Cloistered Nuns: Locked Behind The Grate

[Budge]

Raphael Please do me a favor and come away from the usual Catholic apologist techniques and have a real conversation.

Others are doing that...

I dont want to hear, "You misunderstand Catholicism" when I would have to AGREE with it, for you to say different and for you to be filling everythread with BUDGE DIDNT ANSWER ME, when I have asked you plenty of questions that have gone unanswered or continued to disagree with you.

*****************
[i]
Well the convents today there are not many young girls who are not normal. Most grew up with secular desires. Most never planned to be a nun.[/i]

Surely to be a nun, they had to have connection to Catholicism somewhere. I know the convents arent taking girls who never been in a church off the street, I would think they would have to prove baptism and evne confirmation.

[i]There are very few who have the privildge and gift from God to grow up in a home that shelters them from the traps of the secular world. I know quite a few who are converts from various Protestant denominations (including myself) who grew up with a Protestant's prespective of the Bible and how to read it[/i]

IM curious what Protestant denomination did you griow up in?

Many protestant churches are Catholic lite churches already, so called daughters, teaching that Catholicism is another Christian church and that its same councils and early church fathers are valid.

Theres a reason the Presbyterian church as well as Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist chruches are already fertile breeding grounds for future Catholic converts.
[i]
I suppose, in your eyes, we have abanonded the Bible and rebelled against our parents are God? We, because we are so young and have no mind or reason of our own or atleast do not know how to think or reason by ourselves, have been swept into these "new" false cultish beliefs of Catholicism? (Which I am very curious as to when, according to your knowledge of history, Catholics popped up on the scene?)
[/i]
actually you probably are following the final course of what your churches taught you.

I do not see you as a rebellious young person but an idealistic one with good intentions that is simply under false teachers.

As for young people following cults, and false religions, I ended up in the UU. I havent talked about how I considered even becoming a UU minister but other factors in life got in the way--THANK GOD.

[i]
So basically I have an idealism and a desire to seek after God and I am being diverted into a convent because of my lack of knowing the Bible. Hmmm... that's interesting.[/i]

I didnt know the BIble, when I went UU, so anything I claim for you, I certainly was guilty of myself at one point. Even for being UU I had my altruistic "change the world" notions that led me forward.

Remember Im an old lady [probably one of the oldest on this board], I know I saw the world far different in my late teens and early 20s.

[i]Your right though. We are living in a culture of death and the secular world tries to push Christ out of everything. But I am confused as to wether you were lied to by the culture or you think you were by the Church. Sounds to me like if I was told that Catholics believed what you think they believe then I wouldn't want to be Catholic either.[[/i]
Both.
[i]
Also the Church is based upon Christ. He institued the Church. He said, "On this rock I build my Church." He did not say, "On this rock Luther builds my Church" or, "On this rock Budge builds my Church." He said on this rock I build my Church. After he said that he said, "And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." According to your history the Church disappeared after the Apostles died until 1500 when Luther and Calvin decided to resurrect it and build it up again. What happen between those 1450-1500 years? Did the gates of Hell prevail against His Church? And Christ did not say there would be 300,000 different Churches that He would build. He said there would be one flock, one Church.[/i]

The Rock is Christ. Peter was just a pebble "petra" among many...

I share this verse with Catholic constantly.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: [b]and that Rock was Christ.[/b]

The "winners" write history so real Christians yes were underground. Why would I trust the church the world has elevated the most?
[i]
Although the Sacraments were instituted by Christ and it is through them that Christ bestows sanctifying grace upon us the whole Church is not based on sacraments.[/i]
The Sacraments are what give your clergy itspower.

They are the "middle men" as it where between man and God when the Bible teaches differently

THIS IS NOT DONE VIA SACRAMENTS:
[b]
Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.[/b][quote]


No one had ever denied the Sacraments until 1500 years after Christ's death and resurrection Budge.[/quote]This is simply not true, but a Catholic version of the facts, what about all those Rome took to the stakes, there were Christians who DID not believe the same as Catholics prior to 1500.


Remember I do not accept Rome's history, its early church fathers OR the DIDACHE as being valid.

Remember what I said about writings related to Constantine, Origen and Eusebius, I believe those folks WERE EARLY DECEIVERS...and that includes Clement and Ignatius.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache[/url]

[b]Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:[/b]

The Didache dating around the 1st century has two sections that deal with the Eucharist! St. Clement of Rome in the 4th century wrote of the Eucharist! And (my favorite) St. Ignastius of Antioch in 110 A.D. even wrote of the Eucharist being the true body and blood of Christ.
.[quote] Some of His disciples even walked away when He said this thinking the idea of them having to eat his actual flesh ridiculous and horrible, but He did not stop them as he had in the past when they misunderstood them. He let them keep walking away and then turned asked the Apostles if they would walk away too as this teaching.[/quote]

They did not walk away because of they didnt want to believe the [mod]Most Holy Eucharist -Aloysius[/mod] was God, they walked away because they rejected Jesus Christ Himself. They did not understand the spiritual meaning.

[i]False prayers? Can you truly judge the prayers of another? Can you how sincere they are? Can you say how devoted they are? Can you truly say what their prayers mean to God?[/i]

There are many devoted, good and sincere people who are wrong.
Remember as you bring up Luther, Luther was a Catholic priest, today the Lutheran church is basically Catholicism LITE, they have retained many of the same sacraments and other false teachings. I am very close to someone who was raised Lutheran, including being raised in a Lutheran school. They have visited Catholic church with me and later my indpt Baptist Bible believing church, guess which one was closer? They told me the mass matched Lutheran services almost exactly except more emphasis was put on the sermon in Lutheran church.

Luther was given some truth, but I think if he was back on earth today, he would be going crazy to watch churches using his name uniting with the Pope.

[i]According to the rest of the World and all men and women before the time of Luther, and even Luther himself all agree that it was in 382 at the Synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus, that the Church listed which books belong to the Bible.[/i]

The Canon was well decided on before Constantine and pals came around.

