Posted on 03/19/2006 6:44:46 PM PST by prairiebreeze
"Jesus founded the Church. Matthew 16:18."
Jesus described His church in all of the Gospels, not just Matthew. His church was founded some 40 days following His death on Penticost AD30. (Acts 2)
"So the Apostles got together and chose the replacement. Acts 1:26. And they have done so ever since."
No, the replacement for Judas was a one time event. Read the qualifications of one who would hold the office in Acts 1:20-22, then tell me who today meets these requirements.
"(e.g. Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus)"
Tell me which Apostle laid his hands on Paul. As for the other three, they were evangelist, not Apostles.
"And their successors today are headed by a guy named Benedict."
Are you claiming the your Pope meets the qualifications for a successor to the Apostles as laid out in Acts 1:20-22.
If so, He is either almost 2,000 years old or an imposter. Which is it?
"Pope Clement I, 80 A.D.,"
Clement was never a Pope.
You demonstrate that you are well indoctrinated by the Catholic church but have very little knowledge or interest in what the Bible teaches. Why do the Catholic always try to fall back on what some man has said rather than what the Bible says?
Your argument has been used by the Catholic church for years and has been wrong for the same period of time.
I'm sorry to say, but peaceful Mooslems are either ignorant of their own religeous commands of their prophet, or they are intentionally living a lie to inflitrate the lands of their enemies
"Jesus was the Son of Man. He spoke with men. Men met him, and knew him. He argued with them. His Holy Spirit spoke through the mouths of men, and those who had ears heard."
So if you have ears why are you not listening to his teachings instead of relying on men to explain them to you. Are you incapable of understanding it for yourself.
"Refute Hillary of Poitiers's argument or admit the perpetual virginity of Mary."
The Bible refutes his argument. Jesus had brothers and sisters and his neighbors in Nazarath knew it. That is the problem with the Catholic faith. It is entirely built on the word of UNINSPIRED MEN while the Bible is written by INSPIRED MEN.
"You proud fool! Why don't you listen to men? Are you better than men? Are you alone, separate from the species?"
When unable to refute the truth Catholics always resort to personal attack.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is just as much a false doctrine as the false doctrine of Apostolic succession.
Rather than name calling lets see if you are able to answer a simple question. "Does your Pope meet the qualification for a successor to an Apostle laid out in Acts 1:20-22.
"They didn't call themselves "Catholic" at first. But when the first of the anti-Christs came, calling themselves Christians but preaching another Gospel than the one received, the true Christians started calling themselves "Catholic" to differentiate themselves from the heretics and wolves, who had set up competing churches with their own bishops and priests"
Who fed you that line of Garbage?
"The requirements were set by Peter and the other Apostles. With time, they were changed, by the same authority."
I showed you where they were set by Peter, now you show me where they were changed by "the same authority."
"The first list of Popes, compiled ca. 160 AD, lists Clement, as do all the others of similar vintage."
That would be about 130 years after the fact. Why did they not keep current records rather than having to invent history?
"And that attitude, "sola scriptura", has no Scriptural basis whatsoever."
To the contrary, it is the revealed word of God. It is you and your false doctrine that that cannot stand in the light of scripture. Therefore you must fall back on the erroneous teachings of men.
"He was Pope from 80-96 AD. They didn't keep current records because their papers were burned and they were tortured to death for professing the Christian faith, which happened to include the perpetual virginity of Mary and apostolic succession."
So all of the records that would substantuate your position and that of the Catholic Church were all destroyed. Well as a matter of fact, that is provably false just as is every other claim of the Catholic church.
Notice please that the scriptures which you and your church claim to believe all survived this period.
Your own argument defeats your claim. Just when were these supposed records destroyed. I have in my personal library copies of writings that date back to 90AD which were not destroyed. These were written during the height of the Christian persecution under Domitian. You have been very poorly taught my friend.
"Why, pray tell, can't you quote any Scripture to back your statement up?" It is you who are not able to support your Catholic position with scripture.
