Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

Do you always rely on your King James?  Burn it!  It is the heretics’ book. – Not only I rely on the King James 1611, I also believe it to be the Word of God, preserved and without errors

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/kjverror.html Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.(KJV Isaiah 37:36) The angel of the LORD went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. Early the next morning, there they were, all the corpses of the dead. (NAB Isaiah 37:36) Did the dead really arise in the morning like the KJV says? Cathy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Isaiah 34:16 – Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Response:

For those that still think all Bibles are the same: The Rock–how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways! A faithful God, without deceit, how just and upright he is! (NAB Deuteronomy 32:4) Deuteronomy 32:4 – He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Do you think I was saying that this passage is speaking of Peter?  It was a joke, Carlos. Let me ask you this. The KJV is often referred to as the authorized version. Who authorized it and did that person have the authority to do so. If yes, who granted that authority? Cathy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Isaiah 34:16 – Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … Is this the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Have you very much to learn? What kind of comment is that? Do you suppose that you are above scrutiny? If that upsets you, how will you cope in future? ‘It’ is not a comment of course, they are two questions. You will be asked them again one day soon, and you will need much better answers than those you have supplied here, and you won’t get another chance. So those are questions we’ll be asked by Jesus? Who are you then to be asking them here? Paul says he saw Peter and James,  your point?< You don’t know either? Or won’t you admit what it is? What’s your point? That particular incident has nothing  to do with Petrine succession. Are you in the habit of trotting out irrelevancies to "support" your claims? Gal 2:9 … those who were the acknowledged pillars, James, Cephas, and John, gave Barnabas and me the handclasp of fellowship …< That’s three pillars, which is one more than is necessary to put Petrine succession in the waste basket. But what about these pillars? ‘Acknowledged’, not ‘appointed’? Sure, because Jesus, not Paul appointed them.< Are you blind? Paul wrote, ‘acknowledged’, despite the fact that he knew their history very well. And look (again) at the respect he gives them: ‘those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality). So much for Jesus’ appointment! So much for ‘the keys’! No wonder your church burned Bibles in vernacular languages! Paul had to acknowledge them.< You must either be very ignorant or deliberately contradicting Scripture. I see who is the ignorant one here. In Acts 9, after Paul is blinded on the way to Damascus, he is sent to the Christian Ananias. He stayed with the disciples, evidently learning. Later when he went to Jerusalem, he had to visit with the Apostles. Why? Because they were the leaders of the Church! Throughout the Gospels and Acts when several Apostles are mentioned, Peter is named first. That indicates his preeminence among the Christians. And did you not also read this? ‘And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me’ Gal 2:6-7 RSV What can an apostle, or even three, do for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit? Nothing! Then why did Paul have to see them? (Acts, Gal)< Paul went of his own volition, and it was not to ‘get permission’ from Peter. Paul already had all the authority needed, the authority the RCC dreads. Acts, Gal? Can you not quote a verse to support you ? I can: ‘And it came to pass, that the Holy Apostle Peter, Vicar of Christ, Sole Bishop of Rome, did summon the alleged apostle Paul to give account for the multiform miracles, preachings, conversions, and church-plantings that he had committed without authority from the Holy See.’ Do you not recognise that? Real Scripture, that. Evidently the fundie bible. Gal 2:11 When Cephas came to Antioch I directly withstood him …< Why? ‘…because he stood condemned.’ Gal 2:11  RSV The Vicar of Christ, condemned? Yes, he was behaving improperly.< So Christ behaved improperly? Is that the God you worship? Or is the ‘pope’ only the Vicar of Christ when he advances the interests of the worldly forces he does deals with? Did I say Christ acted improperly? <looking back No. Are you putting words in my mouth? … Now was Peter speaking ex cathedra or not on this occasion? How can you tell? Get a grip, he was chastized by Paul for his *behavior*, not his preaching. Nothing at all ex cathedra about that.