[i]
G.K. Chesterton observed that it is totally inconsistent to accept the Bible but reject the Church that offers it. He said that Proponents of sola scriptura are merely using "one piece of Catholic furniture to break up all the other Catholic furniture" He describes them as men who: "rushing in to wreck a temple, overturning the altar and driving out the priest, found there certain sacred volumes inscribed 'Psalms' or 'Gospels'; and (instead of throwing them on the fire with the rest) began to use them as infallible oracles rebuking all the other arrangements. If the sacred high altar was all wrong, why were the secondary sacred documents necessarily all right? If the priest had faked his Sacraments, why could he have not faked his Scriptures?"[/i]

Ive read some of GK Chesterons writings, and he had some good ideas--I liked the guy even, but I dare say if GK was around today, he would have either left to the Trads by now, or some other Christian church watching what happened at Assisi alone. I do not think he would have remained Catholic if he was living today.

As for that last question, God promised to preserve HIs Word and study of the scriptures themsevles will bear them out. Scripture interprets Scripture.

It is not till recent times that even Protestants began to reject the facts of history just so to not have to admit that they would be, in truth, inconsistent if they were to accept Scripture but not the Church that, under the divine authority given the Church by Christ, compiled the list of divinly inspired books.

The Catholic church uses "history" to deceive so many.

History is not an objective field as people think.

I suggest you read this book, it will help you see where I am coming from...

[img]http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/images/1252.gif[/img]
[i]

If you do not believe the Bible to have been compiled together by Catholics then why are you even telling me this?[/i]

The Catholic church came into being in the 300s when Constantine married church and state. The NT was finished by 100ad.

The CANON was WELL DECIDED ON LONG BEFORE THAT.

Ive read the Gnostic gospels, they dont FIT, in fact a Christian once they are saved are led by the Holy Spirit to know what is not inspired. That goe for the apocrphya.

Just please read the book above Marie, and consider this, mankind has deceived many via HISTORY...really the only thing us humans can trust in is GODS WORD, not others protrayals of the "facts" 2000 years later, think about that.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]History is not an objective field as people think.[/quote]No, it's not - especially where your posts are concerned.

I have a photographic memory. I remember vast swathes of what I read, much of it word-for-word. Your story changes, Budge. For instance, in one recent thread you said that you had been in the UU church for thirteen years. In an older thread, you said that you had been a member for eight. That's just one trivial example that leaps out in my memory.

[quote]I didnt know the BIble, when I went UU, so anything I claim for you, I certainly was guilty of myself at one point.[/quote]

This is not what you have said before. In one post, you claimed that you read your Bible as a Catholic and saw that Catholicism was unscriptural. In another, you wrote that you only discovered what you call 'Bible Christianity' after becoming disillusioned with Unitarian Universalism. I don't know whether you are altering your story deliberately or not, but you should be aware of this. I get the feeling that you customise your history a little bit if you think it will help you to convince your audience of your points.

[quote]The Rock is Christ. Peter was just a pebble "petra" among many...[/quote]That is not true and is extremely easy to disprove. When Jesus spoke to Peter He used Aramaic, not Greek, and the word for 'rock' in Aramaic is [i]Kephas[/i]. The proper translation of [i]Kephas[/i] into Greek would be [i]petra[/i], which means an unusually large rock. However, petra is a feminine noun in Greek and it can't be used to refer to a male. So when Jesus' words were rendered into Greek, the word was translated as [i]petros[/i] because this is the masculine form of the noun. 'Petros' [i]used[/i] to mean pebble in Ancient Greek, but by the time the Gospels were written this usage was already obsolete. The use of the word 'petros' is a question of gender, not of meaning. There is no doubt about it: Peter was the rock. St Paul uses the name Kephas for Peter in his epistles, which is distinctive proof that the name actually did belong to Peter. And note that the Aramaic is used, the word that definitively means 'a large rock'. There can be no linguistic contention here.

[quote]Remember I do not accept Rome's history, its early church fathers OR the DIDACHE as being valid.[/quote]

Yet you will accept the fraudulent works of Jack Chick, which the majority of Protestant churches will have absolutely nothing to do with. How can you recommend a book that is associated with him as a serious resource on Protestant ecclesiology? He makes the most outrageous claims (i.e. that the Catholic Church created Islam to ensure its world domination and that Mehmet Ali Aga's assassination attempt on John Paul the Second was a really a cunning plan to convince the world that the alliance doesn't exist) without any sources whatsoever. The citations that he does give in his books and tracts usually lead back to Lorraine Boettner's [i]Roman Catholicism[/i] - which is itself an unsubstantiated source. The Chick version of history is just a flimsy house of cards.

[quote]They did not walk away because of they didnt want to believe the wafer was God, they walked away because they rejected Jesus Christ Himself. They did not understand the spiritual meaning. [/quote]Budge, Judaism is rich in symbolism and spiritual metaphor. Currently the Jews are celebrating Pesach, the Passover. You have only to look at the seder plate to see how at ease with spiritual symbolism they are. They could never have been thrown into such a frightened uproar by figurative language, not when it has always played such a huge role in their devotional life.

[quote]As for that last question, God promised to preserve HIs Word and study of the scriptures themsevles will bear them out. Scripture interprets Scripture.[/quote]

I'd like to share a snippet from an MSN conversation I had with an evangelical friend:

Vicky: So how are things at Fulwood?
Angela: I left. I had a problem with the Bible teaching - or the lack of it.
Vicky: Did they never give sermons or didn't you like their theology?
Angela: Well, I don't really have a theology. God's Word is enough for me.
Vicky: God's Word does need to be interpreted.
Angela: Well, it's possible to interpret the Bible using itself, cross-referencing etc.
Vicky (deciding to hastily change the subject as she had no time to argue): So how is your new church?
Angela: Great! Good teaching, friendly atmosphere, lots of midweek activities, etc.
Vicky: How did you find it?
Angela: Brilliant. Way better than Fulwood.
Vicky: No, I meant how did you find out about it? (You see, this is what I mean about interpreting things...)

[Phoenix Reborn]

[quote]Remember Im an old lady [probably one of the oldest on this board], I know I saw the world far different in my late teens and early 20s.[/quote]

Wrong. You're either 37 or 38 right now. Your first post said you were 35, that was back in '04. Cmotherofpirl is 52. Staretz is 43.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Phoenix Reborn

[Budge]

P[quote]
I have a photographic memory. I remember vast swathes of what I read, much of it word-for-word. Your story changes, Budge. For instance, in one recent thread you said that you had been in the UU church for thirteen years. In an older thread, you said that you had been a member for eight. That's just one trivial example that leaps out in my memory.[/quote]Find that older thread, Im serious.

