Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

the time of the so called peters "popehood" by the romans! Good Point. I also forgot to mention that he was the apostle to the Jews in Jerusalem like it says in Galatians 2:8, while Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

St. James the Just was the bishop of Jerusalem, not St. Peter and there were Jews in Rome then as there are today.

Response:

doesn’t mean that , it means roman catholic was not not the first church of christ. the romans rejected christ at first

Response:

: : god would prefer us to get married. in the days of the aposles not having a : child or evn marying was looked down upon like it says in genises when sarai : was given a chiled and in marys time also. Oh, so that’s why Jesus married and had all those children. sheesh.  Do you ever listen to yourself? Karen

Response:

: 1. There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome (Romans 16), and there Even if it were so, which it isn’t, it’s always amusing to me how Protestants think it’s relevant where Peter was actually sitting.  do they think Billy Jeff Clinnochio suddenly stops being president if his hiney isn’t in the oval office?  Would that that were so. Karen

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1. There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome (Romans 16), Yes there is. There’s a ton of it. What you mean to say is "The Bible does not prove that Peter was in Rome." Be honest. " Peter’s first epistle was written from Babylon, not from Rome, and the popes’ claim that "Babylon" stands for Rome is mere conjecture. These are the same people who say that Babylon means the Catholic Church. By the way, there was no Babylon at the time of Peter – it had to be a code word. The biblical evidence that Peter was not a leader in the church at Rome is overwhelming. Paul wrote TO the church at Rome in A.D. 58, but though he mentions 27 people by name, he does not mention Peter. Perhaps he was afraid that the letter would get intercepted, and give up Peter’s whereabouts to the Romans. He could have written to Peter privately, though. we just don’t know.

Give me a brake. he mentions 27 people and is worried only about Peter. Tell me. Peters Job was to minister to the circumcised(Jews) in Jerusalem, like it says in Galatians 2:8, what was he doing in Rome with Gentiles? And why did Paul have to send letters to instuct the Christians in Rome if Peter himself was there to teach them? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -The fact is that Peter was not a pope and he was not in Rome. The absence of "Biblical proof" does not prove the contrary. If a person can’t prove he was home in bed, that doesn’t make him a murderer. How about some common sense. You are making unwarranted conclusions. I wouldn’t want to be a defendant with *you* on a jury. 2. Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), but the popes cannot marry. Priests cannot marry. Peter was married before he was a priest. 3. Peter said Holy Scripture is the sure Word of God and to this alone we are to give heed (2 Peter 1:19-21), but the popes say we are also to heed their uninspired traditions. That is not remotely the meaning of that passage. And why are you quoting the man you call Satan? Can’t have your cake and eat it. 4. Peter warned of false teachers who would make merchandise of God’s people (2 Peter 2:1-3), but the popes have not feared to sell their masses and their prayers and their indulgences. You know nothing. 5. Peter said baptism is a figure, a symbol, and that it is not water which saves us, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21), but the popes say that baptism itself brings salvation and that it is not merely symbolic. Peter does not say it’s a symbol. You do. 8. Peter taught against hierarchicalism, warning the pastors against "being lords over God’s heritage" (1 Peter 5:1-4), and Peter mentioned no church office other than that of the elder; but the popes have set up a system of ecclesiastical lordship over the churches, and have added many offices which are never mentioned in the New Testament. Peter taught against hierachicalism??? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! There’s a new word. If Peter didn’t think his opinion was better than anyone else’s, how would he have expected anyone to believe him or follow his advice? 9. Peter taught that the only priesthood in the New Testament dispensation is the High priesthood of Jesus Christ and the general priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), but the popes say that their "church" has a special priesthood which is ordained to distribute sacraments. You know nothing about the priesthood; old or new testament. 10. Peter taught that Jesus Christ is the rock upon which the church is founded (1 Peter 2:4-8), but the popes say that Peter was the rock. That’s why the Pope is the "Vicar" of Christ. Stop quoting the man you call Satan. BAM

Response:

Yes there is. There’s a ton of it. What you mean to say is "The Bible does not prove that Peter was in Rome." Be honest.

prove it These are the same people who say that Babylon means the Catholic Church. By the way, there was no Babylon at the time of Peter – it had to be a code word.

wrong and right , ancient babylon was am evil city and nowadays this evil city will in another place on earth rise up again , at the city on seven hills , rome Perhaps he was afraid that the letter would get intercepted, and give up Peter’s whereabouts to the Romans. He could have written to Peter privately, though. we just don’t know.

why was peter afraid of the romans if they were as the catholic church says was the "first and real church" and if indeed he actually headed it? you said it yourself The absence of "Biblical proof" does not prove the contrary. If a person can’t prove he was home in bed, that doesn’t make him a murderer. How about some common sense. You are making unwarranted conclusions. I wouldn’t want to be a defendant with *you* on a jury.

what would the outcome be in a courtroom , we got our evidence where’s yours? Priests cannot marry. Peter was married before he was a priest.