< So that is the meaning of popery is it? Do as I say, not what I do? I can murder and pillage provided I can pass myself off as one of those Christians? As if after two thousand years we didn’t know! Peter’s verbal teaching was in line with his actions, and they were grossly erroneous! But for God’s intervention through Paul he would have continued in sin. Get a grip. Nobody has claimed here that the Popes always act properly. Not Peter. Not any of his successors. We do claim that, under some very limited circumstances, they teach without error. Before you run off and yell "hypocrisy", take a look at your own behavior. Do you *always* practice what you preach? … Well? Is He? Are you Peter’s, or Christ’s? You must choose. This is some of the worst proof-texting I’ve seen. Paul is making the point that *all* Church members belong to Jesus, no matter who converted them or preached to them or baptized them. It has nothing whatsoever to say about Petrine succession.< It is fatal to your cause, because it shows that nobody, including Peter and Paul, thought that Peter had any special authority, not even those who ’supported’ him. Nobody with a grain of intelligence could doubt this. As you obviously have much more than a grain, you can only be whistling in the dark, trying to comfort yourself and others who are desperate to find an escape-hole from the truth. You still miss the point. Paul is saying there is *one* Church. That particular quote is still not relevant to the position of Peter. .. 1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest the apostles and the brethen of the Lord and Cephas? Is this a feeble attempt at hiding the fact that Peter, the great ensample of a celibate hierarchy, was married?<< Yes, < So it is a feeble attempt to hide the truth. You are trying to answer a question you cannot answer, but you may well be correct. I see you are indulging in your habit of quoting out of context. there was no rule of celibacy at that time.< Who gave you leave to change God’s rules? What will He do with you? ‘If anyone preaches to you a gospel different from the one you accepted, let him be condemned to hell!’ Which of "God’s rules" are your referring to? It is well established in Acts 15 that the Church had, and has, the authority to make rules. There is no legitimate RCC rule now. You have not shown any reason for obeying the RCC hierarchy any more than for Joseph Smith or the King of Siam, and you cannot ever do so because the Bible makes it impossible. What other reason was there for stopping people from reading the Bible? And what happened as soon as they did read it? Did they acknowledge the Pope with shouts of acclamation and joy? Or did they realise they had been conned, and vote with their feet? Would Jesus have sent in the troops to try to stop them? Or would that liar Satan? Learn some history. Just about every sentence in that paragraph is wrong.  So what?< The consequence is not negligible. This means that Paul’s statements regarding marriage, effectively ex cathedra because Peter agreed with them, have been disobeyed by the RCC. The RCC is therefore a complete nonsense as it breaks its own prime law and the basis of its existence! The RCC is a pagan’s way of ‘legalising’ the breaking of God’s commands. Absolute nonsense! Where does Peter say he agrees with Paul regarding marriage? Or are you just talking through your hat? … It is translated as "Christian wife" in the NAB. So what? Why did they not get it right in the first place, instead, perhaps, of being caught out, and being seen to have attempted a deception? Is it any wonder that people liken the RCC to a cult? The sense is clearer in the NAB and other translations. That does not make the translation you quoted (what is it BTW?) wrong, just not as good as it could be. … Yes, everybody knows Peter had a wife. So what? But they don’t. Ask an average Catholic that, and a lot more Bible questions besides, and see what the real state of knowledge is. The RCC is made up of people who give wrong answers and no answers. People with the right answers leave. Where do you find this "average Catholic" and how do *you* know what he or she knows or doesn’t know. The Catholics that I know, do know this and much more. … You still cannot get around the fact that *Jesus* renamed Simon as Peter and the name Peter means "rock".< I do not attempt to or even want to, as you possibly realise. {You cannot escape the fact that your belief contradicts Scripture and is

blasphemous.} Brackets mine, I wish I had a dime for every time this was said to me, I could open that group home I have always wanted to. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are simply wrong. Get thee to a priest! Steve

Response:

Yeah, right.  Carlos’ interpretation. Since when quoting the word of God is interpreting

You are quoting and interpreting from a book written by men and interpreted by men. (NAB John 1:42) Dont blame me for your water down Bible

I am quite pleased with my complete Bible, thank you very much. Bruce — How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost.  Anonymous

Response:

Do you always rely on your King James?  Burn it!  It is the heretics’ book. –

Not only I rely on the King James 1611, I also believe it to be the Word of God, preserved and without errors Isaiah 34:16 – Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Response:

For those that still think all Bibles are the same: The Rock–how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways! A faithful God, without deceit, how just and upright he is! (NAB Deuteronomy 32:4)

Deuteronomy 32:4 – He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Isaiah 34:16 – Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Response:

Yeah, right.  Carlos’ interpretation.