If anything Im consistent and I know for a fact I never wrote eight.
[quote]

This is not what you have said before. In one post, you claimed that you read your Bible as a Catholic and saw that Catholicism was unscriptural. In another, you wrote that you only discovered what you call 'Bible Christianity' after becoming disillusioned with Unitarian Universalism. I don't know whether you are altering your story deliberately or not, but you should be aware of this. I get the feeling that you customise your history a little bit if you think it will help you to convince your audience of your points.[/quote]

Ok let me explain again.

I was a CRADLE CATHOLIC. Catholic school etc etc.

I was UU by early college

Left UU 13years later...

Returned to Catholicism after leaving the UU, for a very short period, 2 and half years because it was
what I knew of what I thought was "Christianity" at the time.

Born again and left CAthOLIC CHURCH, joined last indpt Baptit.

I thinkl youer just trying to find a slip up to discredit me, if you want the honest truth, more switching from the message to the messager
[quote]
Yet you will accept the fraudulent works of Jack Chick, which the majority of Protestant churches will have absolutely nothing to do with. How can you recommend a book that is associated with him as a serious resource on Protestant ecclesiology? He makes the most outrageous claims (i.e. that the Catholic Church created Islam to ensure its world domination and that Mehmet Ali Aga's assassination attempt on John Paul the Second was a really a cunning plan to convince the world that the alliance doesn't exist) without any sources whatsoever. The citations that he does give in his books and tracts usually lead back to Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism - which is itself an unsubstantiated source. The Chick version of history is just a flimsy house of cards.[/quote]Jack Chick has his foundation as Gods Word unlike daughter Prot churches that follow near agnostic theologians and false Catholic councils.

Actually I agree that the Catholic church created Islam, and this CATHOLIC LINK backs UP ThAT THEORY: I FOUND THIS ONE REALLY INTEREstING: IT BACKS UP CHICK's THEORY. Anyhow it was really Alberto Rivera that revealed this.

[url="http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y"]http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/detta...=7025&eng=y[/url]
[quote]
The Virgins and the Grapes: the Christian {READ CATHOLIC} Origins of the Koran
A German scholar of ancient languages takes a new look at the sacred book of Islam. He maintains that it was created by Syro-Aramaic speaking Christians, in order to evangelize the Arabs. And he translates it in a new way[/quote]

The conversation doesnt prove anything.

Scripture says what it says, this is one way that Rome has chained the BIble away from people's hearts, telling them they cant trust in it and must only trust in their 'special experts" to interpret it for them.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]I thinkl youer just trying to find a slip up to discredit me, if you want the honest truth, more switching from the message to the messager[/quote]There is a piece of literary theory called 'the intentional fallacy', which states that it's not necessary to know anything about the author - you can take the text on its own merits. This idea has been soundly refuted. The author's intentions have a strong impact on their writing (especially forums like this one) which is why I don't debate with people without knowing who they are. Message and messanger aren't so easy to separate.

I'm not accusing you of lying, Budge. I know some evangelical Christians at my college who tell me all sorts of half-truths to get me to come to this talk or that Bible study, apparently not even realising that they are changing the facts. When you are so convinced that you are right, it's easy to become lax in areas where you would otherwise be precise.

[quote]Find that older thread, Im serious.

If anything Im consistent and I know for a fact I never wrote eight.[/quote]

I don't think you're very consistent at all. Repetitive, yes. Consistent, no. In the recent thread on nuns, you started off by complaining about horrific austerity that aspirants to the religious life have to face. Then you changed your tactics and started protesting that nuns are too rich. If someone disproves one of your points, you either ignore that thread (and start a new one on exactly the same topic a few weeks later) or you change tack. I will certainly locate some examples of this. I think any regular participant on this debate table could.

[quote]Actually I agree that the Catholic church created Islam, and this CATHOLIC LINK backs UP ThAT THEORY: I FOUND THIS ONE REALLY INTEREstING: IT BACKS UP CHICK's THEORY.[/quote]No, it doesn't. The whole article is about linguistics: the Syro-Aramaic reading of the Qur'an. The author offers no proof for his claim that the Qur'an was 'created' by 'Syro-Aramaic speaking Christians' - a claim that any competent historian or speaker of Arabic could easily refute. The Qur'an was originally passed down orally, which is why it is called what it is called. ([i]Quran[/i] means 'recital' in Arabic.) It was only when Muhammad's companions, every one of whom was a hafiz (a person who could recite the full Qur'an off by heart) were dying out that it came to be written down. The chief scribe was an ex-slave named Zaid. 'Syro-Aramaic speaking Christians' don't come into the story. It's quite clear that Muhammad and his scribes were heavily influenced by Christian theology (the Qur'an and the Bible do agree on several counts) but that doesn't mean that Islam was [i]created[/i] by Christians. It just means that the founders of the new religion drew on existing religious sources. In short, they copied.

Besides, this is not Jack Chick's theory. His theory is that the Pope was somehow able to communicate with a Makkan businesswoman who lived nearly three thousand miles away, in a time when air mail was not at a premium, and give her detailed directions on how to found an entirely new religion.

[quote]The conversation doesnt prove anything.[/quote]

It does. It proves that context is a valuable tool for interpreting ANY kind of writing. You wouldn't approach any other text in ignorance of its author, context, and original language(s), so why treat the Bible in such a shoddy way?

[quote]Scripture says what it says, this is one way that Rome has chained the BIble away from people's hearts, telling them they cant trust in it and must only trust in their 'special experts" to interpret it for them.[/quote]

As people have already pointed out, there are literally thousands of Protestant churches in existence - all of them with wildly different interpretations of the Scriptures. These Christians have no Magisterium - at least not by name. A lot of them attend what you would call 'Bible churches'. And yet their interpretations of Scripture differ. Why?

In the past you have tried to respond to this by suggesting that lots of Protestant churches get it wrong, but there are some true believers across the Protestant spectrum who have it right.

Let's take it one step further. How do we know that they are right? Who says so? The Holy Spirit? But what if Pastor X's reading of the Bible disagrees with that of Pastor Y? Pastor X is Southern Baptist and Pastor Y is independent Baptist. Is the Holy Spirit holier at Y's church or is it the other way round? Oh, let's look in the Bible to find out. But...Pastor X and Pastor Y can't agree on that either.

