Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Once again you give the impreession that ROME teaches what Christ taught.
"Mom; you are sinless - how can I ever compete with that?"
probably he does — maybe quix or quix was one of his followers. Had a lot of pro-Jesse folks running with the standard non-orthodox bunch.
Simon Peter - Parthia [Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia], Britain. No indication that he ministered to Rome. Now there are writings, not scripture, that claim because in Acts 12:17 it says that after getting out of prison Peter “went to another place’. That place is not recorded in scripture so many attempt to place Peter in Rome after that. Problem with that is that any reference to Peter being in Rome is based on speculation and writings of second generation writers after the apostles were all dead.
Now, there was a man by the name of Simon Magus that was a counterfeit preacher who established a very large following in Rome. If one relies on the later writings to prove that Peter was in Rome than they must also come to understand that it was Simon Magus who spent 25 years in the “sacerdotal chair” in Rome. It was also he who joined pagan practices into his “universal church”.
Also if these later writings are to be relied on one has to believe that Peter had a daughter by the name of PETRONILLA since those same “histories” including archeological evidence show her as his daughter.
Once again, if rather than relying on scripture we rely on the later writings to establish Peter’s presence in Rome we see that he only visited there twice with 25 years between the two times and it was Simon Magus who established the Roman Universal (Catholic) Church in Rome.
ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs.
And still they accuse non Catholics of picking and choosing and making up their own interpretations. Go figure.
Thanks for this document. It comprises a summary of most of the basic errors upon which the flawed doctrine of catholicity rests.
(just a bookmarking notation)
case in point " Joseph Smith was the first latter-day prophet because he restored the gospel to earth after it had been lost in the apostasy. "
So, the various theories in the 1800s due to the 3rd to 6th generations led to the Mormon hoax.
So the further reformatting led to the Mormon hoax
Those directly responsible for Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists are the religions/sects in generations 3 to 6.
For example the Great Apostasy theory of the Mormons comes from the original ideas of the reformed who said it happened in the 1500s, then the Baptists said, no, in the 2nd century
the Mormons took that and went with "nah, it started right from the Apostles itself"
yup, you, Mormons, derivatives....
Matthew 16-19 from KJVAnd Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Elsie: Matt 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. the disciples
Sorry Elsie, you are making up your own scripture, right? Just like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses....
You addressed your comment to “all” and so I feel justified in replying. So....
In Matt. 16:19 Jesus said he would give the keys to Peter sometime in the future, “I will give..” Not “I am giving.,..”. Peter getting the keys was a future event.
In Act 10:15 Peter in vision is told to stop calling defiled “the things God has (the decision has been made and is in effect) cleansed.”
There is a sequence of time here. Peter is not opening up a new opportunity or making any decision for Cornelius and those like him, that has already been made in heaven.
What role then does Peter have with the “keys”? He is one through whom heavens decision is made, Cornelius is sent to him, to Peter.
At Acts 15:6-11 Peters shows how he had a key as he says it was, “through my mouth” that the message was given that people of nations would be treated without distinction and without having the old Law imposed on them.
Peters used of the keys then was as one announcing heaven's decision not making decisions on any of these matters himself and when he had done so he had used the keys. Others like Paul would take up the message but Peter had a privilege just as John the baptizer did.
Peter used the keys, there are no more for Peter use.
case in point " Joseph Smith was the first latter-day prophet because he restored the gospel to earth after it had been lost in the apostasy. "
So, the various theories in the 1800s due to the 3rd to 6th generations led to the Mormon hoax.
So the further reformatting led to the Mormon hoax
Those directly responsible for Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists are the religions/sects in generations 3 to 6.
For example the Great Apostasy theory of the Mormons comes from the original ideas of the reformed who said it happened in the 1500s, then the Baptists said, no, in the 2nd century
the Mormons took that and went with "nah, it started right from the Apostles itself"
Excuse me? Have you not been keeping up? Or is it that you simply don’t understand? I have consistently shown that where Catholics try to insert the word priest where the word presbuteros is used in scripture. Trying to make that mean priest is a egregious error. I have also shown where the word Hierus, which does translate to priest, is used and never is it used in regards to church leadership in the New Testament church. If you contend that the word Hierus does not mean priest you need to show that. Presbuteros does not translate to priest other than through manipulation via entomology.
But you still don't explain why the person who quoted
“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matt 16:19 that he will give the keys to Peter. He does not say he has two kinds of keys, but he gives to Peter the keys he himself has and no others. It is as if he [Christ] were saying:’ why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, and his tongue is my key case. His office is my office, his binding and loosing are my binding and loosing’ ”had a " The lack of understanding of Matt. "
However, it could be "making it personal" if it redirects the thread away from the issues and towards individual Freepers.
Roman Catholic systematic theology does not allow it ... they have no need of biblical theology to form any kind of foundation for the systematics ... they really believe there is no need to exegete the scriptures ... the church has done it for them ... they just need to step in line. It is spiritual bondage that can only be broken by true regeneration, which is not to be found in their rituals.
It doesn’t matter, it is still making the thread “about” an individual Freeper. It is “making it personal.”
The Church has survived only due to God's grace
I have no idea who you attribute those words to. But Peter used the keys by announcing heaven’s decision, there are no more. That is evidence of Scripture. Make of it what you will.
It occurred to me this morning that, in those two passages (repeated below) God takes credit for being the author and preserver of His own words. And HE also takes credit for their publication, distribution, receipt and effectiveness:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it. - Isaiah 55:11
Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. - 2 Cor 3:1-3
Surely you understand what etymology means?
The meaning of words change over time to mean what they did not originally mean. That says that in order to understand the writings of the time we need to understand what was meant by that word at that time. What the Catholic Church is doing is trying to inject a meaning for the word priest as they want it to mean onto the usage of a word in scripture and it doesn’t work with anyone who is honestly trying to find truth.
>>Next you'll say that Joseph was gay as in the KJV it says that he was gaily apparelled -- right?<<
And that would be the stupidity of using etymology to inject the word priest onto the word presbuteros. As we can’t use today’s meaning of the word gay onto the use of that word in history. It is equally as stupid to use the meaning of the word presbuteros during the time of the scriptures to mean priest. There were different words that meant priest during that time.
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.