Since when quoting the word of God is interpreting (NAB John 1:42)  

Dont blame me for your water down Bible Isaiah 34:16 – Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –                                                          JMJ Got a quote for you sport: Proverbs: 26:3  "A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the back of fools." Hint for the clueless:  Take a look at all those references to Cephas. It means rock.  In Aramaic.  The language Jesus spoke, not Greek. Paul bears witness to this by the use of term "Cephas" in his letters: Is this the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Have you very much to learn? Gal 1:18 Three years after that I went up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas, with whom I stayed fifteen days. The verb ‘get to know’ is better rendered ‘to get information from’. But you have not finished the sentence. Neither have you apparently appreciated Paul’s point in writing all this, which runs entirely counter to the RCC view. What was Paul’s point? Do you know? Has your priest explained it to you? Gal 2:9 … those who were the acknowledged pillars, James, Cephas, and John, gave Barnabas and me the handclasp of fellowship … That’s three pillars, which is one more than is necessary to put Petrine succession in the waste basket. But what about these pillars? ‘Acknowledged’, not ‘appointed’? And did you not also read this? What can an apostle, or even three, do for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit? Nothing! Gal 2:11 When Cephas came to Antioch I directly withstood him … Why? Gal 2:14 … I had this to say to Cephas in the presence of all … Wait, you skipped this bit: ‘But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel’ Gal 2:14  RSV At least ‘Popes’ have maintained this tradition! 1 Cor 1:12 One of you will say, "I belong to Paul, " … another "Cephas" has my allegiance," … 1 Cor 3:22 All things are yours, whether it be Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas< So there was doubt about Petrine succession, then? And caused by two who were not of ‘the twelve’! Paul at least did not recognize Peter’s primacy, even though he had stayed with him for fifteen days! But let’s finish the job: I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol’los," or "I belong to Cephas,"…… or "I belong to Christ."  1 Cor 1:12-13   RSV Well? Is He? Are you Peter’s, or Christ’s? You must choose. 1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest the apostles and the brethen of the Lord and Cephas? Is this a feeble attempt at hiding the fact that Peter, the great ensemble of a celibate hierarchy, was married? A ‘woman’? Is it likely that an apostle would have taken a woman with him who was not his wife? Do papal legates do that? Did Paul take a woman around with him? Could this be not better translated as it is elsewhere, as ‘a wife’? What a tortuous way to translate! Here’s the sensible consensus: Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? 1 Cor 9:5-6  NIV But anyway: ‘And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever; he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and served him.’ Matt 8:14-15  RSV John 1:42 He brought him(talking of St Peter,jc)to Jesus who looked at him and said, "You are Simon, son of John; your name shall be Cephas (which is rendered Peter)" The New American Bible and in Matthew 16:18-19: "Thou art <Cepha, and upon this <cepha I will build my Church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I well intrust to you the keys of the heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven" Aramaic  English Kepha     Rock(Peter) kepha     rock "Cephas" is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word "Kepha" When you read both verse’s completely it show’s Jesus has to be talking about Saint Peter and not himself<

