Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[BNR32FAN]

I do not think anything about Marj 1:5. It is what is referred to as "hyperbole".

It is clear what took pplace to me. Was EVERONE baptized in Judea....NO!

" and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins"; means that is, as many of them as were brought to a sight and sense of their sins, and made a confession of them, these he baptized, or immersed, in the river Jordan.

He uses the word "ALL" to describe the response to John's preaching.

"The translation "All the people of Judea were going out and were being Baptized" more clearly brings out the significance of the imperfect tense used in the Greek.

"Confessing" comes from 2 Greek words which used together means...….
"To say the same thing as".

Real confession is not just admitting to guilt but it places the same appeal upon it that God places on it.

YES...….the Bible surely tells us that Enoch and Elijah did not die.
But that same Bible does NOT TELL us that Mary DID NOT DIE.

To say and believe that Mary did not die because Enoch and Elijah is the height of "Adding to the Word of God".

Nobody is adding anything you just refuse to believe in devine revelation after the apostles and accusing the church of lying with no proof to support your claim. Why can’t you just entertain the possibility of it without actually embracing it as a known fact?

 

[BNR32FAN]

NOT SO at all.

Rationalization is the use of feeble but seemingly plausible arguments either to justify something that is difficult to accept or to make it seem ‘not so bad after all'.

Rationalization would be like a prophet who said the world was going to end on April 1, 2019 but when it did not happen, his followers accepted the failure by insisting that it was their prayers which caused the prophesy not to come true.

Sounds a like like faith.

 

[Major1]

What I don’t understand is that we see so many examples of devine revelation throughout the Bible so why do you believe that this cannot continue?

Because the Bible is a closed book. If what you say is true, then the door is opened to any and all who would lie, steal, cheat and deceive the flock for gain.

Allow me to quote 1 Corth. 1:8-11 & 9-10...…...
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

9-10.....
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."

IMO, the "COMPLETENESS/PERFECT" is the Word of God.

When John wrote the Revelation the Bible.....COMLETE was the Scriptures.

That is what Greek Grammer also supports as the word is TELION and in the neuter points to a THING which can only be the Perfect Word of God.

 

[Albion]

Wow is that true? I thought this was an issue during Rome’s claim to papal supremacy but I could be mistaken. It seems a bit ironic that they would make the claim of papal infallibility the very same year they finally put an end to the inquisitions.

My recollection is that the inquisitions had ended earlier in that century, but anyway, Papal Infallibility had been claimed by some popes at an earlier time, but then denied by others later on, and that's the way it stood until made official in the late 19th century. The Roman Catholic Church then split over the declaration of Papal Infallibility, creating the Old Catholic churches.

At approximately the time it was made a dogma, the Vatican was also condemning Socialism, National Independence movements, Freemasonry, Anglican Apostolic Succession, and other things.

The point of all of this was that she was losing the power she once enjoyed to make and break kings and control governments, so these declarations by either an RCC church council or from the Vatican itself are seen by historians as a desperate attempt to stem the advance of anything that seemed to work against the secular interests of Rome.

 

[Major1]

Nobody is adding anything you just refuse to believe in devine revelation after the apostles and accusing the church of lying with no proof to support your claim. Why can’t you just entertain the possibility of it without actually embracing it as a known fact?

Correct. I do not accept divine revelation outside of the Word of God.

Being a Bible believing person I would point you to Heb. 1:1-2.....
“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world”.

2 Corth. 5:20...….
“Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).

The apostles were the “ambassadors for Christ,” which means they were His official spokesmen.
Then because there are NO apostles today I would point you to Ephesians 2:20

Eph. 2:20......…...
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone”.

Now consider 2 Peter 1:3...…..
“Seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” .

Through Jesus and His inspired apostles and prophets, we have everything that we need to know in order to please the Lord. Jude said, “The faith…was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). This means that God’s word – the source of faith (Romans 10:17) – has been revealed to us in its entirety. There is no need for modern day revelations (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:11).

 

[Major1]

Sounds a like like faith.

Really?

Faith is believing something that can not be seen.

Denial, minimization, and rationalization are the more garden variety versions of self-deception. They’re well known and as a consequence, more easily identified. Denial is willful ignorance not to recognize a state of affairs as real or actual. Minimization involves the reduction of the seriousness or extent of that state of affairs.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Because the Bible is a closed book. If what you say is true, then the door is opened to any and all who would lie, steal, cheat and deceive the flock for gain.

Allow me to quote 1 Corth. 1:8-11 & 9-10...…...
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.

9-10.....
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears."

IMO, the "COMPLETENESS/PERFECT" is the Word of God.

When John wrote the Revelation the Bible.....COMLETE was the Scriptures.

That is what Greek Grammer also supports as the word is TELION and in the neuter points to a THING which can only be the Perfect Word of God.

Now we’re getting somewhere. The Church of God is capable of being ENTIRELY corrupted. That all these “false teachings” can be accepted by everyone in the early church without any resistance? Was there no one who kept the teachings intact throughout the entire church population? ALL CHRISTIANS simply agreed to accept false beliefs with no resistance whatsoever? How plausible is that?

 

[Albion]

No not exactly because they weren’t ratified by an ecumenical council of men devoted to serving God.

Do you believe in Holy Tradition, then, or just the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils? In the RCC at least, Tradition stands on its own.

 

[Major1]

Nobody is adding anything you just refuse to believe in devine revelation after the apostles and accusing the church of lying with no proof to support your claim. Why can’t you just entertain the possibility of it without actually embracing it as a known fact?

