your best. We can be certain all we want, but we won't know until the end if we were right.

---

If you don't believe in the sinlessness Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily ascension, you are anathematized to Hell by your own Church. You don't seem to have any idea what Roman Catholicism is. Since you have a "hard time" praying to Jesus, apparently you don't know what Christianity is either. So how is it that you lecture others on "missing the point" of Jesus?

---

Hit a nerve, huh ...

Sorry, I guess I am misreading your posts. Maybe I am taking from it what I want, like you are with mine.

There is nothing your Church says that gives you pause or you don't understand as well as others? Nothing that some people in your congregation seem to connect with more than you? Some ideas that really appeal to you,ore than.l others. It is one blase, all the same level believe and feeling?

Mary? Non-issue. Don't see how it really impacts my relationship with God. Seems to bother the hell out of you.

Where I seem to diverge from you is that I believe Jesus came for the not perfect, those that are lost, those that don't go to Church or believe everything at same level they are told. Christ is in the ghetto with the junkies, prostitutes and thieves. The trans and homosexuals that need help. Not the main stream. I liked Francis message. You guys don't seem to. That is where I think Christ would be today, not in a suit in Church. I love the Catholic faith because it is big enough for you and me. Other denominations, not so much.

By the way, you took quite a few shots at me over the last few days. Insulting my believes in a Pope Leo thread. I make one comment on how I hope your narrow view doesn't derail you and you get pissy???