When scientists discuss the nature of things, they do not, if they are wise, make all data fit an assumed theory. That is the path to lasting ignorance. You will likewise fool yourself, and make yourself look a fool, if you assume in your statements the very condition that you have to prove. Is Peter given the ‘Saint’ description to distinguish him from any others of the same name who were not saints? There were no others so named, so the ‘Saint’ description is misleading unless it is to be meaninglessly applied to all Christians, including, I presume, yourself, if RCC members are counted as Christians. We must proceed from what we have first proved, and not apply circular arguments, which confuse ourselves. Peter and Paul were no more saints than any Christian, unless it can be otherwise shown. Real Christians, in my experience, will instantly refuse and rebuke any special recognition of this sort, and the practice must therefore be that of non-Christians who wish to distort the nomenclature. It is to be expected where their purpose is to create a hierarchy, and also to disguise an unsanctified state of the mass of adherents at the bottom of their pyramid, if not also amongst those secretive persons higher than that. The RCC position is a desperate clutching at a straw, the RCC itself a vast delusion hung on a single sentence whose interpretation, which is ambiguous (deliberately?) in isolation, runs counter to the whole of Scripture.You can find ample confirmation that official status was never given to Peter in Scripture itself, and extra-Biblical evidence is strongly against it also. Most of my recent posts in this NG will show that, and more could be added. We are therefore left with discovering the true meaning of  Matthew 16: 18 – 19. Here Christ is not the appropriate alternative to Peter. It cannot possibly be, if Scripture is to be interpreted hermeneutically and without blasphemy. Peter had just (and belatedly, because Andrew, Philip, and almost certainly Nathanael had recognised Jesus straight away) recognised what everyone must recognise if they are to have eternal life, that is, that Christ is the anointed one, viz, the Rock, God himself. Both the disciples and Jesus knew that there is only one God, only one Rock. Christ would have blasphemed by describing Peter, a very fallible man, as the Rock. A description of him as a Rock would have been even more nonsensical and terrible to them all. Peter was looking at the Rock, and he had just realised it, presumably. He knew very well that he himself was not the Rock. He had said to Jesus, "Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!"  His relative instability is a recurrent theme in the gospels and even in Acts too. The other disciples must have thought, ‘Now if that unstable and feeble Peter can be likened to something solid, then there is hope for the rest of us.’ We must remember that Peter was brought to Jesus by disciples who had already recognised Him. We should not suppose for a moment that Jesus gave Simon another name just for the fun of it. He called him ’stone’ adjectivally and prophetically, and we can see through the gospels that Peter’s impulses were not always backed with the strength and courage they needed for was the least apparently strong and stable of the disciples. Well after the name was added, Jesus continued to use the name Simon, and this passage and its sequel show up Simon’s miserable weakness yet again: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." He said, "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me." Luke 22:31-34 A recurrent Bible theme is that God often uses the weakest, the ‘least’, or the youngest, to do His work, and it would appear the the principle was applied here. This brings us to the only other possibility regarding Jesus’ meaning, and it is one that harmonises with Scripture perfectly. It is not a possibility that some people like to even consider, as they do not wish their deeds to be brought into the light. The possibility is that Christ was not talking about Peter only, but of all who make the confession that he did, even the weakest. ‘Cephas’ does not mean ‘cliff’ or ‘boulder’, but ‘perhaps pebble’, like the little one that despatched Goliath. The English phrase, ‘chip off the old block’ gives us the right sort of idea. Jesus did not call Peter ‘God’, but he heard something uniquely precious from him, that recognition of the Truth, the Logos, which is Jesus. It is then that God can use us.* It means that all of us can find stability in our lives, through Christ. Like David, we can say, "Lead me to the rock that is higher than I". It means that every Christian has the certainty of knowing that what they think is what God thinks; not all the time, but increasingly.* For that ‘pebble’ description fits the faith of every person who puts their trust in God, the Rock, though in God alone, because there are none beside Him. That does not mean that Christians are God, but that they become like Him, being in Christ new creatures, not conformed to this world but transformed by the renewal of their minds. They agree with Paul that the believer, each and every one, ‘be fully convinced in his own mind’, and needs no mentor, guru or pope. Their authority … read more »

Response:

Hint for the clueless:  Take a look at all those references to Cephas. It means rock.  In Armaic.  The language Jesus spoke, not Greek. It is good that the King James expands on this issue: John 1:42 – And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Yeah, right.  Carlos’ interpretation. (NAB John 1:42)  Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter). Bruce — How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost.  Anonymous

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – … Is this the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Have you very much to learn? What kind of comment is that? Do you suppose that you are above scrutiny? If that upsets you, how will you cope in future? ‘It’ is not a comment of course, they are two questions. You will be asked them again one day soon, and you will need much better answers than those you have supplied here, and you won’t get another chance.

