FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

---

Keep in mind. We have said ALL along that the scripture is God's word and is inspired. That and the Church are what we are to follow. YOU are the one saying that is in the ONLY aspect to be followed. The Bible has just as many verses supporting Church Tradition.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. - 1 Corinthians 11:2

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [a]epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

God's eternal word equals the word preached to you.- 1 Peter 1:25

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. - John 21:25

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

There are just as many supporting Scripture AND Tradition. I used the King James version as a courtesy.

As I said, the Catholics on here have not said the Bible wasn't God's Word. Only that Sola Scriptura is in error, Church Tradition is as important. Nobody here said to disregard the Bible. You guys are the only ones coming to a Catholic thread on Pope Leo and saying we have to believe what you say. Actually, it is only 1 person that keeps doing that.

---

Tell us what you think sola scriptura means. Don't look it up, just write in your own words and understanding what it means. I don't think you even know, yet you spent three plus pages arguing against it.

---

Don't look it up? So you can nit pick whatever phrase doesn't fit what you learned in you "Why we are Protestant Class?" After the lectures and citations you use. No, that is a tactic of yours, ask an informal question, we answer informally and you respond in PhD dissertation defense mode. No thank you.

As for the definition. It would be more appropriate to ask you, what is your definition? We can discuss from there.i am comfortable with the Catholic believes in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. You are saying that is wrong.

Present your definition as you understand it?

---

I gave you the definition, the correct definition, in an earlier post. Go back and look. It's obvious you don't read and/or comprehend my posts, but yet you vehemently argue against them.

It's obvious you don't really know what sola scriptura is. An intellectually honest person would actually go throught the trouble of knowing what it means before they get on a public forum and call it "heretical".

DallasBear9902 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

---

Keep in mind. We have said ALL along that the scripture is God's word and is inspired. That and the Church are what we are to follow. YOU are the one saying that is in the ONLY aspect to be followed. The Bible has just as many verses supporting Church Tradition.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. - 1 Corinthians 11:2

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [a]epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

God's eternal word equals the word preached to you.- 1 Peter 1:25

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. - John 21:25

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

There are just as many supporting Scripture AND Tradition. I used the King James version as a courtesy.

As I said, the Catholics on here have not said the Bible wasn't God's Word. Only that Sola Scriptura is in error, Church Tradition is as important. Nobody here said to disregard the Bible. You guys are the only ones coming to a Catholic thread on Pope Leo and saying we have to believe what you say. Actually, it is only 1 person that keeps doing that.

---

Tell us what you think sola scriptura means. Don't look it up, just write in your own words and understanding what it means. I don't think you even know, yet you spent three plus pages arguing against it.

---

Don't look it up? So you can nit pick whatever phrase doesn't fit what you learned in you "Why we are Protestant Class?" After the lectures and citations you use. No, that is a tactic of yours, ask an informal question, we answer informally and you respond in PhD dissertation defense mode. No thank you.

As for the definition. It would be more appropriate to ask you, what is your definition? We can discuss from there.i am comfortable with the Catholic believes in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. You are saying that is wrong.

Present your definition as you understand it?

---

His writing style changes post to post. He's either using ChatGPT or emailing stuff to his youth pastor back home to type out responses for him. It is also why he confuses concepts and doesn't really understand the words he is using.

---

I have written everything in my own words, in my own understanding, except for where I referenced certain historical and biblical sources. Confusing concepts? You STILL think you didn't make a fool of yourself earlier? If you think I confused any concept, I challenge you right now to show me where and what concept. Go ahead. Your non-response will be all that is needed to know.

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Largest Christian denomination for two thousand years is a strange way to fail.

But enjoy yourself.

---

The Roman Catholic Church today would not even be recognized by the Church in 150 AD as being the same Church, let alone even being Christian. The early Christians would think that Roman Catholicism turned into an idolatrous cult straight from Satan.

---

LOL

---

Do you Roman Catholics here HONESTLY believe that the following Fatima message, which your Roman Catholic magisterium fully endorses, is a Christian message?:

""The children were also told to pray and sacrifice themselves for sinners, in order to save them from hell.... God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.....God wants us to have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and to work to spread this devotion throughout the world. Our Lady said, 'My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.' If we wish to go to God, we have a sure way to Him through true devotion to the Immaculate Heart of His Mother."


- the childrens' sacrifice to save others from Hell??
- world devotion to MARY??
- MARY is our refuge and a sure way that will lead us to God??

I said it before, and I'll say it again: if you truly can't see that this is pure hersey and idolatry in an absolutely satanic message, then you have ZERO discernment and chances are very likely that you have an unregenerate heart and mind because you don't have the Holy Spirit, and you aren't really saved. That is certainly not something to "LOL" about.

Peace Be With You

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

---

Keep in mind. We have said ALL along that the scripture is God's word and is inspired. That and the Church are what we are to follow. YOU are the one saying that is in the ONLY aspect to be followed. The Bible has just as many verses supporting Church Tradition.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. - 1 Corinthians 11:2

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [a]epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

God's eternal word equals the word preached to you.- 1 Peter 1:25

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. - John 21:25

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

There are just as many supporting Scripture AND Tradition. I used the King James version as a courtesy.

As I said, the Catholics on here have not said the Bible wasn't God's Word. Only that Sola Scriptura is in error, Church Tradition is as important. Nobody here said to disregard the Bible. You guys are the only ones coming to a Catholic thread on Pope Leo and saying we have to believe what you say. Actually, it is only 1 person that keeps doing that.

---

Did I actually say that? Or are you putting words in my mouth? I'm avoiding Latin phrases because I don't find them very helpful. Scripture is clearly authoritative. I do believe that anyone with a personal relationship with God can have personal insights that apply to them alone. We know they come from God because they are consistent with scripture and obedience brings peace. Everything good comes from God (James 1:17).

No person, pope or otherwise, can say something with the same authority as the word of God. Anyone who treats the words of a fallible sinner as equal to the words of our perfect creator runs the risk of blasphemy, heresy, & idolatry. Historically, that's usually how heresies & cults begin: some charlatan claiming to have special insight from God but presents false doctrines (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, & the modern climate cult hoaxers are examples).