And so you get trapped in a continuous circle. In short, Budge, the person who decides on the correct interpretation of the Bible is...you.

Most of what you would call 'Bible churches' actually have a doctrinal basis setting out the ways in which their members are to read Scripture. What's this but a catechism, and what are the pastors of those churches but one-man magisteriums?

In short, you can't dislocate the Bible from Tradition in the same way that you can't pull a pair of lungs apart.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]
[quote]

Surely to be a nun, they had to have connection to Catholicism somewhere. I know the convents arent taking girls who never been in a church off the street, I would think they would have to prove baptism and evne confirmation.\

[/quote]Well sure, but they are just as normal as you and me. They have a brain. They can reason things out. They have a conscience.

[quote]

IM curious what Protestant denomination did you griow up in?[/quote]

Baptist. I'm from south too so they are anti-Catholic as you can get. I also mixed with some pentecostals now and again, not seriously but half of my family is pentecostal. The other is baptist.

[quote]Many protestant churches are Catholic lite churches already, so called daughters, teaching that Catholicism is another Christian church and that its same councils and early church fathers are valid.

Theres a reason the Presbyterian church as well as Anglican, Lutheran and Methodist chruches are already fertile breeding grounds for future Catholic converts. [/quote]I told you, I was baptist. They are NOT anywhere near Catholics. And they considered Catholics as hell bound.

[quote]actually you probably are following the final course of what your churches taught you.[/quote]

I do not understand what your saying.

[quote] I didnt know the BIble, when I went UU, so anything I claim for you, I certainly was guilty of myself at one point. Even for being UU I had my altruistic "change the world" notions that led me forward. [/quote]I'm not saying I'm a bible scholar (maybe one day), but I've heard what the baptists have to say about the Bible. And it's ridiculous. The Bible does not even teach sola scripture.

Here are the list of flaws I find in sola scripture:
1.) Ironically Scripture alone is not taught ANYWHERE in Scripture.
2.) The early Church did not believe this doctrine. If they did it would have dominated and shaped their liturgical life as well as dominated the writings of the actual early Christians. It doesn't. It can be proven, through actual written documents, that the thought was totally alien to them.
3.) The early Church fathers, when read entirely, totally support church authority, tradition, and Scripture.
4.) Before Christ the doctrine of Scripture alone was [b]TOTALLY ALIEN[/b] to how God dealt with his Chosen People before Christ. And around Moses' time there was no scripture! God revealed himself through prophets and patriarchs (a proof in itself that this is a way God works). Even after Moses when the Chosen people did have scriptures to study God still continued to reveal himself through prophets and patriarchs. So, what? After the Bible just was put together (according to you we do not know the time, who did it, how, or anything of that sort simply that it was put together before recorded history or the actual people who lived during that time say it was put together) God simply stopped revealing himself to people in any other way? That would mean the God of the OT and the God of the NT would contradict themselves seeing that they suddenly, according to you, stop revealing themseleves the same way.
5.) [b]No one[/b] can know with certainty what belongs in Scripture and what does not without divine authority being given by God to them. And for that to happen "Scripture alone" would have to cease to exist. You say that you know, but those "true Christians" who were eaten by lions and the such did not even know, as I've already told you. They believed that certain books that are non-canonical were in fact canonical! They were wrong, but yet they were some of the earliest Christians and the Holy Spirit was in fact working in them the same as he works in you and me.
6.) Even if we pretend I'm totally wrong about history (which I'm not) and your right (I don't see how that is possible because you have no proof at all but a book written by a man who in all possibility could have made what he said completely up) then still no one has the authority to put scripture together. No one. To trust someone to do that would mean you would have to think that Christ revealed himself to them in another way besides by Scripture alone because Scripture does not tell what books belong in the Bible and which ones do not.
7.) [b]SOLA SCRIPTURA HAS NEVER WORKED[/b]!! It has been used in in the short life span of protestantism and it has not brought doctrinal unity OR doctrinal certainity. NEVER! I can put five people from YOUR Church in the same room, give them a scripture and they will all interpret it differently. Why is the Holy Spirit not working in them and having them interpret it the same? Christ only meant one thing! One! He did not mean five different things, so why then is the Holy Spirit not working in them and revealing to them that one thing that he meant when he said that? And if I put five people from different Protestant Churches (who all started to exist from Lutheranism and Calvinism) they would not agree on the same thing if given a verse. Sola Scriptura does not work. It is unworkable. There are today, according to one recent study, over 22,000 distinct Protestant denominations in the world, each of which claims to go by the "Bible alone," yet no two of them agree on what exactly the Bible teaches.

"Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12; c.f., 3 John 13). .... hmm... what happen to Scripture alone?

[quote]The Rock is Christ. Peter was just a pebble "petra" among many...[/quote]

That was not what I meant by the verse (although I will talk with you about that if you please). I meant that CHRIST built his Church. Not Luther. Not Budge. Not Rev. Ebenezer Moulton of New England who built the first Baptist Church. Christ built his Church! He did not need any help and he did not work through anyone. He established it. He built it, and it went from there. He also said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. According to you, the gates of Hell did. And since you believe Scripture Alone you can't say that. So you need a new history where the gates of Hell do not prevail against Christ's Church so to be able to agree with Scripture.

As for "petra" ahhh.... First of all in Greek "petra" means large massive stone AKA Rock. You probably did not mean petra because your trying to tell me that Peter meant little pebble. The Greek word for that it [i]petros[/i]. It means little stone, a pebble. So we'll pretend like you got that right. .... Moving on. So, you say pretros means little pebble and Christ was just telling Peter that Christ, himself was the rock, and Peter was nothing but a little, tiny pebble no more significant than the pebble on the ground among millions of other pebbles. And that Catholics miss this because their biblical scholars are all about the English and have not truly looked at the Greek, the language the NT was written in.

So here is my response to you: As Greek scholars-even non-Catholic ones-admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the [b]New Testament was written in Koine Greek-an entirely different dialect.[/b] In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." [b]If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used.[/b]

So, once again your truth is inconsistent with fact itself. The NT was written in Koine Greek and lithos means small pebble in Koine Greek. Lithos was never used.

Now, if you would like to go further and say Jesus was contrasting Peter and the Rock then I'll even go that far with you now that the petra argument is over. We both agree that the NT was written in Greek, and from what I have shared with you we both now know that Attic Greek was not the dialect it was written in, but Koine Greek and to use small pebble would have to be lithos and Christ did not use that word. Now, I say to you that we have to get behind the Greek to the Aramaic. Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place. We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Anyway, Greek was not the language they spoke, many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.