My dear brother, what happens when we open the door of "Divine Revelation" is to allow those who would do anything "In the name of God" to make a dollar.

"Divine Revelation" today is seen and heard as ……."God spoke to me and said....He wants YOU to give $100.oo to this ministry right now.

"God said to me" that we need to buy a new jet airplane so I can travel all over the world and sell my prayer rugs.

If someone says....."God told me" and you can not find it in the Scriptures it is a lie. I DID NOT SAY THAT AND I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE A LIAR, but God is.

Romans 3:4 ...….
"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

 

[concretecamper]

@brn32fan

Here is an excerpt from an early Church council that proves Rome had the Authority. To insinuate it came about in the late 19th Century is a falsehood (along with other OPINIONS that have been offered.)

Council of Sardica (A.D. 344)

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

 

[Major1]

Now we’re getting somewhere. The Church of God is capable of being ENTIRELY corrupted. That all these “false teachings” can be accepted by everyone in the early church without any resistance? Was there no one who kept the teachings intact throughout the entire church population? ALL CHRISTIANS simply agreed to accept false beliefs with no resistance whatsoever? How plausible is that?

It is so plausible that Paul had to write TWO letters of CORRECTION,
1 and 2nd Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 3:1-4...………...
"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?
For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’ are you not carnal?

There were many errors that had crept into the Corinthian belief system and into their spiritual walk. Some of the issues that Paul needed to address included.........….

1: Their need to live godly even in a corrupt culture
2: Their need to be unified as one body without competition
3: To maintain the priority of sexual and moral purity within the church
4: To understand more completely the role of spiritual gifts in the context of the church
5: To embrace love as the greatest virtue that must live within our hearts
6: To maintain orderly worship with proper respect toward one another
7: To keep the hope of the resurrection burning brightly in their hearts.

 

[Major1]

And if Peter told the Pharisees that Jesus is the Son of God there’s not a shred of evidence in the Old Testament to support his claim. So does that mean that Peter is lying or teaching falsely?

Surely you are kidding me.

There are at least 44 Messianic Prophecies of Jesus in the Old Test.
44 Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ

"IF" does not make truth my friend.

The "Church" was a MYSTERY in the Old Test. Paul is the one to introduce the Church so does that make him a liar as well?

 

[Albion]

@brn32fan

Here is an excerpt from an early Church council that proves Rome had the Authority. To insinuate it came about in the late 19th Century is a falsehood (along with other OPINIONS that have been offered.)

1. Papal Infallibility is not about Papal Supremacy, a separate issue which does go back further in time.

2. and your choice of example (the Council of Sardica) is inappropriate because it is (A) not an Ecumenical Council and (B) the decision you cite is not about doctrine anyway, although that is explicitly what Papal Infallibility is about.

Most Catholics know all this stuff.

 

[Major1]

What I don’t understand is that we see so many examples of devine revelation throughout the Bible so why do you believe that this cannot continue?

Because there is no Scripture of Apostolic succession or the office of a Prophet today.

When the Bible was completed, the Office of Apostle and prophet ended.

Some will say that there are prophets today as Paul says it in Corinthians as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I AGREE 100% but there is a difference between the "gift" of prophecy which is the gift of defending and speaking forth the ESTABLISHED Word of God, and the "Office" of Prophet which is speaking forth NEW revelations from God and establishing scripture.
The gift is still in effect, but not the office.

 

[Major1]

1. Papal Infallibility is not about Papal Supremacy, a separate issue which does go back further in time.

2. and your choice of example (the Council of Sardica) is inappropriate because it is (A) not an Ecumenical Council and (B) the decision you cite is not about doctrine anyway, although that is explicitly what Papal Infallibility is about.

Most Catholics know all this stuff.

Some one needs some aloe lotion for "burned".

 

[Lost4words]

Your sarcasm seems to know no boundaries.

I can post them but what does it matter. You will reject them just as you have done in the past so what is the point????

Matt. 5:18...……….
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished".

John 10:35...……….
"The Scripture cannot be broken,".

Matt. 22:29...…….
"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God,".

John 17:17............
"Your word is truth,".

You also reject any scripture put forward by Catholics. You have done this time and again in many debates. You rely on your own individual interpretations and opinions and views of what scripture is saying.

 

[Albion]

You also reject any scripture put forward by Catholics. You have done this time and again in many debates. You rely on your own individual interpretations and opinions and views of what scripture is saying.

Holding to a different interpretation doesn't mean that there are different scriptures.

 

[Lost4words]

The problem with Sola Scripture believers is that they believe that God is contained only in the Bible. To them, He cannot reveal anything else. He cannot teach. He cannot send the Holy Spirit to guide.

To Catholics, we believe in Sacred scripture and Sacred Tradition. We believe that the Holy Spirit works in the church. Through Apostolic succession too. The church has been constantly 'fed' by God since the day it was born.

The Bible is a guide. It was not complete in the early church. They had to rely on Tradition, handed down. Solar Scripture is a 'modern' word.

Jesus said and taught a lot more than what is contained in the Bible. We believe the Holy Spirit has given the church many revelation. Revelations that have been passed down.

 

[Lost4words]

Holding to a different interpretation doesn't mean that there are different scriptures.

I didnt say there was

 

[BNR32FAN]

Really?

Faith is believing something that can not be seen.

Denial, minimization, and rationalization are the more garden variety versions of self-deception. They’re well known and as a consequence, more easily identified. Denial is willful ignorance not to recognize a state of affairs as real or actual. Minimization involves the reduction of the seriousness or extent of that state of affairs.

Self deception? And yet I don’t hold these traditions to be true. I simply entertain the idea that they are possible.