Yes traditions are important but not always correct. Also, there is a difference between the traditions of the first century church in its infancy and catholic traditions over 1,000 years old created by corrupt popes to enhance their power. Some of those frauds were exposed hundreds of years ago. I'm not trying to bash the Catholic Church. It has done much good but it has also done much harm, like every other institution created by humans. It is not the universal church (although that's what "Catholic" means). As I said before, Christ's church, the "bride of Christ" from Revelation, is the totality of believers. Human denominations & labels mean little to God. He is interested in individuals and what is in the heart of every one of us. The Bible repeatedly states that God shows no partiality (favoritism).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The argument is NOT circular. **This is an important logical point. We (Protestants and Catholics) both agree on the starting point- that Scripture is the very word of God. This is not an argument with atheists or Muslims, who do not agree with that starting point. With them, it is circular.

---

But someone has to determine what IS scripture. We agree that it is the word of God, but we still disagree with the whole of cannon. It is still a circular argument.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Bible doesn't have to claim it is the infallible rule of faith. The Old Testament was proven infallible when Jesus verified "ever jot and tittle" and the "Law, Prophets, and Writings" by his resurrection. The New Testament is written by his apostles, who Jesus gave infallible authority to (John 14:26). Regardless, it is accepted on faith that it is infallible, because we accept on faith that Jesus rose from the dead. The rest logically follows.

---

Protestants reject the Deuterocanon, so they don't even have the full and proper canon. If you accepted what Jesus "verified" ever[sic] jot and title" then you should accept the Deuterocanon because Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint, which contain the Deuterocanon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Who determines what the passages mean? The people of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, through study, discussion, debate - just like the noble Bereans did in Acts. Even if we still won't all agree, still, it is the HOLY SPIRIT who is the infallible guide, NOT a church organization run by fallible men.

---

You are dodging the question. Between you and Methodist, who determines what is correct. You've stated in all your post that YOU are correct in your interpretations are the correct ones. Why should the Methodist believe in your interpretation. What about the Seventh Day Adventists' interpretations? Or someone from the Church of Christ? Who determines who's correct?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The argument is NOT circular. **This is an important logical point. We (Protestants and Catholics) both agree on the starting point- that Scripture is the very word of God. This is not an argument with atheists or Muslims, who do not agree with that starting point. With them, it is circular.

---

But someone has to determine what IS scripture. We agree that it is the word of God, but we still disagree with the whole of cannon. It is still a circular argument.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Bible doesn't have to claim it is the infallible rule of faith. The Old Testament was proven infallible when Jesus verified "ever jot and tittle" and the "Law, Prophets, and Writings" by his resurrection. The New Testament is written by his apostles, who Jesus gave infallible authority to (John 14:26). Regardless, it is accepted on faith that it is infallible, because we accept on faith that Jesus rose from the dead. The rest logically follows.

---

Protestants reject the Deuterocanon, so they don't even have the full and proper canon. If you accepted what Jesus "verified" ever[sic] jot and title" then you should accept the Deuterocanon because Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint, which contain the Deuterocanon.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Who determines what the passages mean? The people of God, guided by the Holy Spirit, through study, discussion, debate - just like the noble Bereans did in Acts. Even if we still won't all agree, still, it is the HOLY SPIRIT who is the infallible guide, NOT a church organization run by fallible men.

---

You are dodging the question. Between you and Methodist, who determines what is correct. You've stated in all your post that YOU are correct in your interpretations are the correct ones. Why should the Methodist believe in your interpretation. What about the Seventh Day Adventists' interpretations? Or someone from the Church of Christ? Who determines who's correct?

---

- Both Protestants and Catholics agree that the New Testament is Scripture. It's an agreed upon starting point. So it's still not circular. You evidently don't know what a circular argument means. Stop trying to defend what you said after it's been shown to be wrong, you'll only embarass yourself.

- Jesus never used the Septuagint, a Greek translation - he spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint contained BOTH canon and non-canon books. Moreover, the Septuagint did not exist as one entire volume, as in a book. The Jews during Jesus' time did not have books, they still read from scrolls. The only scrolls they laid up in the Temple and read from as canon scripture was the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings). The Gospel writers quoting the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh (Jewish canon) does not automatically turn the non-canonical books of the Septuagint into canon scripture. Jesus and his disciples NEVER quoted from the apocrypha, what you call the deuterocanon. The apocryphal books contain historical and theological errors, and therefore are not inspired. Even a book in the apocrypha says that the Jewish canon was closed! The earliest known lists of canon books did not contain the apocrypha. The majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT view the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books as canon scripture.

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong. You've been told all this before, and now you're trying to recycle your same lies again to a new crowd. It's not going to work. Well, it may work, but only to stupid people.

- I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question. Ultimately, each individual Christian has to determine what the correct interpretation is or who's the authority they will trust to provide that interpretation. However, it isn't being a responsible Christian if they're not reading the Bible for themselves to verify, just like the noble Bereans did. It also takes study - reading all other interpretations, reading what the scholars/theologicans who study the subject say, etc. and then deciding. If they are truly Christians who are truly seeking the truth, then the Holy Spirit will guide them.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jesus never used the Septuagint, a Greek translation - he spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint contained BOTH canon and non-canon books. Moreover, the Septuagint did not exist as one entire volume, as in a book. The Jews during Jesus' time did not have books, they still read from scrolls. The only scrolls they laid up in the Temple and read from as canon scripture was the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings). The Gospel writers quoting the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh (Jewish canon) does not automatically turn the non-canonical books of the Septuagint into canon scripture. Jesus and his disciples NEVER quoted from the apocrypha, what you call the deuterocanon. The apocryphal books contain historical and theological errors, and therefore are not inspired. Even a book in the apocrypha says that the Jewish canon was closed! The earliest known lists of canon books did not contain the apocrypha. The majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT view the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books as canon scripture.

---

So MUCH wrong here that it's scary.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but they used the Septuagint. Approximately 90% of the bible is from the Septuagint. Of the 350 OT quotes, 300 are direct quotes from the Septuagint.

Greek was the linga franca in the Hellenistic world.

It is also FALSE that there was ONE Jewish canon and that it was closed. I do not know what "apocrypha" book claims that the Jewish canon was closed. Most scholars today suggest that the Jewish canon was closed at the Council of Jamnia; however, many state that it was necessarily closed but it discussed what texts were authoritative.

Jesus and the disciples use several themes and ideas from the Deuterocanon as they are reflected in their teachings.

If you throw out the DT because they were not directly quoted, then please remove Ester, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, & Zephaniah from your bible.

If you are claiming that the Deuterocanon has historical errors, then you are claiming that the Word of God has historical errors. You will have to argue that the first eleven chapters has historical errors (unless you are a creationist.)