So those are questions we’ll be asked by Jesus? Who are you then to be asking them here? Paul says he saw Peter and James,  your point?< You don’t know either? Or won’t you admit what it is?

What’s your point? That particular incident has nothing  to do with Petrine succession. Are you in the habit of trotting out irrelevancies to "support" your claims? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gal 2:9 … those who were the acknowledged pillars, James, Cephas, and John, gave Barnabas and me the handclasp of fellowship …< That’s three pillars, which is one more than is necessary to put Petrine succession in the waste basket. But what about these pillars? ‘Acknowledged’, not ‘appointed’? Sure, because Jesus, not Paul appointed them.< Are you blind? Paul wrote, ‘acknowledged’, despite the fact that he knew their history very well. And look (again) at the respect he gives them: ‘those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality). So much for Jesus’ appointment! So much for ‘the keys’! No wonder your church burned Bibles in vernacular languages! Paul had to acknowledge them.< You must either be very ignorant or deliberately contradicting Scripture.

I see who is the ignorant one here. In Acts 9, after Paul is blinded on the way to Damascus, he is sent to the Christian Ananias. He stayed with the disciples, evidently learning. Later when he went to Jerusalem, he had to visit with the Apostles. Why? Because they were the leaders of the Church! Throughout the Gospels and Acts when several Apostles are mentioned, Peter is named first. That indicates his preeminence among the Christians. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And did you not also read this? ‘And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me’ Gal 2:6-7 RSV What can an apostle, or even three, do for someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit? Nothing! Then why did Paul have to see them? (Acts, Gal)< Paul went of his own volition, and it was not to ‘get permission’ from Peter. Paul already had all the authority needed, the authority the RCC dreads. Acts, Gal? Can you not quote a verse to support you ? I can: ‘And it came to pass, that the Holy Apostle Peter, Vicar of Christ, Sole Bishop of Rome, did summon the alleged apostle Paul to give account for the multiform miracles, preachings, conversions, and church-plantings that he had committed without authority from the Holy See.’ Do you not recognise that? Real Scripture, that.

Evidently the fundie bible. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Gal 2:11 When Cephas came to Antioch I directly withstood him …< Why? ‘…because he stood condemned.’ Gal 2:11  RSV The Vicar of Christ, condemned? Yes, he was behaving improperly.< So Christ behaved improperly? Is that the God you worship? Or is the ‘pope’ only the Vicar of Christ when he advances the interests of the worldly forces he does deals with?

Did I say Christ acted improperly? <looking back No. Are you putting words in my mouth? … Now was Peter speaking ex cathedra or not on this occasion? How can you tell? Get a grip, he was chastized by Paul for his *behavior*, not his preaching. Nothing at all ex cathedra about that.< So that is the meaning of popery is it? Do as I say, not what I do? I can murder and pillage provided I can pass myself off as one of those Christians? As if after two thousand years we didn’t know! Peter’s verbal teaching was in line with his actions, and they were grossly erroneous! But for God’s intervention through Paul he would have continued in sin.

Get a grip. Nobody has claimed here that the Popes always act properly. Not Peter. Not any of his successors. We do claim that, under some very limited circumstances, they teach without error. Before you run off and yell "hypocrisy", take a look at your own behavior. Do you *always* practice what you preach? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -… Well? Is He? Are you Peter’s, or Christ’s? You must choose. This is some of the worst proof-texting I’ve seen. Paul is making the point that *all* Church members belong to Jesus, no matter who converted them or preached to them or baptized them. It has nothing whatsoever to say about Petrine succession.< It is fatal to your cause, because it shows that nobody, including Peter and Paul, thought that Peter had any special authority, not even those who ’supported’ him. Nobody with a grain of intelligence could doubt this. As you obviously have much more than a grain, you can only be whistling in the dark, trying to comfort yourself and others who are desperate to find an escape-hole from the truth.