In Acts 1:20-21 Peter give the qualifications of a successor to an Apostle. It is your claim that Acts 1 was changed by Peter at a later time. Please cite the proof of your position. I have given you my scripture. Where is yours?
When I asked you to do that your answer was that the records were destroyed. Well, my friend, so was your argument.
"Why were the Apostles sent at all? They were men, weren't they"
Of course they were; men chosen personally by Jesus and imbued with the power of the Holy Spirit.
"Why did the eunuch of the Candace need Philip to explain the prophesies to him?"
He was reading the old Testament. He understood what he was reading and and only needed Philip to tell him who the particular scripture in Iasiah was referring to.
Why do you subject Scripture to your own private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20-21)?
Peter was stating that the scriptures did not reperesent the beliefs (interpretations) of the writers but came from God. The Catholic church has distorted this scripture for years as a means of attacking sola scriptura. That is because they want to tell you what the scriptures mean rather than have you study them and come to your own conclusion. Try reading 11 Tim 3:16 and then work your own slavation with fear and trembling.(Phil 2:12)
"Not one word in the Bible states that Mary is not a virgin."
Read Matthew 13:55-56. Mary had other Children.
"You privately interpret the Bible to refute this 1700-year-old argument."
Interesting that you now admit that your position is only 1700 years old. The Bible is almost 2,000 years old. Jesus chose John for that task. I am sure he had his reasons but He did not share them with me. It could have been that John was a wealthy man.
"But then why did his younger brothers and sisters abandon their mother?"
You would have to ask them because they abandoned her at her hour of greatest need; at the cross. John on the other hand was standing by her side. Jesus obviously took note of this fact.
"Does your Pope meet the qualification for a successor to an Apostle laid out in Acts 1:20-22.
Did Paul?
Of coursehe did. Paul was an Apostle selected by Jesus Himself just as were the other Apostles. (Acts 9:1-19)
Baruch haba b'Shem Ad-nai!
311 posted on 03/30/2006 7:49:05 PM MST by seamole
Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai: Y'shua HaMashiach
Yes;
b'shem Y'shua
Ignatius of Antioch, who died for the Faith in the jaws of lions in Rome in AD 110. He was a personal friend of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was discipled by the Apostle John, and probably also knew both Peter and Paul.
What are your credentials?
Seamole, this is what debaters call a "sandbag". Tenn2005 is trying to get you to defend something you don't actually believe.
Tenn2005, "Successors to the Apostles" and "Apostles" aren't quite the same thing. Pope Benedict is not an Apostle, and the Church doesn't claim that he is. In particular, he can't write new Scripture.
But he, and every other validly consecrated bishop, receives their office in succession from the Apostles. The Bible says so very clearly, when Paul talks about appointing "overseers" (bishops) "in every town" and giving them their office through the imposition of hands.
"Successors to the Apostles" and "Apostles" aren't quite the same thing."
That would be because there are no successors to the apostles.
"But he, and every other validly consecrated bishop, receives their office in succession from the Apostles."
This is an incorrect statement. Your statement is self-condictary. Check out the meaning or successor or sucession in any good dictionary.
"In particular, he can't write new Scripture."
Then why did Seamole claim that he had changed the requirements for an apostle.
"The Bible says so very clearly, when Paul talks about appointing "overseers" (bishops) "in every town" and giving them their office through the imposition of hands."
Please show where a single bishop/elder/overseer (same office)or deacon ever received the laying on of the hands of an Apostle.
I believe that your coaching Seamole is a case of the blind leading the blind.
Let me recommend more Bible study and less listening to the opinion of others.
2 Tm 1:6 -- Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. [NKJV]
I believe that your coaching Seamole is a case of the blind leading the blind.
What were you saying above about someone resorting to personal attacks???
Let me recommend more Bible study and less listening to the opinion of others.
Great idea! I'm going to begin by ignoring your opinion. Hope you don't mind.
We discussed it once on the same thread (252, 263). Now you foist your ignorance on another poster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.