It has NO theological errors either. Luther moved them because they didn't fit HIS theology. Doesn't that scare you that you hinge your beliefs on a man who removed those books?

The original KJV contained all 46 OT books. It wasn't until later when protestants removed them all together.

Finally, you can keep your Jewish 39 OT (although you are missing out on 7 AMAZING books.) I will stick with the proper 46-book canon that Jesus, his disciples, and the early Church used. I'll side with Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question. Ultimately, each individual Christian has to determine what the correct interpretation is or who's the authority they will trust to provide that interpretation. However, it isn't being a responsible Christian if they're not reading the Bible for themselves to verify, just like the noble Bereans did. It also takes study - reading all other interpretations, reading what the scholars/theologicans who study the subject say, etc. and then deciding. If they are truly Christians who are truly seeking the truth, then the Holy Spirit will guide them.

---

Why should I trust you? The Church has studied all 73 books of the bible for over 1900 years. I trust them.

It's interesting that you mentioned scholars and theologians, but you ignore the Church fathers (theologians and scholars - who lived closer to Jesus) on their beliefs on baptism, the eucharist, & eternal security.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jesus never used the Septuagint, a Greek translation - he spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint contained BOTH canon and non-canon books. Moreover, the Septuagint did not exist as one entire volume, as in a book. The Jews during Jesus' time did not have books, they still read from scrolls. The only scrolls they laid up in the Temple and read from as canon scripture was the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings). The Gospel writers quoting the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh (Jewish canon) does not automatically turn the non-canonical books of the Septuagint into canon scripture. Jesus and his disciples NEVER quoted from the apocrypha, what you call the deuterocanon. The apocryphal books contain historical and theological errors, and therefore are not inspired. Even a book in the apocrypha says that the Jewish canon was closed! The earliest known lists of canon books did not contain the apocrypha. The majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT view the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books as canon scripture.

---

So MUCH wrong here that it's scary.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but they used the Septuagint. Approximately 90% of the bible is from the Septuagint. Of the 350 OT quotes, 300 are direct quotes from the Septuagint.

Greek was the linga franca in the Hellenistic world.

It is also FALSE that there was ONE Jewish canon and that it was closed. I do not know what "apocrypha" book claims that the Jewish canon was closed. Most scholars today suggest that the Jewish canon was closed at the Council of Jamnia; however, many state that it was necessarily closed but it discussed what texts were authoritative.

Jesus and the disciples use several themes and ideas from the Deuterocanon as they are reflected in their teachings.

If you throw out the DT because they were not directly quoted, then please remove Ester, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, & Zephaniah from your bible.

If you are claiming that the Deuterocanon has historical errors, then you are claiming that the Word of God has historical errors. You will have to argue that the first eleven chapters has historical errors (unless you are a creationist.)

It has NO theological errors either. Luther moved them because they didn't fit HIS theology. Doesn't that scare you that you hinge your beliefs on a man who removed those books?

The original KJV contained all 46 OT books. It wasn't until later when protestants removed them all together.

Finally, you can keep your Jewish 39 OT (although you are missing out on 7 AMAZING books.) I will stick with the proper 46-book canon that Jesus, his disciples, and the early Church used. I'll side with Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question. Ultimately, each individual Christian has to determine what the correct interpretation is or who's the authority they will trust to provide that interpretation. However, it isn't being a responsible Christian if they're not reading the Bible for themselves to verify, just like the noble Bereans did. It also takes study - reading all other interpretations, reading what the scholars/theologicans who study the subject say, etc. and then deciding. If they are truly Christians who are truly seeking the truth, then the Holy Spirit will guide them.

---

Why should I trust you? The Church has studied all 73 books of the bible for over 1900 years. I trust them.

It's interesting that you mentioned scholars and theologians, but you ignore the Church fathers (theologians and scholars - who lived closer to Jesus) on their beliefs on baptism, the eucharist, & eternal security.

---

He's falling into the gap trap.

His theory of Christianity is irreconcilable with the reality of history. Christians could not have each and individually studied and verified scripture and its meaning for themselves for the first 1800 years of Christianity, and even then literacy was not wide spread until about 100 years ago. Yet his idea is that between (a) empowering people with the ability to shepherd his sheep or (b) have a functionally impossible system for the first 1900 years of the Church, Jesus chose (b). Also, I am not sure how each Christian is to become a primary biblical expert to decide for themselves what is the appropriate canonized text. Scholars spend entire lifetimes on that issue and don't resolve it. But billions upon billions of people are supposed to do that individually and separately? Yeah, sure.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jesus never used the Septuagint, a Greek translation - he spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint contained BOTH canon and non-canon books. Moreover, the Septuagint did not exist as one entire volume, as in a book. The Jews during Jesus' time did not have books, they still read from scrolls. The only scrolls they laid up in the Temple and read from as canon scripture was the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings). The Gospel writers quoting the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh (Jewish canon) does not automatically turn the non-canonical books of the Septuagint into canon scripture. Jesus and his disciples NEVER quoted from the apocrypha, what you call the deuterocanon. The apocryphal books contain historical and theological errors, and therefore are not inspired. Even a book in the apocrypha says that the Jewish canon was closed! The earliest known lists of canon books did not contain the apocrypha. The majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT view the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books as canon scripture.

---

So MUCH wrong here that it's scary.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but they used the Septuagint. Approximately 90% of the bible is from the Septuagint. Of the 350 OT quotes, 300 are direct quotes from the Septuagint.

Greek was the linga franca in the Hellenistic world.

It is also FALSE that there was ONE Jewish canon and that it was closed. I do not know what "apocrypha" book claims that the Jewish canon was closed. Most scholars today suggest that the Jewish canon was closed at the Council of Jamnia; however, many state that it was necessarily closed but it discussed what texts were authoritative.

Jesus and the disciples use several themes and ideas from the Deuterocanon as they are reflected in their teachings.

If you throw out the DT because they were not directly quoted, then please remove Ester, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, & Zephaniah from your bible.

If you are claiming that the Deuterocanon has historical errors, then you are claiming that the Word of God has historical errors. You will have to argue that the first eleven chapters has historical errors (unless you are a creationist.)

It has NO theological errors either. Luther moved them because they didn't fit HIS theology. Doesn't that scare you that you hinge your beliefs on a man who removed those books?

The original KJV contained all 46 OT books. It wasn't until later when protestants removed them all together.

Finally, you can keep your Jewish 39 OT (although you are missing out on 7 AMAZING books.) I will stick with the proper 46-book canon that Jesus, his disciples, and the early Church used. I'll side with Jesus.