What’s more, in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha. [b] And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church."[/b]

When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

[quote]I share this verse with Catholic constantly.[/quote]

I know the sentiment. So many times, I too, have had to clear that up for Protestants.

...... I will finish my response to you in another post.

May God love you!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]



[quote]The "winners" write history so real Christians yes were underground. Why would I trust the church the world has elevated the most?[/quote]Yes, your right they were underground until the Edict of Milan was passed by Constantine.

[quote]The Sacraments are what give your clergy its power.[/quote]

The clergy have no power except what is given them by Christ.

[quote]They are the "middle men" as it where between man and God when the Bible teaches differently[/quote]The Bible does not teach differently. I already have you the type in the OT. God used the priests of the Old Covenant to minister to his Chosen People. God would not change his plans come the New Covenant. There still needs to be a special priesthood.

[quote]Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.[/quote]

This does not prove anything. The "throne" is the symbol of Christ's authority; he is king of the living and th dead. But here it speaks of a "throne of grace": through the salvation worked by Christ the compassionate Priest and intercessor, God's throne has become a judgement seat from which mercy flows. Christ has initiated for mankind a time of forgivness and sanctification in which he does not yet manifest his position as sovereign Judge. Christ's priesthood did not cease to operate with his death; it continues in heaven, where he forever pleads on our behalf, and therefore we should have confident recourse to him. That is what this verse is saying. What security should be ours in considering the mercy of the Lord! "He has but to cry for redress and I, the ever merciful, will listen to him" (Ex. 22:27). This is an invitation, a promise that he will not fail to fulfill. 'Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, and we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." This verse is about drawing close to God, our King, and not hesitating to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. [b] It does not say how we find grace or obtain mercy. It simply says by drawing close to his throne. Through the Sacraments we draw close to that thrown. In prayer we plead for grace and mercy. This verse in no way helps you to try to convince anyone that the sacraments are false simply because this verse does not say that. It just says that the throne of grace, God, is where we obtain mercy and grace. And that is true, but it does not say how Christ wills to give us that mercy and grace. We know how he wills to give us that by reading other parts of scripture where he instituted the sacraments.

ALSO... the greatest thing about that verse is ... guess what... THE NEXT VERSE! Before the 1200's there was no chapters are verses... Scripture verses just ran together.... so let's take a glander at the next verse RIGHT AFTER that one...

"For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those the people. And one does not take the honour upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was." Then it goes on to tell how Christ is the High Priest of all priests and that He too was called by God. This basically tells us that Christ has come with a new purpose of taking this ancient institution and transforming it into a new, eternal priesthood. Every Christian priest is, as it were, an instrument or an extension of his sacred humanity. Christian priests do not act in their own name, nor are they mere represenatives of the people: they act in the name of God. Here! We have the priest's identity: he is direct and daily instrument of the saving grace which Christ has won for us. It is Christ working through them!

It is ironic that you should try to justify not having the sacraments or the priesthood by this verse with the exact verse after it goes on to explain the identity of the priest which is rooted in the eternal priest, Jesus.

[quote]This is simply not true, but a Catholic version of the facts, what about all those Rome took to the stakes, there were Christians who DID not believe the same as Catholics prior to 1500.
Remember I do not accept Rome's history, its early church fathers OR the DIDACHE as being valid.[/quote]Well, Miss Budge there is no other version of the facts [/b]. This is not a "Catholic" version... this is [b]the[/b] version. And until you can actually show me documents and proof of your version that were written before a hundred years ago then I will not be hearing you out on your version, but until then I go by the ONLY version there is... the true version.

[quote]Remember what I said about writings related to Constantine, Origen and Eusebius, I believe those folks WERE EARLY DECEIVERS...and that includes Clement and Ignatius.[/quote]

Well, [b] remember what I said[/b] [b][i]you have no proof of that[/i][/b] except what someone came up with 2000 years after it happened.

..... I will finish responding in a different post.

May God bless you Budge!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]

[quote]Tts 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:[/quote]I could take that verse and use it on you. All your doing is simply taking a verse out of context and using it to fit what your saying. I could take that verse and use it against you. That verse, we know, was not speaking of the early Church fathers. So, you can't use it to justify not believing in the early Church fathers. Actually, you have practically nothing to justify not believing in the early Church fathers.

[quote]They did not walk away because of they didnt want to believe the wafer was God, they walked away because they rejected Jesus Christ Himself. They did not understand the spiritual meaning.[/quote]

No, they walked away because they thought it was cannibalism. That is why they walked away. And Jesus let them walk because he truly meant what he said. There was many times before where he would say something and they would misunderstand it's "spiritual meaning" and he would bring them back again and re-explain it to them. He did not bring them back again. They walked for the exact same reason it says in the Gospel that they walked, "because to eat the body and blood of Christ was a hard teaching". That is why they walked! And it says so right there in Scripture.

[quote]There are many devoted, good and sincere people who are wrong.
Remember as you bring up Luther, Luther was a Catholic priest, today the Lutheran church is basically Catholicism LITE, they have retained many of the same sacraments and other false teachings. I am very close to someone who was raised Lutheran, including being raised in a Lutheran school. They have visited Catholic church with me and later my indpt Baptist Bible believing church, guess which one was closer? They told me the mass matched Lutheran services almost exactly except more emphasis was put on the sermon in Lutheran church.

Luther was given some truth, but I think if he was back on earth today, he would be going crazy to watch churches using his name uniting with the Pope.[/quote]No, it's not basically a "lite" Catholicism. It is not the easy way out of Catholicism. It is just as heretical as it was 1500 years ago. No they only believe in Eucharist and Baptism. That is two of seven sacraments, and we all know that their Eucharist is invalid. So, really they only have one sacrament. And yeah, they do have a lot of other false, heretical teachings.... more like yours then ours. Your friend must not know much about her faith if she thinks it is like that of Catholicism. They don't have a mass. They have a "service". Your friend obviously didn't know her own faith. One little lay Lutheran cannot speak for Lutherans. Lutherans consider themselves Protestant.

The Lutheran Church does not unite with the Pope on any level. So, yeah... he probably would flip... and then followed closely by repentance for having started a heresy that led to there being 22,000 different Christian denominations with heretical teachings mixed in them.

