Replies

Do you have an argument to make here, or is calling me a liar it?

Peter as Rock, the foundation of the church, together with the other apostles and their successors, had the power to bind on earth and thereby in Heaven. Tamper? They church infallibly determined which books were inspired.

No, they meddled where they didn't belong and added things that didn't belong next to scripture under the pretense that there medling was proper. They had no authority to touch the OT - NONE. And by the testimony of Paul. You can dress it up prop it up and call it anything you want. It doesn't change the fact that they couldn't respect authority that was not their own and far overstepped any bounds they might have presumed to have.

Personal slurs? Does this pass for biblical argument in your neck of the woods?

Personal - your clergy dreamt it up. When you claim something, your credibility is part of the equation. And given Rome's history of false claims, fraud - either creating it or being duped by it, ect, lying about their own past in order to pull the wool,.. are you getting the picture. NO CREDIBILITY. That goes for whether they claim something or you repeat it. It isn't personal, it's just stating the facts. Of course if you want to take it personal, you might try doing something about it - like perhaps stopping your clergy from propounding falsehoods and dubious claims to ooh ad ahh the mindless into pretense.

The problem with your argument is that it doesn't work (for about a dozen reasons). If it did, there wouldn't be thousands of Protestant denomina

Well, for one, you just called God a liar. For two, protestant denoms don't exist because of their propensity for understanding scripture. Protestant denominations exist in plenty because they, like your religion, are trying to wrap scripture around their philosophies.. using scripture as it were to prove their opinions. It has nothing to do whatever with whether God is right at that point or whether scripture is right. It has to do with them and with you guys trying to prove your philosophy is right. When carnal minds grab what the spiritual mind only can understand and use it to prop up their philosophies as a replacement for God's direction, that isn't seeking God. It is seeking oneself and Ones intellectual puffiness. In short, it's fraud.

The only problem is, nobody knows which one might be right.

Christians do know. That's the problem with your tack. You probably don't understand much of scripture yourself. How long do you claim to have been a Christian, supposing to have the mind of Christ in you and want to pretend that the mind of Christ can't understand Christ's own message?! The jeopardy music is playing..

You have your syntax and metaphors mixed up a little there.

No, My syntax and metaphors are quite plain.. they weren't mine to begin with. Either a building is the pillar and foundation or God is. And here is where your approach is shown for the lie it is. If we call the building the Church, and then apply scripture to that and say the church is the Body of Christ - that would be all Christians - not your clergy or your congregants. Since you wish to say that you are fellow Christians with the protestants, then by your own testimony, Protestants become the pillar and foundation of truth. ROFL. I understand why your clergy latched onto that verse under the pretense of saying it applied to them and therefore one must by default believe whatever they professed. It's a simple charlotan's stance. Fortunately, they didn't bother to read what they were grabbing at and the context betrays them both for the frauds they are and for the fraud they were trying to perpetrate. Any thing else?

Oh, one more thing - the entire portion of the chapter is the author telling us as Christians How to behave ourselves. The final verse states how we are to behave in the meeting place. Meeting places at that time were not big elaborate buildings. They were people's homes. Try to handwring that.

Well, let's see, your clergy dreamt up the lie and taught it to you. You repeat the lie. I suppose by assimilation that makes you a liar. Not a slur, just a statement of fact. If you don't like it, stop lying.

You throw the term around lightly enough, without any argument or evidence to back it up. Calling a slur a "fact" does not make it so.

No, they meddled where they didn't belong and added things that didn't belong next to scripture under the pretense that there medling was proper.

You've presented no analysis or evidence that "they" (whoever they are) "meddled" or "added things" so unfortunately, I can't address your missing argument here.

They had no authority to touch the OT - NONE. And by the testimony of Paul.

Finally, something that almost resembles a biblical argument. Presumably you mean that the Early Church Fathers had no authority to determine the canon of the OT. Gosh. Where in the Bible does it say that?

your clergy dreamt it up. When you claim something, your credibility is part of the equation. And given Rome's history of false claims, fraud - either creating it or being duped by it, ect, lying about their own past in order to pull the wool,.. are you getting the picture. NO CREDIBILITY.

This is about Peter being in Rome, right? Let's ignore for the moment that this issue has absolutely no bearing on whether Christ instituted His Church on Peter and we'll proceed from there.

What the Bible Says
Certainly, in 1 Pet 5:13, Peter claims to be writing from "Babylon". Are you trying to deny that this is a hidden reference to Rome? Remember, the use of the word Babylon as a hidden reference to Rome is quite common in early church documents and historical documents of that time. The relentless persecutions of Christians at that time made it a necessity.