---

You're good at claiming things are wrong, you're just no so good at showing it.

- Jesus and his apostles never "used" the Septuagint. They used the canonical books within the Septuagint. Again, I don't know how it'll every get into your head, but the Septuagint contained BOTH canonical AND non-canonical books. Quoting the canonical books doesn't magically turn the non-canonical books into the canonical just because they were included in the volume. That'd be like the "foreword" of the Trump Bible written by Trump being considered part of Biblical canon because it was in that volume.

- Yes, the Jewish people closed their canon. They "laid up" in the Temple the books that they deemed canonical (their Tanakh), and they correspond exactly to the books of the Old Testament. NONE of the apocryphal books were laid up in the Temple. The historian Josephus names these books that were "laid up", and the number of those books was closed. Philo of Alexandria agrees. So does the Talmud. So did Pseudoepigraphical writings like 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) written in 100 AD. Aquila who translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek in 128 AD agrees. Origen and Epiphanius said that the Jews rejected the apocrypha. So did Jerome. So did the majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars from the time of Jerome up until the 1500's. The earliest known bible canons (Melito's canon, Bryennios' list) did not contain the apocrypha. Even the apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees said that there was no prophet in all of Israel, including him. The grandson of the author of Ecclesiasticus said the Hebrew canon was complete before he wrote. And if all of that isn't good enough for you, JESUS himself said he came to fulfill all of the Law, Prophets, and Writings - nothing about the apocrypha. If Jesus considered the canon closed, then so should you.

- The creation account does not have historical errors. That's a really dumb argument.

- Jesus never used any themes from the apocrypha. Rather, the apocrypha used themes from the Hebrew canon, and Jesus used themes from that same Hebrew canon. That doesn't mean Jesus was referring to the apocrpha. Another really bad argument.

- Doesn't it scare you that you are adding books that JESUS didn't consider as canon?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jesus never used the Septuagint, a Greek translation - he spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint contained BOTH canon and non-canon books. Moreover, the Septuagint did not exist as one entire volume, as in a book. The Jews during Jesus' time did not have books, they still read from scrolls. The only scrolls they laid up in the Temple and read from as canon scripture was the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings). The Gospel writers quoting the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh (Jewish canon) does not automatically turn the non-canonical books of the Septuagint into canon scripture. Jesus and his disciples NEVER quoted from the apocrypha, what you call the deuterocanon. The apocryphal books contain historical and theological errors, and therefore are not inspired. Even a book in the apocrypha says that the Jewish canon was closed! The earliest known lists of canon books did not contain the apocrypha. The majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT view the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books as canon scripture.

---

So MUCH wrong here that it's scary.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but they used the Septuagint. Approximately 90% of the bible is from the Septuagint. Of the 350 OT quotes, 300 are direct quotes from the Septuagint.

Greek was the linga franca in the Hellenistic world.

It is also FALSE that there was ONE Jewish canon and that it was closed. I do not know what "apocrypha" book claims that the Jewish canon was closed. Most scholars today suggest that the Jewish canon was closed at the Council of Jamnia; however, many state that it was necessarily closed but it discussed what texts were authoritative.

Jesus and the disciples use several themes and ideas from the Deuterocanon as they are reflected in their teachings.

If you throw out the DT because they were not directly quoted, then please remove Ester, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, & Zephaniah from your bible.

If you are claiming that the Deuterocanon has historical errors, then you are claiming that the Word of God has historical errors. You will have to argue that the first eleven chapters has historical errors (unless you are a creationist.)

It has NO theological errors either. Luther moved them because they didn't fit HIS theology. Doesn't that scare you that you hinge your beliefs on a man who removed those books?

The original KJV contained all 46 OT books. It wasn't until later when protestants removed them all together.

Finally, you can keep your Jewish 39 OT (although you are missing out on 7 AMAZING books.) I will stick with the proper 46-book canon that Jesus, his disciples, and the early Church used. I'll side with Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question. Ultimately, each individual Christian has to determine what the correct interpretation is or who's the authority they will trust to provide that interpretation. However, it isn't being a responsible Christian if they're not reading the Bible for themselves to verify, just like the noble Bereans did. It also takes study - reading all other interpretations, reading what the scholars/theologicans who study the subject say, etc. and then deciding. If they are truly Christians who are truly seeking the truth, then the Holy Spirit will guide them.

---

Why should I trust you? The Church has studied all 73 books of the bible for over 1900 years. I trust them.

It's interesting that you mentioned scholars and theologians, but you ignore the Church fathers (theologians and scholars - who lived closer to Jesus) on their beliefs on baptism, the eucharist, & eternal security.

---

Who's asking you to trust ME? You should trust Jesus as to what he thinks is canon.

I don't ignore any Church father. The church fathers were still fallible men, and they had varied beliefs on things like baptism, the Eucharist, eternal security, etc. That's why what they say has to be measured against infallible Scripture. But you are the one claiming unanimity among church fathers to bolster the claim that the Roman Catholic church today is the same church since Jesus, with the "ancient and constant" faith that "always believed" what you currently believe today. Church history isn't kind to this claim, so YOU and your church HAS to ignore the early church fathers. Want proof? NO ONE wants to admit that the Roman Catholic claim that the "ancient and constant" faith that was "always" believed" was that Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that he alone was given the keys, isn't true given the clear evidence from church history. So what say you?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- Jesus never used the Septuagint, a Greek translation - he spoke Aramaic. The Septuagint contained BOTH canon and non-canon books. Moreover, the Septuagint did not exist as one entire volume, as in a book. The Jews during Jesus' time did not have books, they still read from scrolls. The only scrolls they laid up in the Temple and read from as canon scripture was the Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings). The Gospel writers quoting the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh (Jewish canon) does not automatically turn the non-canonical books of the Septuagint into canon scripture. Jesus and his disciples NEVER quoted from the apocrypha, what you call the deuterocanon. The apocryphal books contain historical and theological errors, and therefore are not inspired. Even a book in the apocrypha says that the Jewish canon was closed! The earliest known lists of canon books did not contain the apocrypha. The majority of all church fathers, theologians, and scholars up until the 15th century did NOT view the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books as canon scripture.

---

So MUCH wrong here that it's scary.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but they used the Septuagint. Approximately 90% of the bible is from the Septuagint. Of the 350 OT quotes, 300 are direct quotes from the Septuagint.

Greek was the linga franca in the Hellenistic world.