god would prefer us to get married. in the days of the aposles not having a child or evn marying was looked down upon like it says in genises when sarai was given a chiled and in marys time also. That is not remotely the meaning of that passage. And why are you quoting the man you call Satan? Can’t have your cake and eat it.

so where else are we to go for the final anser , the only final authority is the word it’s the only unadulterated thing we have here on earth. why would you trust fallible man instead of the actual words of god? You know nothing.

and also with you (pun intended!!!) 5. Peter said baptism is a figure, a symbol, and that it is not water which saves us, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21), but the popes say that baptism itself brings salvation and that it is not merely symbolic. Peter does not say it’s a symbol. You do.

your right peter doesn’t say that…..jesus does! baptism is a sighn of repentance not actual salvation . jesus is the actual salvation . john the baptist baptized as he preached of the salvation of the mesiah . the people baptized showed they beleived! Peter taught against hierachicalism??? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! There’s a new word. If Peter didn’t think his opinion was better than anyone else’s, how would he have expected anyone to believe him or follow his advice?

wrong again ….. not his opinion , jeus’s opinion higher than any other’s . people followed his instruction because he preached strictly and proved strictly from scriptures of the old tesament and their testamony of the words of christ. You know nothing about the priesthood; old or new testament.

is that all you can say. prove he isn’t right That’s why the Pope is the "Vicar" of Christ.

that’s why in revelation says "i am the alpha and omega , the begining and the end , i am the same today , tomorrow and forever." christ needs no vicar . he would not have given his church to any fallible man. chist is still here !!! no man needs to represent him becouse god gave him the world. peter calls christ the rock , jesus calls him peter because of his testomony of christ. his confession would not be destroyed . upon this confession no man can be destroyed no beleiver will be destroyed

Response:

time of the so called peters "popehood" by the romans!

Response:

time of the so called peters "popehood" by the romans!

Good Point. I also forgot to mention that he was the apostle to the Jews in Jerusalem like it says in Galatians 2:8, while Paul was the apostle to the gentiles.

Response:

1. There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome (Romans 16),

Yes there is. There’s a ton of it. What you mean to say is "The Bible does not prove that Peter was in Rome." Be honest. " Peter’s first epistle was written from Babylon, not from Rome, and the popes’ claim that "Babylon" stands for Rome is mere conjecture.

These are the same people who say that Babylon means the Catholic Church. By the way, there was no Babylon at the time of Peter – it had to be a code word. The biblical evidence that Peter was not a leader in the church at Rome is overwhelming. Paul wrote TO the church at Rome in A.D. 58, but though he mentions 27 people by name, he does not mention Peter.

Perhaps he was afraid that the letter would get intercepted, and give up Peter’s whereabouts to the Romans. He could have written to Peter privately, though. we just don’t know. The fact is that Peter was not a pope and he was not in Rome.

The absence of "Biblical proof" does not prove the contrary. If a person can’t prove he was home in bed, that doesn’t make him a murderer. How about some common sense. You are making unwarranted conclusions. I wouldn’t want to be a defendant with *you* on a jury. 2. Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), but the popes cannot marry.

Priests cannot marry. Peter was married before he was a priest. 3. Peter said Holy Scripture is the sure Word of God and to this alone we are to give heed (2 Peter 1:19-21), but the popes say we are also to heed their uninspired traditions.

That is not remotely the meaning of that passage. And why are you quoting the man you call Satan? Can’t have your cake and eat it. 4. Peter warned of false teachers who would make merchandise of God’s people (2 Peter 2:1-3), but the popes have not feared to sell their masses and their prayers and their indulgences.

You know nothing. 5. Peter said baptism is a figure, a symbol, and that it is not water which saves us, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21), but the popes say that baptism itself brings salvation and that it is not merely symbolic.

Peter does not say it’s a symbol. You do. 8. Peter taught against hierarchicalism, warning the pastors against "being lords over God’s heritage" (1 Peter 5:1-4), and Peter mentioned no church office other than that of the elder; but the popes have set up a system of ecclesiastical lordship over the churches, and have added many offices which are never mentioned in the New Testament.

Peter taught against hierachicalism??? HAHAHAHAHA!!!! There’s a new word. If Peter didn’t think his opinion was better than anyone else’s, how would he have expected anyone to believe him or follow his advice? 9. Peter taught that the only priesthood in the New Testament dispensation is the High priesthood of Jesus Christ and the general priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), but the popes say that their "church" has a special priesthood which is ordained to distribute sacraments.

You know nothing about the priesthood; old or new testament. 10. Peter taught that Jesus Christ is the rock upon which the church is founded (1 Peter 2:4-8), but the popes say that Peter was the rock.