For Babylon to be a reference to some other city, you'll need to show that a preponderance of the evidence supports your claim. Yet, the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming in line with the Catholic position on this. For example:

Early Church Documents
The index of The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William A. Jurgens, includes 30 citations divided about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples will have to suffice.

Ignatius of Antioch
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict"
-- Letter to the Romans, 4:3, 110 AD

Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"
-- Letter to Pope Soter, 170 AD, in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8

Irenaeus
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church"
-- Against Heresies, 3, 1:1, 189 AD

These and other patristic citations demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal, and very early position of the Church was that Peter certainly did end up in the "great city", the capital of the Empire.

Other Documents
Babylon is used as code for Rome in other historical documents like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about 303 AD, 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."

Allow me to repeat myself:
For Babylon to be a reference to some other city, you'll need to show that a preponderance of the evidence supports your claim. Yet, the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelming in line with the Catholic position on this.

Well, for one, you just called God a liar.

Sorry. This is a non-sequitur as far as I can tell. You'll need to connect the dots to prove your argument here.

protestant denoms don't exist because of their propensity for understanding scripture.

LMAO. So true, so true! Gosh, I could quote this one all day: "protestant denoms don't exist because of their propensity for understanding scripture." I better let the Protestants defend themselves against this slur.

Protestant denominations exist in plenty because they, like your religion, are trying to wrap scripture around their philosophies.. using scripture as it were to prove their opinions. It has nothing to do whatever with whether God is right at that point or whether scripture is right.

I do agree with your notion that "Protestant denominations exist in plenty because thay are trying to wrap scripture around their philosophies." Can't you see the inherent error in that Protestant approach? Trying "to wrap scripture around their philosophies" is exactly backwards. First comes the Word of God, and out of that comes the dogmas and doctrines that create and define a philosophy. To do otherwise is to engage in a causal fallacy.

However, assuming that you realize that you've engaged in wholesale condemnation of the Protestant approach, I can only conclude that you're a Fundamentalist. What say you? You are willing to defend your "philosophy" here, right?

Christians do know. That's the problem with your tack.

You're avoiding the question. Which Christians? All Christians? Everybody in your Bible study class? Just you? Put a stake in the ground and defend it.

You probably don't understand much of scripture yourself.

Ah, the last refuge of a scoundrel. A non-specific attack on my understanding of Scripture. Let's see now .. I cite Scripture .. you don't. I defend Scripture ... you engage in personal attacks. How very biblical of you.

No, My syntax and metaphors are quite plain.. Either a building is the pillar and foundation or God is.

Gosh, you need to go back and reread my argument. I did not say that a building is the pillar and foundation. Nor does Scripture say so. By trying to force the issue to be a choice between these two false alternatives ("building" and "God") you have built a straw man. Your argument is therefore fallacious.

say the church is the Body of Christ - that would be all Christians

Just a side issue here really -- how do you define "Christians"? Certainly you must acknowledge that the early church had to deal with heretics, like the Circumcisers, the Gnostics, and the Montanists. They claimed to believe in Christ. They quoted Scripture. Therefore there must be something more to being a Christian than just a belief in Christ and quoting Scripture.

Since you wish to say that you are fellow Christians with the protestants, then by your own testimony, Protestants become the pillar and foundation of truth. ROFL.

I suppose your non-sequitur would be funny if it made any logical sense. The first fallacy is that I did not call the building the Church. Another fallacy is your notion that someone who adheres to a falsehood can be a pillar of truth. (And no, my statement does not claim all Protestants adhere to falsehoods.)

Fortunately, they didn't bother to read what they were grabbing at and the context betrays them both for the frauds they are and for the fraud they were trying to perpetrate. Any thing else?

Again, your unilateral assertion that the context says something is insufficient. As shown above, your analysis relies on one or more fallacies and devolves into unsubstantiated personal attacks. However, my argument provides both contextual, syntactic, metaphoric, and lexical support for my view. You'll need to do better than that.

Oh, one more thing - the entire portion of the chapter is the author telling us as Christians How to behave ourselves.

The "entire portion"? You'll have to explain your oxymoron to me. Moreover, 1 Tim 3 is most definitely not Paul "telling us as Christians How to behave ourselves." I'm beginning to see why you don't like to use Scripture in your arguments.

The final verse states how we are to behave in the meeting place. Meeting places at that time were not big elaborate buildings. They were people's homes. Try to handwring that.

The "final verse" of neither 1 Timothy 3 nor 1 Timothy says anything of the sort. You have read the Bible, right?