It is also FALSE that there was ONE Jewish canon and that it was closed. I do not know what "apocrypha" book claims that the Jewish canon was closed. Most scholars today suggest that the Jewish canon was closed at the Council of Jamnia; however, many state that it was necessarily closed but it discussed what texts were authoritative.

Jesus and the disciples use several themes and ideas from the Deuterocanon as they are reflected in their teachings.

If you throw out the DT because they were not directly quoted, then please remove Ester, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Obadiah, Nahum, & Zephaniah from your bible.

If you are claiming that the Deuterocanon has historical errors, then you are claiming that the Word of God has historical errors. You will have to argue that the first eleven chapters has historical errors (unless you are a creationist.)

It has NO theological errors either. Luther moved them because they didn't fit HIS theology. Doesn't that scare you that you hinge your beliefs on a man who removed those books?

The original KJV contained all 46 OT books. It wasn't until later when protestants removed them all together.

Finally, you can keep your Jewish 39 OT (although you are missing out on 7 AMAZING books.) I will stick with the proper 46-book canon that Jesus, his disciples, and the early Church used. I'll side with Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- I didn't dodge anything. I answered the question. Ultimately, each individual Christian has to determine what the correct interpretation is or who's the authority they will trust to provide that interpretation. However, it isn't being a responsible Christian if they're not reading the Bible for themselves to verify, just like the noble Bereans did. It also takes study - reading all other interpretations, reading what the scholars/theologicans who study the subject say, etc. and then deciding. If they are truly Christians who are truly seeking the truth, then the Holy Spirit will guide them.

---

Why should I trust you? The Church has studied all 73 books of the bible for over 1900 years. I trust them.

It's interesting that you mentioned scholars and theologians, but you ignore the Church fathers (theologians and scholars - who lived closer to Jesus) on their beliefs on baptism, the eucharist, & eternal security.

---

He's falling into the gap trap.

His theory of Christianity is irreconcilable with the reality of history. Christians could not have each and individually studied and verified scripture and its meaning for themselves for the first 1800 years of Christianity, and even then literacy was not wide spread until about 100 years ago. Yet his idea is that between (a) empowering people with the ability to shepherd his sheep or (b) have a functionally impossible system for the first 1900 years of the Church, Jesus chose (b). Also, I am not sure how each Christian is to become a primary biblical expert to decide for themselves what is the appropriate canonized text. Scholars spend entire lifetimes on that issue and don't resolve it. But billions upon billions of people are supposed to do that individually and separately? Yeah, sure.

---

No one said that's what they did, or should have done in history. There really is a problem with your reading and comprehension. I was clearly referring to today, because he was referring to Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. I don't recall these being in existence in early church history.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

---

He has to throw in all this other stuff because he really struggles to understand abstract concepts. He knows his desired end result, he then just backfills to get there.

Of course it makes perfect sense that a people who will be almost exclusively illiterate for 1500+ years will each individually have to study the scriptures and not rely on shepherds that God has provided them (even after Jesus makes clear that his followers are sheep and he's asking for his apostles to care for his sheep). Of course it makes perfect sense that each individual Christian must become an individual expert on which texts are canon and which are not so that they will each decide for themselves what is proper to follow (forget the gross inefficiency and lack of arbiter). Of course it doesn't matter that the very first third-party proclamations of the Good News WHILE JESUS WAS ON EARTH before the crucifixion were based on oral tradition; scriptures that would not exist for years are the standard by which to judge those early proclamations of the Good News (who knows how that works?). Of course it makes perfect sense that individual conscience of each believer has primacythat's how we get to the 573rd Nondenominational Church of Waco when the 572nd Nondenominational Church cannot agree on which shade of purple to use for the vestments during the Easter Service and a split of the Body of Christ is thus required…. And on and on it goes.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

---

The Bible does not support Petrine primacy. You're still just telling me, not showing me. Almost none of the early church fathers viewed Peter being given the keys, being the "rock", or "feeding the sheep' as supporting the office of the papacy. It's not in the Bible, and it's not in church history. You just don't have the facts or the history, you just have your sheep-like trust in fallible leaders to tell you. We're not asked to have the "faith of a child" we are to have faith that grows in maturity and in discernment. It's clear that you and your colleagues haven't developed it, if any of you are even Christian at all. I have my doubts, because look where it's led you guys - your leaders have clearly led you astray by their full endorsement of that Fatima message which is obviously from the Devil. If you can't see that, then there's no way you have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would tell any Christian to run as far away from that as possible. Also, none of you will admit that your leaders are wrong with regard to Peter being the "rock" being the "ancient and constant" faith that was "always believed" by the church, as is evidenced by church history.

You can try to insult my intelligence and abilities all you want, but people here don't buy it. They know "BS ad hominem tactics when someone doesn't have an argument" when they see it. And if I'm "Jr. High", then you guys are still reading pop-up books. There's just been no contest here. That's why my search for an intellectually honest and intelligent Roman Catholic continues....

DallasBear9902 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

---

He has to throw in all this other stuff because he really struggles to understand abstract concepts. He knows his desired end result, he then just backfills to get there.

Of course it makes perfect sense that a people who will be almost exclusively illiterate for 1500+ years will each individually have to study the scriptures and not rely on shepherds that God has provided them (even after Jesus makes clear that his followers are sheep and he's asking for his apostles to care for his sheep). Of course it makes perfect sense that each individual Christian must become an individual expert on which texts are canon and which are not so that they will each decide for themselves what is proper to follow (forget the gross inefficiency and lack of arbiter). Of course it doesn't matter that the very first third-party proclamations of the Good News WHILE JESUS WAS ON EARTH before the crucifixion were based on oral tradition; scriptures that would not exist for years are the standard by which to judge those early proclamations of the Good News (who knows how that works?). Of course it makes perfect sense that individual conscience of each believer has primacythat's how we get to the 573rd Nondenominational Church of Waco when the 572nd Nondenominational Church cannot agree on which shade of purple to use for the vestments during the Easter Service and a split of the Body of Christ is thus required…. And on and on it goes.

---

You can repeat that "he doesn't understand concepts" lie all you want, no one's buying it. You got crushed in the debate. It's all on record above. You want "failure to understand concepts"? Here, try this one: you argued that an a priori logical argument is saying that something is true "because I say so". LOL. If that's not a complete failure to understand logical concepts, I don't know what is.