[quote]The Canon was well decided on before Constantine and pals came around.[/quote]

Says who? You and a couple protestant books published in the last 100 years? No thank you, I'll go with the 2000 years of history agreed upon by the entire world, even that of heretics and athiests who have to admit that it is the true history.

[quote]Ive read some of GK Chesterton’s writings, and he had some good ideas--I liked the guy even, but I dare say if GK was around today, he would have either left to the Trads by now, or some other Christian church watching what happened at Assisi alone. I do not think he would have remained Catholic if he was living today.[/quote]G.K. Chesterton not Catholic? The Church has NEVER changed. It is still the exact same Church Chesterton wrote about when he was alive. The EXACT same. There is nothing different about it. And if agreed with it then He would still agree with it now. They call him the Apostle of Common Sense, and anyone with common sense at some point has to come to terms and agree with the Church, so yeah, he would still be Catholic.

I'm glad you like him. Maybe you could read [b]ALL[/b] of his works before you start making his decisions for him.

[b]The reason I brought him up was because he gave a great example of your inconsistency. So, great that I am going to put it in this post again and ask that you read it over. I never asked if agreed with him or liked him. I wanted you to read what he had to say about those who believed in scripture alone and his great way of showing it's inconsistency

G.K. Chesterton observed that it is totally inconsistent to accept the Bible but reject the Church that offers it. He said that Proponents of sola scriptura are merely using "one piece of Catholic furniture to break up all the other Catholic furniture" He describes them as men who: "rushing in to wreck a temple, overturning the altar and driving out the priest, found there certain sacred volumes inscribed 'Psalms' or 'Gospels'; and (instead of throwing them on the fire with the rest) began to use them as infallible oracles rebuking all the other arrangements. If the sacred high altar was all wrong, why were the secondary sacred documents necessarily all right? If the priest had faked his Sacraments, why could he have not faked his Scriptures?"[/b]

[quote]The Catholic church uses "history" to deceive so many.

I suggest you read this book, it will help you see where I am coming from...

[img]http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/images/1252.gif[/img]
[i][/quote]

There is not "Catholic" history there is just history. You either take it as it was and read the actual writings of the people at the time or you can, like you, deny the actual writings of the people at the time because they don't agree with you and re write history completely so as to have something to lean on when true history backs you in a corner.

1.) I will not be reading that because I think it is ridiculous to read something about history that totally contradicts the very writings of history itself.

2.) because i do not have the money to afford it. I rely on my parents and my list of books I want are already expensive enough. I will not be forfeiting one of my good books so I can read some ridiculous version of history written by someone born in the last 100 years that has suddenly decided to make up something so that he doens't look stupid when backed in to the corner by the actual writings of the times' themselves.

[quote]The Catholic church came into being in the 300s when Constantine married church and state. The NT was finished by 100ad.[/quote]You have no proof of the NT being finished by 100 AD besides a book written in the last 100 years. And that is just not going to convince me when it is held up to documents actually written in 100 A.D. by the Christians themselves which do not speak of a gathered canon.

[quote]The CANON was WELL DECIDED ON LONG BEFORE THAT.[/quote]

Until you prove that to me I won't accept it. You saying it is not proving it.

[quote]Ive read the Gnostic gospels, they dont FIT, in fact a Christian once they are saved are led by the Holy Spirit to know what is not inspired. That goe for the apocrphya.[/quote]Well I have been baptized in the correct formula. I have accepted Christ as my savior. So therefore, according to you, I'm saved.

The Christians at the time were baptized. They had accepted Jesus as their savior. They were "saved" according to you. Yet, although according to you the Holy Spirit guided them, they thought many of the non-canonical books were suppose to be in the canon.

You deciding now that Gnostic gospels, already after being proven not to be true, are not true holds no weight and proves nothing.

[quote]Just please read the book above Marie, and consider this, mankind has deceived many via HISTORY...really the only thing us humans can trust in is GODS WORD, not others protrayals of the "facts" 2000 years later, think about that.[/quote]

Well God's word doesn't say how the Bible came about. See, by reading that book and believing it I would be believing man's word on how history happened and not God's Word. See, to read that book, but yet to not listen to man's portrayal of history is contradictory.

And I already told you I don’t have the money to get it nor will I be giving up any extra money I do have to buy books I want for a book I think is ridiculous and totally contradictory to itself.

May God love you Budge. I am still willing to listen to you, but your "truth" just is still too inconsistent for me to actually take as truth. Convince me and I'll convert... until then I am a daughter of the Church.

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[Winchester]

BC follows the year. AD precedes the year.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1228699' date='Apr 3 2007, 09:46 PM']There is not "Catholic" history there is just history. You either take it as it was and read the actual writings of the people at the time or you can, like you, deny the actual writings of the people at the time because they don't agree with you and re write history completely so as to have something to lean on when true history backs you in a corner.

1.) I will not be reading that because I think it is ridiculous to read something about history that totally contradicts the very writings of history itself.[/quote]

Just wanted to add to this, as a historian. The best way to study history is to examine the primary sources, and not to use secondary sources, which this one is. We're lucky in that we have quite a few primary sources available from this time period. But using primary sources automatically skews the data due to the author's biases. Everyone has a bias, and good historians will identify theirs and try to keep them to a minimum, but that doesn't always happen. For example, if I were to write a history on LBJ, my negative views of him would no doubt surface at some point. Now let's say someone else reads that book, and takes my word as being completely accurate on the subject. That person would not have a completely accurate view of him, because they didn't also examine the primary sources. So the point of this is, examine the primary sources, because they are from the actual period.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1229470' date='Apr 4 2007, 04:42 PM']BC follows the year. AD precedes the year.[/quote]

True, but making a mistake with those is much better than using CE & BCE, in my opinion.

[Budge]

Hey Totus,

The big difference we have here is that of authority, you hvae decided Rome's authority is valid and I depend wholly on Gods Word. What Rome will tell people about Sola Scripture is false.

Beloved,while I was very delegent to write to you concerning our common salvation,I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)

Acording to Jude there is no need for a Magisterium or interpreters we have been given our faith once and for all.

I guess all I can do is present my side even if I dont succeed in changing your mind. But hey I rejected the Christian gospel when I was 18 and in college. Took some years for those seeds to come forth.
[quote]
According to you, the gates of Hell did.[/quote]If I believe Rome is the counterfeit church, how would that even apply.


