Posted on 04/05/2019 8:52:38 AM PDT by aimhigh
Children of LGBT parents can now be blessed or baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, church officials declared in a new policy on Thursday, dramatically reversing a 2015 decision that excluded those children from the rituals until they were 18. The church will also update its handbook for leaders, removing the label of “apostasy” for same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
So like Rome; to conjour up magical qualities and assign them to a person when the Book that Rome assembled has FAILED to mention anything of the sort being possible.
You'd be a good replacement for the Alien Guy:
Point #3: Can God enable His creation to have things happen to them "in the twinkling of an eye", or is that too tough for God?
It's called:
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
There is certainly no argument from anyone concerning the validity of the statement that the Catholic church says Peter was their first pope.
It’s the validity of the Catholic church about that statement that is the issue.
Would agreeing on “that fact” make it any more true?
No.
I will agree; however; that Rome has done a really good job through the centuries as proclaiming it as fact.
And done a really good job of being the ONLY entity that made it it’s job to insure compliance of belief; up to and including the pain of death.
Do you agree with this fact?
“...but again, this is not widely in dispute by any other organized religious group, or even a non religious reputable group that studies history.
There is overwhelming evidence that shows Peter was the first Catholic pope.”
Those statements are complete lies.
What’s funny is that the Catholic church maintains it has no proof Peter was the first Pope! It, instead, relies on documents no earlier than 50+ years later implying or merging with Paul some semblance of ‘likelihood’ Peter was in Rome.
Later, this Catholic document says they ‘believe’ they found the bones of St. Peter, but this is only due to the apparent ‘importance’ given the placement of these bones from other things or bodies placed near it.
Enjoy the Catholic.com read, here;
https://www.catholic.com/tract/was-peter-in-rome
What’s particularly funny is that, with the Catholic church’s proclivities in passing around bones, skin, organs, and bodily fluids of supposed “saints,” that there’s anything left in any potential “saint’s” tomb.
But our creator did give us free will, and that included the will to be intentionally blind to the very obvious things around us.
Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”
Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).
These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.
|
Do you agree with this fact? 288 posted on 4/7/2019 7:59:38 PM by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...) To: Elsie It is not worth arguing over... |
It’s like talking to a brick wall when engaging with the Catholic haters on this site. They hate the Church and go out of their way to find adherents of the faith to argue with. Then they have the audacity to claim they speak “the truth.” Their hubris knows no bounds. All you can do is pray for them...preferably to the saints, lol.
Actually, more like a long held opinion.
Since the word *catholic* is not found anywhere in Scripture, as with the word *pope*, neither claim, that he was a pope or that he was Catholic, can be supported by Scripture or facts.
It clearly identifies Jesus as being *petra*.
Peter – rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm
Other than Jesus' one use as recorded in the NT, only Paul speaks of Kefas (transliterated to Cephas in KJV):
1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5
Paul only spoke of Petros = Peter in Galatians, and that not very positively.
Simon bar Jona's sobriquet (nickname) "Peter" was found 162 times in the NT, and the word was not used in any other way for any other purpose than a nickname. The word is NOT used to translate a rock or a stone, although the word in a sentence does have that meaning. It is a stretch to think that Jesus was using the word to describe Simon bar Jona's character, That is a supposition not warranted by the text doctrine.
Isn't it ironic how in the very same passage within the very same conversation with the disciples, Roman Catholicism chooses to to take the first part literally and build a doctrine on it, but virtually ignores the second part?
Facts from wikipedia????????
I think you need a far more credible source than that.
And if you read the Wikipedia entry it is taken exclusively from catholic sources Talk about circular reasoning
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.