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347 AD), the highly influential and prolific Archbishop of Constantinople, named a Doctor of the Catholic Church (an honor only 37 people in church history have) on Peter's confession, not Peter himself, being the the "rock" of Matthew 16:

Quote:

---

"And I say unto thee, Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church': that is, on the faith of his confession." (NPNF Vol. 10, p. 333)

"(Jesus) speaks from this time lowly things, on His way to His passion, that He may show His humanity. For He that has built His church upon Peter's confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…" (NPNF Vol. 10, p. 494)

---

Chrysostom, on Peter not being the only one having the "keys", but the apostle John having them as well:

Quote:

---

"For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom, with much confidence…" (NPNF Vol. XIV, p. 1)

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

---

The Bible does not support Petrine primacy. You're still just telling me, not showing me. Almost none of the early church fathers viewed Peter being given the keys, being the "rock", or "feeding the sheep' as supporting the office of the papacy. It's not in the Bible, and it's not in church history. You just don't have the facts or the history, you just have your sheep-like trust in fallible leaders to tell you. We're not asked to have the "faith of a child" we are to have faith that grows in maturity and in discernment. It's clear that you and your colleagues haven't developed it, if any of you are even Christian at all. I have my doubts, because look where it's led you guys - your leaders have clearly led you astray by their full endorsement of that Fatima message which is obviously from the Devil. If you can't see that, then there's no way you have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would tell any Christian to run as far away from that as possible. Also, none of you will admit that your leaders are wrong with regard to Peter being the "rock" being the "ancient and constant" faith that was "always believed" by the church, as is evidenced by church history.

You can try to insult my intelligence and abilities all you want, but people here don't buy it. They know "BS ad hominem tactics when someone doesn't have an argument" when they see it. And if I'm "Jr. High", then you guys are still reading pop-up books. There's just been no contest here. That's why my search for an intellectually honest and intelligent Roman Catholic continues....

---

No, not your intelligence, maybe your personality, lack of courtesy, or manners would be a better term. You are continually barking, insulting and condemning people that said absolutely nothing to you in a thread celebrating a new leader of a Church.

You have turned a conversation about Pope Leo into refighting the Reformation and you acting as judge and jury whether our believes are good enough or correct. That is at the very best poor form and at least something I will not say on this forum. Anyway you cut it, you have destroyed the celebration of the selection of a new Pope in a Pope Leo thread that never said a word about Protestants. A thread you were not invited to pass judgement.

So, go celebrate that you threw a stick in the spokes of a bunch of Catholics on their Alma Matta website. Your fellow zealot Protestants will celebrate your heroism and dedication. YOU are an example of why there will not be peace on earth or the ability to for religions to work together, I met a lot of Moslems with the same traits in the Gulf War. My suggestion is go to Dharan, Damam, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait City and have these conversations using the same tactics, will be good for you. You may grow up, fast...

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

---

The Bible does not support Petrine primacy. You're still just telling me, not showing me. Almost none of the early church fathers viewed Peter being given the keys, being the "rock", or "feeding the sheep' as supporting the office of the papacy. It's not in the Bible, and it's not in church history. You just don't have the facts or the history, you just have your sheep-like trust in fallible leaders to tell you. We're not asked to have the "faith of a child" we are to have faith that grows in maturity and in discernment. It's clear that you and your colleagues haven't developed it, if any of you are even Christian at all. I have my doubts, because look where it's led you guys - your leaders have clearly led you astray by their full endorsement of that Fatima message which is obviously from the Devil. If you can't see that, then there's no way you have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would tell any Christian to run as far away from that as possible. Also, none of you will admit that your leaders are wrong with regard to Peter being the "rock" being the "ancient and constant" faith that was "always believed" by the church, as is evidenced by church history.

You can try to insult my intelligence and abilities all you want, but people here don't buy it. They know "BS ad hominem tactics when someone doesn't have an argument" when they see it. And if I'm "Jr. High", then you guys are still reading pop-up books. There's just been no contest here. That's why my search for an intellectually honest and intelligent Roman Catholic continues....

---

No, not your intelligence, maybe your personality, lack of courtesy, or manners would be a better term. You are continually barking, insulting and condemning people that said absolutely nothing to you in a thread celebrating a new leader of a Church.

You have turned a conversation about Pope Leo into refighting the Reformation and you acting as judge and jury whether our believes are good enough or correct. That is at the very best poor form and at least something I will not say on this forum. Anyway you cut it, you have destroyed the celebration of the selection of a new Pope in a Pope Leo thread that never said a word about Protestants. A thread you were not invited to pass judgement.

So, go celebrate that you threw a stick in the spokes of a bunch of Catholics on their Alma Matta website. Your fellow zealot Protestants will celebrate your heroism and dedication. YOU are an example of why there will not be peace on earth or the ability to for religions to work together, I met a lot of Moslems with the same traits in the Gulf War. My suggestion is go to Dharan, Damam, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait City and have these conversations using the same tactics, will be good for you. You may grow up, fast...

---

"...people that said absolutely nothing to you" - well, except for all the times you guys cursed at and insulted me. Your memory about what transpired in this thread is a tad distorted.

Take what I have said in this thread as you will. I have found that when people can't deny what I've said and have no argument or recourse, they react exactly the way you and others did in this thread - try to turn it around and make it about my personal flaws, manners, "tone", etc (which is quite ironic). I'm not concerned about what you think of me personally. You don't know me. None of us know each other. We're just in a digital forum where we read each other's comments. It's all about the truth and the facts and I've presented them to you, and it's up to you what you'll make of them. I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

---

The Bible does not support Petrine primacy. You're still just telling me, not showing me. Almost none of the early church fathers viewed Peter being given the keys, being the "rock", or "feeding the sheep' as supporting the office of the papacy. It's not in the Bible, and it's not in church history. You just don't have the facts or the history, you just have your sheep-like trust in fallible leaders to tell you. We're not asked to have the "faith of a child" we are to have faith that grows in maturity and in discernment. It's clear that you and your colleagues haven't developed it, if any of you are even Christian at all. I have my doubts, because look where it's led you guys - your leaders have clearly led you astray by their full endorsement of that Fatima message which is obviously from the Devil. If you can't see that, then there's no way you have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would tell any Christian to run as far away from that as possible. Also, none of you will admit that your leaders are wrong with regard to Peter being the "rock" being the "ancient and constant" faith that was "always believed" by the church, as is evidenced by church history.

You can try to insult my intelligence and abilities all you want, but people here don't buy it. They know "BS ad hominem tactics when someone doesn't have an argument" when they see it. And if I'm "Jr. High", then you guys are still reading pop-up books. There's just been no contest here. That's why my search for an intellectually honest and intelligent Roman Catholic continues....