That’s why the Pope is the "Vicar" of Christ. Stop quoting the man you call Satan. BAM

Response:

1. There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome (Romans 16), and there is no evidence in the New Testament that there was anything special about the congregation at Rome, but the popes rule in Rome and claim that it is the "mother church." Peter’s first epistle was written from Babylon, not from Rome, and the popes’ claim that "Babylon" stands for Rome is mere conjecture. The biblical evidence that Peter was not a leader in the church at Rome is overwhelming. Paul wrote TO the church at Rome in A.D. 58, but though he mentions 27 people by name, he does not mention Peter. That would have been an inexcusable affront if Peter had been the pope at Rome. Later, Paul writes FROM Rome to the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and to Philemon, but not once does he mention that Peter is in Rome. In 2 Timothy 4:16 Paul said that no man stood with him and all forsook him when he answered his charges. Where was Pope Peter? The fact is that Peter was not a pope and he was not in Rome.

Well, he writes one of his epistles from Rome (aka Babylon.) 2. Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), but the popes cannot marry.

That is not true.  There have been many married popes.  Currently the Church sees fit to enforce a rule of celibacy, but certainly, if they saw fit to change, they could. 3. Peter said Holy Scripture is the sure Word of God and to this alone we are to give heed (2 Peter 1:19-21), but the popes say we are also to heed their uninspired traditions.

Don’t change what the Bible says.  Peter does NOT say that "to this ALONE" must we heed.  If he had, he would be contradicting all the other places which tell us to follow the Bible AND the oral traditions of the Apostles. 6. Peter refused worship (Acts 10:25-26), but the popes have accepted honor and bowings and kissings which border on worship and have allowed themselves to be treated almost as gods.

No Pope has ever allowed worship of himself.  Just because some cultures allow bowing as a gesture of respect, doesn’t mean this is wrong simply because YOUR own personal culture does not bow like that.  YOUR culture is not the ONLY valid one in the world. That is enough for now.  This posting was so riddled with error and biblical misquotations, and I only have a little time tonight. God bless, Stephen — — Stephen Korsman Sites against Adventism: http://members.tripod.com/SDAdventist/index.htm http://members.xoom.com/SDAdventist/index.htm http://www.angelfire.com/nt/sda2rcc/index.html http://www.homestead.com/adventist/files/index.htm Church of God site: http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/cog/index.htm Main site / Catholic sites http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/index.htm

Response:

1. There is no evidence that Peter was in Rome (Romans 16), and there is no evidence in the New Testament that there was anything special about the congregation at Rome, but the popes rule in Rome and claim that it is the "mother church." Peter’s first epistle was written from Babylon, not from Rome, and the popes’ claim that "Babylon" stands for Rome is mere conjecture. The biblical evidence that Peter was not a leader in the church at Rome is overwhelming. Paul wrote TO the church at Rome in A.D. 58, but though he mentions 27 people by name, he does not mention Peter. That would have been an inexcusable affront if Peter had been the pope at Rome. Later, Paul writes FROM Rome to the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, and to Philemon, but not once does he mention that Peter is in Rome. In 2 Timothy 4:16 Paul said that no man stood with him and all forsook him when he answered his charges. Where was Pope Peter? The fact is that Peter was not a pope and he was not in Rome. 2. Peter was married (Matthew 8:14), but the popes cannot marry. 3. Peter said Holy Scripture is the sure Word of God and to this alone we are to give heed (2 Peter 1:19-21), but the popes say we are also to heed their uninspired traditions. 4. Peter warned of false teachers who would make merchandise of God’s people (2 Peter 2:1-3), but the popes have not feared to sell their masses and their prayers and their indulgences. 5. Peter said baptism is a figure, a symbol, and that it is not water which saves us, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21), but the popes say that baptism itself brings salvation and that it is not merely symbolic. 6. Peter refused worship (Acts 10:25-26), but the popes have accepted honor and bowings and kissings which border on worship and have allowed themselves to be treated almost as gods. 7. Peter taught that salvation is strictly through the righteousness of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:1), but the popes claim that their sacraments are also necessary for salvation. 8. Peter taught against hierarchicalism, warning the pastors against "being lords over God’s heritage" (1 Peter 5:1-4), and Peter mentioned no church office other than that of the elder; but the popes have set up a system of ecclesiastical lordship over the churches, and have added many offices which are never mentioned in the New Testament. 9. Peter taught that the only priesthood in the New Testament dispensation is the High priesthood of Jesus Christ and the general priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), but the popes say that their "church" has a special priesthood which is ordained to distribute sacraments. 10. Peter taught that Jesus Christ is the rock upon which the church is founded (1 Peter 2:4-8), but the popes say that Peter was the rock. 11. Peter taught that men are born again through the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23), but the popes say that men are born again through baptism. 12. Peter taught that Christ has "once suffered for sins" (1 Peter 3:18), and "bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24); but the popes say that Christ is sacrificed anew in each mass and that having Jesus Christ and his cross is not enough, that a believer also needs the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments and priesthood. 13. Peter taught that the believer has a living hope, that he has an inheritance reserved in heaven, and that he is kept by the power of God (1 Peter 1:2-5); but the popes say that a believer cannot know for sure that he has a home in heaven. 14. Peter taught that the believer is not to be a murderer, or a thief, or an evildoer, or a busybody in other men’s matters (1 Peter 4:15); but the popes have been all of these things.

Response: