Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (punishment, homosexuality)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
God bless you. I am always very happy to meet a fellow Christian that does not think we Catholics are nuts.
Priests cannot forgive sins. They only do so in the name of Christ. The one that forgive the sins is Christ and not the priest. And confession is mentioned in the New Testament.
By the way: I do not deny the Catholic Church was corrupt and therefore Luther correctly pointed this out.
I don't want to split hairs here, but you need to chose your words better in this instance. The Catholic Church was not corrupt. It and the deposit of faith is protected as you stated earlier in Matthew 16:19. It was some of the Catholic leadership (people) who were corrupt during that period.
I don't want to split hairs here, but you need to chose your words better in this instance. The Catholic Church was not corrupt. It and the deposit of faith is protected as you stated earlier in Matthew 16:19. It was some of the Catholic leadership (people) who were corrupt during that period.
Protestants do not have the whole bible, Luther threw out some books of the bible. They won't know about the Pope or Peter, Luther rejected that part of the bible.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,281,063 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
Protestants do not have the whole bible, Luther threw out some books of the bible. They won't know about the Pope or Peter, Luther rejected that part of the bible.
Protestants don't deny the Apocryphal as truths..... Just as the inspired Word of God as the Gospels and rest of the. New Testament. There is no again denying the Apocryphal as true. Of course the Apocryphal is in the OT. We still have the same NT.
Protestants don't deny the Apocryphal as truths..... Just as the inspired Word of God as the Gospels and rest of the. New Testament. There is no again denying the Apocryphal as true. Of course the Apocryphal is in the OT. We still have the same NT.
Luther wanted to get rid of Saint James. Talk about man made traditions?
Well I can just imaging Peter going to the synagoge and preaching that Jesus was the Messiah who died and rose on the third day. He would have been thrown out and not allowed to return. Peter went around after Jesus' death preaching what Jesus taught him, starting a new religion. Many Jews converted though but they became Christian and didn't remain Jews. Why do you think Peter was eventually killed?
If Jesus or any of his disciples started a new religion, then Jesus could not have been the Messiah and he and all his disciples should be put to death because they deserve the death of a sinner at having began a new religion.
Gentiles did not depart from Judaism for 100 years after Jesus died.
Every believer in the New Testament submitted to the authority of the priests in Judaism from Matthew to Revelation.
Did Jesus come to abolish the law and the prophets?
If he did, and if the outcome is that, then he deserved to die, and he could not be a sacrifice to anyone because the sacrifice pertains to the religion of God, and that is Judaism.
Stephen was killed because of liars saying that Jesus came to begin a new religion.
Those liars were paid to tell that lie, but it was a lie.
People said the same thing about Paul, and he had to go way out of his way just because so many people were telling the lie.
He submits to the priests in Judaism and offers a sacrifice decades after Jesus died.
Paul had to go way out of his way just to prove that he never left Judaism when others were making the claim that he did.
If Jesus started a new religion and separated from Judaism, then why would Paul have submitted to their authority and thus PROVING that he was still in Judaism, and PROVING that he never left, never started a new religion?
Acts 21 tells a story about rumors being told about Paul, and if the rumors were proved, Paul stood to lose his life.
Did Paul only prove that he never left the authority of the priests of Judaism just to save his life?
Did Paul just pretend to prove that he never stopped keeping the laws of Moses, and did he just pretend that he wasn't going around teaching Israel not to keep the laws of Moses?
Did he make sacrifices to appear before the authority of the priests in Judaism just because he was afraid, and wasn't willing to stand up for what he believed in?
Was it that Paul was a two faced coward doing and saying things because he was afraid that he would be killed?
If he was in another religion and no longer believed in Judaism, and then sought to deceive everyone out of fear, then I would have no use for a single word that came out of his mouth.
So what is it?
People take the words of Paul to show him standing against the laws of Moses?
Is Paul a Jew who came to teach people not to keep the laws of Moses?