---

No, not your intelligence, maybe your personality, lack of courtesy, or manners would be a better term. You are continually barking, insulting and condemning people that said absolutely nothing to you in a thread celebrating a new leader of a Church.

You have turned a conversation about Pope Leo into refighting the Reformation and you acting as judge and jury whether our believes are good enough or correct. That is at the very best poor form and at least something I will not say on this forum. Anyway you cut it, you have destroyed the celebration of the selection of a new Pope in a Pope Leo thread that never said a word about Protestants. A thread you were not invited to pass judgement.

So, go celebrate that you threw a stick in the spokes of a bunch of Catholics on their Alma Matta website. Your fellow zealot Protestants will celebrate your heroism and dedication. YOU are an example of why there will not be peace on earth or the ability to for religions to work together, I met a lot of Moslems with the same traits in the Gulf War. My suggestion is go to Dharan, Damam, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait City and have these conversations using the same tactics, will be good for you. You may grow up, fast...

---

"...people that said absolutely nothing to you" - well, except for all the times you guys cursed at and insulted me. Your memory about what transpired in this thread is a tad distorted.

Take what I have said in this thread as you will. I have found that when people can't deny what I've said and have no argument or recourse, they react exactly the way you and others did in this thread - try to turn it around and make it about my personal flaws, manners, "tone", etc (which is quite ironic). I'm not concerned about what you think of me personally. You don't know me. None of us know each other. We're just in a digital forum where we read each other's comments. It's all about the truth and the facts and I've presented them to you, and it's up to you what you'll make of them. I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

You came into a Pope Leo celebratory thread and started fighting the Reformation. What do you expect?

You want to start a "Catholicism is Wrong" thread, have at it. Whoever enters deserves what they get.

Your last line sums it up best. Snotty, know it all that thinks his "message" is more important and then surprised when he gets roughed up. I gave you the Vatican link. I am sure everything you want to know about Catholicism is there for your review. Have fun...

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Classic


Thank God for the internet.

Provides a safe and free outlet for haters to release their bile, instead shooting up a Catholic Church or hanging hundreds of Catholics on telephone poles.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Is there ANY intellectually honest and sincere Roman Catholic, just ONE out there, who is willing to just admit that the Roman Catholic claim that: 1) Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16 and that 2) Peter alone held the "keys" to the kingdom, and that 3) this meant papal supremacy for the church - are beliefs that are the "ancient and constant faith" that was "always believed" by the church.... is NOT true, given the historical evidence of the early church and church fathers?

I am still looking for one. Surely there's one out there??

---

Fishing, huh?

In a nutshell, Peter was the first Pope made so by Christ and his line has gone through to Leo. The Holy Spirit has made sure of this, just like the Holy Spirit did with the Bible. It really is a miracle.

As for the rest of your "qualifiers" they are irrelevant.

---

Too bad you don't have any biblical or historical evidence of this. That's kind of a big problem for you.

The fact that you won't/can't answer the question says it all. You Roman Catholics who won't/can't acknowledge that the Roman Catholic claim is wrong, you're not in the spirit of truth. "You know them by their fruits."

---

Where in any of this do you get "wrong"? YOU are the only one claiming right or wrong. Nobody on this thread but you went into right or wrong. You don't know any more than anyone knows as there is NO documented Organizational handbook from 34 AD. It can't be the Gospel, as Matt 16 clearly supports Petrine Supremacy. So for that the Bible isn't divinely inspired.

I notice you are setting thresholds of "wrong", but you don't give a "right" because you can't. Why? From 33 AD to about 500 AD there is no "definitive SAE Specification book on what is right or wrong.

You are playing a word game to get a response. For some strange reason you seem to get off playing this game, which shows or proves absolutely nothing. Go to the Vatican website, it will tell you how they get to their decisions. Don't believe them, Don't... I really feel sorry for you. Do you believe IN anything? Or do you have to read it "in a book"?

---

If I'm wrong, then show me, don't tell me. You haven't. Because you can't. That's why you write these long responses that actually say nothing. It's pretending you have an answer, when you really don't.

---

We have. It goes back to the Gospel. Peterine Primacy. Peter was the head of the Apostles and possessed the keys. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. Simple as that, you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Faith of a child, not a PhD in ancient religions. If you want more detail the Vatican Website it has all the information you could want. If you don't believe them, I hear Rome is lovely this time of year. Take a pilgrimage.

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

You are the only one throwing out all this other crap. It is really very straight forward. Go to the source the Holy Catholic Church, don't put your faith in all this cherrypicked information from "publish or perish" academics.

By the way, if you want a discussion. Discuss. You are setting the argument to specific parameters to win a debate using Jr High Debate tactics.

---

The Bible does not support Petrine primacy. You're still just telling me, not showing me. Almost none of the early church fathers viewed Peter being given the keys, being the "rock", or "feeding the sheep' as supporting the office of the papacy. It's not in the Bible, and it's not in church history. You just don't have the facts or the history, you just have your sheep-like trust in fallible leaders to tell you. We're not asked to have the "faith of a child" we are to have faith that grows in maturity and in discernment. It's clear that you and your colleagues haven't developed it, if any of you are even Christian at all. I have my doubts, because look where it's led you guys - your leaders have clearly led you astray by their full endorsement of that Fatima message which is obviously from the Devil. If you can't see that, then there's no way you have the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would tell any Christian to run as far away from that as possible. Also, none of you will admit that your leaders are wrong with regard to Peter being the "rock" being the "ancient and constant" faith that was "always believed" by the church, as is evidenced by church history.

You can try to insult my intelligence and abilities all you want, but people here don't buy it. They know "BS ad hominem tactics when someone doesn't have an argument" when they see it. And if I'm "Jr. High", then you guys are still reading pop-up books. There's just been no contest here. That's why my search for an intellectually honest and intelligent Roman Catholic continues....

---

No, not your intelligence, maybe your personality, lack of courtesy, or manners would be a better term. You are continually barking, insulting and condemning people that said absolutely nothing to you in a thread celebrating a new leader of a Church.

You have turned a conversation about Pope Leo into refighting the Reformation and you acting as judge and jury whether our believes are good enough or correct. That is at the very best poor form and at least something I will not say on this forum. Anyway you cut it, you have destroyed the celebration of the selection of a new Pope in a Pope Leo thread that never said a word about Protestants. A thread you were not invited to pass judgement.