Going to the ROCK issue, do you realize GOD IS REFERRED TO AS ThE ROCK MANY MANY TIMES WITHIN SCRIPTURE...

Why do Catholic ignore these verses?

All these verses proved to me that Jesus--God is the Rock and not Peter and Jesus was talking about himself.

Deu 32:31 For their rock [is] not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves [being] judges.

1Sa 2:2 [There is] none holy as the LORD: for [there is] none beside thee: neither [is there] any rock like our God.

2Sa 22:2 And he said, The LORD [is] my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer;

2Sa 22:3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: [he is] my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

(these arent the only verses there are many many many more)

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

And youre going to tell me that PETER is the ROCK we should stand upon?
[quote]
1.) I will not be reading that because I think it is ridiculous to read something about history that totally contradicts the very writings of history itself.[/quote]

Why not read the OTHER side of things?

I read Catholic books, at least you can be informed from the other side. It worries me when people say I will not read.

This book is cheap, probably around 6 bucks if that, I wish I knew where my copy was, id be willing to send it to you.


[quote]You have no proof of the NT being finished by 100 AD besides a book written in the last 100 years.[/quote]Do you believe the apostles wrote the NT or not? {if they did, it would HAVE to be finished would it not because their natural life spans would have expired!}
[quote]
Well God's word doesn't say how the Bible came about. See, by reading that book and believing it I would be believing man's word on how history happened and not God's Word. See, to read that book, but yet to not listen to man's portrayal of history is contradictory.[/quote]

???

You read Catholic books on history do you not?
[quote]And I already told you I don’t have the money to get it nor will I be giving up any extra money I do have to buy books I want for a book I think is ridiculous and totally contradictory to itself.[/quote]

Thats just another way of telling me you are unwilling to examine the other side which is disappointing to hear.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Budge' post='1229674' date='Apr 4 2007, 02:24 PM']Thats just another way of telling me you are unwilling to examine the other side which is disappointing to hear.[/quote]


There is no other side to history, other than the silly revisionist stuff which makes an actual historian barf.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]

[quote]
Hey Totus,

The big difference we have here is that of authority, you hvae decided Rome's authority is valid and I depend wholly on Gods Word. What Rome will tell people about Sola Scripture is false.

Beloved,while I was very delegent to write to you concerning our common salvation,I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)

Acording to Jude there is no need for a Magisterium or interpreters we have been given our faith once and for all.

[/quote]I do not see authority as our big difference. I see it as one of the primary, but I do not think is the biggest difference. I believe the problem I'm having right now in accepting what according to you is truth is that you [b]will not and have not[/b] given me any proof besides three scripture verses so far (all of which I have not talked to you about and you made no response on).

As for Jude 1:3

You take this verse to mean that Jude is saying the total truth has been given once and for all, and [b]he is saying that, but he is also in this verse reminding us of the importance of Tradition.[/b]. I do not see how this verse implies there is no need for the Magisterum of interpreters. Jude was explaining the reason and purpose of the letter. He was writing to the faithful about "their common salvation" because he had received alarming reports about the damage being done by certain false teachers with their bad doctrine and loose morals ( he in verses 5-16 exposes these men) and [b]then in verses 17-23 exhorts Christians to protect the faith "which was given to the saints once and for all" fully to protect[/b]. He says it was [b]delievered to the saints[/b]. This reminds of the importance of Tradition. We know that the deposit of Christian faith and morals was entrusted to the Church to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time. [b]Even in 2 Thess 2:15 the apostle warns the faithful to maintain the traditions which they had learned either by word of mouth or by letter.[/b] Jude is petitioning the faithful (who even though it is the Pope and the bishops of the Church who have the custody of the faith and basic responsibility to hand the truth on) who still have the obligation to hand the truth on and protect it. [b]He is petitioning for them to protect the truth which has been given them. That in no way implies the faith has not been given to the Church to protect and hand on. If anything it seriously implies that it HAS been given to the Church to protect and hand on.[/b]

The Magisterum's job is not to make up new things. The Magisterium has never said anything that goes directly against the teachings of the Scriptures... never. It has protected the truth and passed it on, giving an assurance to the faithful that the truth they are being handed is in fact [b] the truth[/b] of God given to them to protect and pass on.

Now you can say I interpreted that wrong, and I can say you interpreted that wrong. We were both, according to us, led by the Holy Spirit... so now what do we lean on? Who is right and who is wrong? Why didn't the Holy Spirit lead us to the same interpretations of this verse? Christ did not just leave us here to just wing it when we disagree although we both claim to be working under the Holy Spirit, which dwells in us at his will. So, this proves again [b] Christ had to give the truth to someone to protect and have the authority to judge infallibly on matters of faith and morals [/b]

If anything this is one of the verses that defend Tradition, not as you say prove that it should not exist and that we all can just interpret as we like because the truth is right there. Yes, the truth is there, but as Jude petitions us to do in verses 17-19, and that is to protect the truth and pass it on unblemished by the "scoffers devoid of the Spirit". Let us always read the entire message of the Scriptures, and not pick out a verse that when taken apart can mean anything we please it to mean.

[quote]I guess all I can do is present my side even if I dont succeed in changing your mind. But hey I rejected the Christian gospel when I was 18 and in college. Took some years for those seeds to come forth.[/quote]

Well the truth is the truth. When given it changes all minds because it does not contridict logic or reason or fact because God, who gave us logic and reason and created the facts cannot contridicit himself. What you have given me contradicits logic and reason.

You said the Church went underground from the death of Christ till 1500. If that is true then it would not contradict Scirpture, which is does because Scripture says the "gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church". Also it contradicts logic and reason because in 110 AD St. Ignatius of Antioch lived. You said the Catholic Church did not come into existence until 300 AD, but yet you say the early Church Fathers are all Catholic deceivers. If that is so then why did a number of the early Church Fathers live before the time of the Catholic Church? And if they were deceivers then why did the "true underground Christians" not make it known that they were? There is nothing written by these "underground Christians". There are no documents or anything. St. Ignatius died a martyr in Rome as you say the "true Christians" died martyrs in Rome. .... See, what your saying goes against pure logic. There are so many objections. Truth has no objections. All it has is answers and beliefs which cannot be contradicted. The Truth you have given me... I can wadge a war of contradictions against.