If this is true, then what he did in Acts 21 directly contradict any interpretation that would show Paul teaching Israel not to keep the commandments.
He would be a two faced coward if he believed one thing and proved another to save his life.
But that's not what Acts 21 shows.
It says tens of thousands of Jews believed and all of them were zealous in keeping the laws of Moses.
There was never a question whether Jews are supposed to continue in the law, there was only a question whether gentiles had to keep the laws.
Jews never stop keeping the law, and if a Jew comes to change the times and seasons{Sabbaths and feast} then he is doing what the anti-Christ is appointed to do.
The antichrist comes to turn the children of Israel away from their law, and away from knowing the appointed visitation days of God.
Satan does not want anyone knowing what the visitation days of God are, and why?
Because the visitation days are promises in receiving gifts from God.
They prepared and counted the omer, and because they were counting the omer, Jesus comes to warn then, so that they would truly receive the promise.
But Pentecost is just the first giving of the promise and it is the least.
The promise is given in double portion on Shemini Atzereth, but just like Pentecost, you have to know the times and seasons to be warned that the promise is coming that year.
If the promise is given on Shemini Atzereth next year, how many Christians will have prepared to receive that spirit which is double the first?
If the Antichrist has accomplished turning the children of God away from knowing the times and seasons, nobody will receive the promise because they did not know the times and seasons of the coming of the Lord and it's promises.
Has Satan accomplished this?
Shemini Atzereth is much greater than Pentecost, greater than Passover, and if a preacher would preach on one Holy day of Jesus, it would be the promise of Shemini Atzereth.
Protestants do not have the whole bible, Luther threw out some books of the bible. They won't know about the Pope or Peter, Luther rejected that part of the bible.
The works rejected by Martin Luther are as follows:
1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
Tobit
Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
Prayer of Manasses (follows 2 Chronicles in Geneva)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
What on earth have any of those books have to do with the Pope or Peter??
There is no authentic work of scripture that establishes Rome as the center of all Christianity. There is no passage that says that Peter was ever a Bishop or ever presided in Rome either. IMHO, the authentic Christian Church died when direct revelation from God ceased. Everything that came after that comes down to a mad scramble to figure out who was supposed to be in charge now that God was not directing the Church anymore. Unsurprisingly, the winner was the bishop of Rome, the capital of the empire and most politically important city in the world at the time. Traditions linking Mark to Alexandria, Andrew to Constantinople and Peter to Antioch and Rome were all revisionist histories to make sense out of the Bishop of Rome -- just another bishop with no more authority than any other -- being the head of the Church.
Well I can just imaging Peter going to the synagoge and preaching that Jesus was the Messiah who died and rose on the third day. He would have been thrown out and not allowed to return. Peter went around after Jesus' death preaching what Jesus taught him, starting a new religion. Many Jews converted though but they became Christian and didn't remain Jews. Why do you think Peter was eventually killed?
How about because Nero was rounding up Christian leaders from all over the empire, and so Peter was rounded up in Antioch whee he had been living for many years, and was a leader of the Antiochan church, carted off to Rome as were many Christian leaders, and eventually martyred.
Recall that Clement, the author of the Clementine letters, mentions Paul and not Peter. If Peter had been "the" leader of "the" church in Rome, how come Clement did not know him?
This from someone who no longer believes what my (Catholic) church told me growing up.
Jesus said, "Go forth and minister unto all the world." That is where minister comes from. A Pastor is a shepherd and the members are his flock.
Is that really what Jesus said? Because the English word "minister" does not have a Greek antecedent.
From Dictionary.Com:
1250-1300; (noun) Middle English ministre, minister (< Old French ministre) < Latin minister servant, equivalent to minis- (variant of minus a lesser amount; akin to minor minor ) + -ter noun suffix; replacing Middle English menistre < Old French < Latin, as above; (v.) Middle English ministren < Old French ministrer < Latin ministrāre to act as a servant, attend, derivative of minister
Which means a translation of a translation.
I am suspicious of the validity of points made from English translations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