You still miss the point. Paul is saying there is *one* Church. That particular quote is still not relevant to the position of Peter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – .. 1 Cor 9:5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest the apostles and the brethen of the Lord and Cephas? Is this a feeble attempt at hiding the fact that Peter, the great ensample of a celibate hierarchy, was married?<< Yes, < So it is a feeble attempt to hide the truth. You are trying to answer a question you cannot answer, but you may well be correct.

I see you are indulging in your habit of quoting out of context. there was no rule of celibacy at that time.< Who gave you leave to change God’s rules? What will He do with you? ‘If anyone preaches to you a gospel different from the one you accepted, let him be condemned to hell!’

Which of "God’s rules" are your referring to? It is well established in Acts 15 that the Church had, and has, the authority to make rules. There is no legitimate RCC rule now. You have not shown any reason for obeying the RCC hierarchy any more than for Joseph Smith or the King of Siam, and you cannot ever do so because the Bible makes it impossible. What other reason was there for stopping people from reading the Bible? And what happened as soon as they did read it? Did they acknowledge the Pope with shouts of acclamation and joy? Or did they realise they had been conned, and vote with their feet? Would Jesus have sent in the troops to try to stop them? Or would that liar Satan?

Learn some history. Just about every sentence in that paragraph is wrong.  So what?< The consequence is not negligible. This means that Paul’s statements regarding marriage, effectively ex cathedra because Peter agreed with them, have been disobeyed by the RCC. The RCC is therefore a complete nonsense as it breaks its own prime law and the basis of its existence! The RCC is a pagan’s way of ‘legalising’ the breaking of God’s commands.

Absolute nonsense! Where does Peter say he agrees with Paul regarding marriage? Or are you just talking through your hat? … It is translated as "Christian wife" in the NAB. So what? Why did they not get it right in the first place, instead, perhaps, of being caught out, and being seen to have attempted a deception? Is it any wonder that people liken the RCC to a cult?

The sense is clearer in the NAB and other translations. That does not make the translation you quoted (what is it BTW?) wrong, just not as good as it could be. … Yes, everybody knows Peter had a wife. So what? But they don’t. Ask an average Catholic that, and a lot more Bible questions besides, and see what the real state of knowledge is. The RCC is made up of people who give wrong answers and no answers. People with the right answers leave.

Where do you find this "average Catholic" and how do *you* know what he or she knows or doesn’t know. The Catholics that I know, do know this and much more. … You still cannot get around the fact that *Jesus* renamed Simon as Peter and the name Peter means "rock".< I do not attempt to or even want to, as you possibly realise. You cannot escape the fact that your belief contradicts Scripture and is blasphemous.

You are simply wrong. Get thee to a priest! Steve

Response:

Then give us our Bible back. That Egyptian Bible you gave  the world, you can have it back

More of Carlos’ bigotry…LOL!!! Bruce — How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost.  Anonymous

Response:

Hint for the clueless:  Take a look at all those references to Cephas. It means rock.  In Armaic.  The language Jesus spoke, not Greek. It is good that the King James expands on this issue:

Do you always rely on your King James?  Burn it!  It is the heretics’ book. — Ad Jesum per Mariam, Carlque  "I never spared heretics and have always done my utmost so that the enemies of the Church should also be my enemies."  St. Jerome, 420 AD. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – John 1:42 – And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. Isaiah 34:16 – Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Response:

Behold! the words of cqabug displayed in alt.religion.christian.roman- catholic: Hint for the clueless:  Take a look at all those references to Cephas. It means rock.  In Armaic.  The language Jesus spoke, not Greek. It is good that the King James expands on this issue: Do you always rely on your King James?  Burn it!  It is the heretics’ book.

If you feed the troll, you must take it home. —