Also you said sola scripture was the truth. Scripture itself disaproves that. Logic disproves that seeing as it has never built up the ONE Church Christ said he would have. And Reason goes against that seeing as it has never brought doctrinal unity and peace which is what Christ's true truth would bring.

You also do not believe Christ gave divine authority to the Apostles who had to hand it on. If He did not then how come their writings can be considered truth? And who has the authority to say their writings are truth? Who? Goes against logic and reason. This also goes against Scripture

Matthew 16:13-19 is where Christ gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter. He does not give these keys to anyone else.
Matthew 18:18 is where all the Apostles are given the power to bind and to loose, but Peter alone was given the keys
Luke 22:31-32 is where Christ prays that PETERS faith would not fail. Why would he pray for Peter's faith to not fail, unless he had made Peter the Rock he would build his Church upon?
John 21:15-17 [b] Peter is made the Shepard of Christ's flock![/b] "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord you know everything; you know that I love." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."
Acts 15 gives an account of the first Church council, called at the request of St. Paul. This Council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and the presbyters (the fact that there are presbyters shows that the Apostles handed on their power). However, [b]after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent[/b]. The decision was made after Peter spoke, and it is obvious that they considered St. Peter's authority final.

Peter usually spoke for the rest of the Apostles
The Apostles are sometimes referred to in Scripture as "Peter and his companions"
Peter's name ALWAYS heads the list of the Apostles
Peter's name is mentioned 191 times which is more than all of the other Apostles combined (there's equal about 130)
Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church's important "firsts".
Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor of an Apostle (Acts 1:13-16)
Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost and received the first converts
Peter preformed the first miracle at Pentecost
He inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira, and excommunicated the first heretic, Simon the magician (Acts 8:21)
Peter was the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead
Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church
And Peter commanded the first Gentile converts be baptized.

If Peter didn't have some authority then please tell me what's up with this. It is ALL Scriptural. Also, if you don't think Peter is infalliable then why do you accept his first two letters as infaliable? We must accept that all the Apostles were infalliable regarding faith and morals to accept their writings as the infalliable word of God.

Like I said, your just not making sense. Your truth contradicts reason, logic, facts, and even Scripture itself.

....... I'll finish responding in another post.

May God bless you Budge!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie

[TotusTuusMaria]

[center]J.M.J.[/center]
[quote]If I believe Rome is the counterfeit church, how would that even apply.[/quote]You have given me no proof which I have not refuted to think that. Everything you say against it (which is not very much by the way... all you have had so far is three verses) can be refuted. Truth cannot be refuted.

[quote]Going to the ROCK issue, do you realize GOD IS REFERRED TO AS ThE ROCK MANY MANY TIMES WITHIN SCRIPTURE...[/quote]

So, since your last little verse was refuted your now going to say that doesn't matter that Peter's name was changed to Rock or anything because who cares what happened in Matthew... let's look at the rest of Scripture. IT MATTERS BUDGE! Matthew counts just as much as the rest of Scripture. And in Matthew Peter's name is changed to Peter meaning ROCK and He is given the keys of Heaven. Jesus tells him that whatever he binds is bound and whatever he looses is loosened

[quote]Why do Catholic ignore these verses?[/quote]We don't. But you do realize that Peter's name was changed to ROCK don't you?

[quote]And youre going to tell me that PETER is the ROCK we should stand upon?[/quote]

[b] Budge you know I never said that. You also know that Scripture doesn't say that. I do not know why you would ask that if only to trip me up or make me look like I am off my rocker[/b] I never said that! [b]I said the Church was built, by Jesus, on Peter, the Rock.[/b] You do not stand on the rock, but Christ's Church (all the truth) does. And it says that right there in Scripture. I told you that. You said that it did not really mean "rock". I said it did... now what happens? We have to agree it does. I proved it does. So, now what is your stance on that verse in Matthew?

[quote]Why not read the OTHER side of things?[/quote]I was born on the other side of things. There is not a question that you have asked that I did not ask with the same zeal and playing the best devil's advocate I know how. The Truth of the Christ, the truth of the Church beat me everytime. There is not one thing that you've asked me or used against me that I too did not ask or use against the Church before I converted.

[quote]I read Catholic books, at least you can be informed from the other side. It worries me when people say I will not read.[/quote]

But did you understand Catholic books? Because alot of what you say about the Church is not what the Church teaches.

Also, I already told you my reasons for not reading that book. I don't have the money to get it. I say that with all sincerety. I do not think you understand that I don't have a penny to my name. I just spent every dime I had on another book that cost my parents a big chunk of change. I am not getting ANYTHING until my birthday. Now, I'll give you this.... if you can get me a copy and send it to me or find a copy online I can read from I will read it (even though it will be a totally ridiculous way to spend my time) but I will just to prove that it doesn't hold a straw against the truth of the Church. And if it does... I'll admit it. But I sincerely tell you that there is no way I can get it unless supplied with it.


[quote]Do you believe the apostles wrote the NT or not? {if they did, it would HAVE to be finished would it not because their natural life spans would have expired!}[/quote]The Apostles did not all get together for a "write the Bible get-together" and write the Bible and then stack it all up nice and neat and hand it to a publisher. That is not how it worked Budge, and if that silly book told you that I think you should write that author and demand your six dollars back.

[quote]You read Catholic books on history do you not?[/quote]

I read history books. Some are written by Catholic authors, but the ones that aren't (and even some written by Protestants) agree with how the Bible was put together and just what went down.

Unlike you though I read the actual sources of the times more than I read history books themselves. I honestly only own one history book (my school book), and after that my history is made up of actually reading the writings of the time I'm studying. Which you have said you don't believe in, which I think is ridiculous.

[quote]Thats just another way of telling me you are unwilling to examine the other side which is disappointing to hear.[/quote]

No, that's my way of telling you I am poor and if I walked around my room right now would not be able to find a dime. (and I'm not exageratting.) I agree though that if you can get it to me somehow... someway without me having to pay for it I'll read it and only because you seem to have such a conviction that is God's gift to history. I will read it [b]just for you[/b] because through this all I've come to have a soft spot in my heart for you Budge.

I am still open to conversion for the truth, but once again.... there is millions of contradictions in your truth. Convince me.

May God bless you Budge!

In Jesus and Mary,
Marie