So, go celebrate that you threw a stick in the spokes of a bunch of Catholics on their Alma Matta website. Your fellow zealot Protestants will celebrate your heroism and dedication. YOU are an example of why there will not be peace on earth or the ability to for religions to work together, I met a lot of Moslems with the same traits in the Gulf War. My suggestion is go to Dharan, Damam, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait City and have these conversations using the same tactics, will be good for you. You may grow up, fast...

---

"...people that said absolutely nothing to you" - well, except for all the times you guys cursed at and insulted me. Your memory about what transpired in this thread is a tad distorted.

Take what I have said in this thread as you will. I have found that when people can't deny what I've said and have no argument or recourse, they react exactly the way you and others did in this thread - try to turn it around and make it about my personal flaws, manners, "tone", etc (which is quite ironic). I'm not concerned about what you think of me personally. You don't know me. None of us know each other. We're just in a digital forum where we read each other's comments. It's all about the truth and the facts and I've presented them to you, and it's up to you what you'll make of them. I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

You came into a Pope Leo celebratory thread and started fighting the Reformation. What do you expect?

You want to start a "Catholicism is Wrong" thread, have at it. Whoever enters deserves what they get.

Your last line sums it up best. Snotty, know it all that thinks his "message" is more important and then surprised when he gets roughed up. I gave you the Vatican link. I am sure everything you want to know about Catholicism is there for your review. Have fun...

---

I first came into this Leo Thread to combat lies. What I received was the usual defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with obvious historical and biblical facts. Along with quite a few profanities and insults thrown my way.

No one made you the forum police to decide who can say what in which thread.

I never said my message was "more important". I said it was you needed to hear. And there's just no doubt about that.

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Classic


Thank God for the internet.

Provides a safe and free outlet for haters to release their bile, instead shooting up a Catholic Church or hanging hundreds of Catholics on telephone poles.

---

Looks like you've been availing yourself of that safe and free outlet throughout this thread too. So ironic.

No substance to your posts. Just defense mechanisms and shooting the messenger.

Sola scriptura in the early church:

Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235 AD):
"Brethren, there is one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source."

Origen (200 - 225 AD):
"We believe... that it is possible in no other way to explain and bring within reach of human knowledge... the Son of God, than by means of those Scriptures, which alone were inspired by the Holy Spirit: the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Law and the Prophets."

Athanasius (c. 350 AD):
"For indeed the holy and God-breathed scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth."

Augustine (c. 400 AD):
"Neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sola scriptura in the early church:

Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235 AD):
"Brethren, there is one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source."

Origen (200 - 225 AD):
"We believe... that it is possible in no other way to explain and bring within reach of human knowledge... the Son of God, than by means of those Scriptures, which alone were inspired by the Holy Spirit: the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Law and the Prophets."

Athanasius (c. 350 AD):
"For indeed the holy and God-breathed scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth."

Augustine (c. 400 AD):
"Neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God."

---

I am done. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Classic


Thank God for the internet.

Provides a safe and free outlet for haters to release their bile, instead shooting up a Catholic Church or hanging hundreds of Catholics on telephone poles.

---

Looks like you've been availing yourself of that safe and free outlet yourself throughout this thread. So ironic.

No substance to your posts. Just defense mechanisms and shooting the messenger.

---

LOL

You are no messenger. Just a troubled individual attempting to bolster his ego attacking belief systems different than his own.

Unfortunately there are many just like you.

And innocent people often get hurt.

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Classic


Thank God for the internet.

Provides a safe and free outlet for haters to release their bile, instead shooting up a Catholic Church or hanging hundreds of Catholics on telephone poles.

---

Looks like you've been availing yourself of that safe and free outlet yourself throughout this thread. So ironic.

No substance to your posts. Just defense mechanisms and shooting the messenger.

---

LOL

You are no messenger. Just a troubled individual attempting to bolster his ego attacking belief systems different than his own.

Unfortunately there are many just like you.

And innocent people often get hurt.

---

If I'm wrong about anything, they why not show me? If I'm right, then why so offended by me?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sola scriptura in the early church:

Hippolytus of Rome (170 - 235 AD):
"Brethren, there is one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source."

Origen (200 - 225 AD):
"We believe... that it is possible in no other way to explain and bring within reach of human knowledge... the Son of God, than by means of those Scriptures, which alone were inspired by the Holy Spirit: the Gospels, the Epistles, and the Law and the Prophets."

Athanasius (c. 350 AD):
"For indeed the holy and God-breathed scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth."

Augustine (c. 400 AD):
"Neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God."

---

I am done. Take your nonsense elsewhere.

---

The early church history and church fathers are nonsense??

Isn't it your claim that your church is the same church Jesus started from the beginning?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Classic


Thank God for the internet.

Provides a safe and free outlet for haters to release their bile, instead shooting up a Catholic Church or hanging hundreds of Catholics on telephone poles.

---

Looks like you've been availing yourself of that safe and free outlet yourself throughout this thread. So ironic.

No substance to your posts. Just defense mechanisms and shooting the messenger.

---

LOL

You are no messenger. Just a troubled individual attempting to bolster his ego attacking belief systems different than his own.

Unfortunately there are many just like you.

And innocent people often get hurt.

---

If I'm wrong about anything, they why not show me? If I'm right, then why so offended by me?

---

Not offended.

You are an amusing read.

Thread after thread, post after post insulting, attacking and demeaning anyone who disagrees with you regarding the worlds largest Christian denomination.

Must fill some kind of need in you.

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm just telling Roman Catholics what they really need to hear.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Classic


Thank God for the internet.

Provides a safe and free outlet for haters to release their bile, instead shooting up a Catholic Church or hanging hundreds of Catholics on telephone poles.

---

Looks like you've been availing yourself of that safe and free outlet yourself throughout this thread. So ironic.

No substance to your posts. Just defense mechanisms and shooting the messenger.

---

LOL

You are no messenger. Just a troubled individual attempting to bolster his ego attacking belief systems different than his own.

Unfortunately there are many just like you.

And innocent people often get hurt.

---

If I'm wrong about anything, they why not show me? If I'm right, then why so offended by me?

---

Not offended.

You are an amusing read.

Thread after thread, post after post insulting, attacking and demeaning anyone who disagrees with you regarding the worlds largest Christian denomination.

Must fill some kind of need in you.

---

Yes, you are offended. That's why you post insults, and nothing substantive against what I've said.

Yes, I have a need to try and free people from mind traps.

Who did I attack and demean? I was the one who was attacked and demeaned. You are a liar.