Posted on 10/07/2002 1:03:41 PM PDT by Polycarp
The argument goes like this:
1) Consider the Bible simply as a historical document.
2) Existing copies are in substantial agreement and the Bible is the most credible ancient document of that era.
3) No credible historical argument can be made that Jesus did not claim to build His Church on Peter (establishing the office of the papacy-see above) and that the gates of hell would not prevail against It. Jesus also called His Church "the pillar and foundation of truth."
4) History shows an unbroken lineage of Popes from the time of Peter –an unprecedented historical phenomenon.
5) If the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" then It could never have taught error, nor could it teach contradictory doctrine. In fact, the Church has never promulgated false doctrine. The Church also posesses a body of non-contradictary doctrine. Both are singular historical accomplishments.
6) The argument provides moral certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus existed, Jesus is who He claimed to be, and that the Catholic Church is His Church.
7) The Catholic Church determined the canon of scripture and teaches that it is the inspired Word of God.
8) We can know with moral certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Catholic Bible is the Word of God.
Furthermore, you have the evidence of miracles (like Lanciano) showing that Church doctrine is true and healing miracles attributed to Saints that prove that these miracles cannot be attributed to Satan ("a kingdom divided...").
You're pathetic.
I've recently posted Ignatius' quotes from 80 years after the death of Christ proving early Christians believed in the real Presence. The Early Fathers' quotes are so numerous as to be irrefutable.
Yet you embrace conspiratorial anti-Catholic theories from anti-Catholic bigots claiming against all known early writings as well as rational thought that the doctrine of the Real Presence was created in 1200.
You're not worth debating.
(but I still like ya'.)
The Mormons have a line of succession..and they say they have the keys to the kingdom ..and they agree with you that the scriptures are only correct if they are properly interpreted ..and they are led by a prophet...
How can you prove that you are correct and they are wrong?
History is quite clear. Mormonism is a sect that was founded by Joseph Smith in the 1800s. Besides, they don't even claim to have a successor to Peter as far as I know.
Peter is the Rock. He's got the Keys.
Mormons are all direct descendents from Joseph. They have the Golden Plates.
(That seems implausible considering that Revelation tells us that Jesus ultimately holds the key of the House of David.)
Peter is the Rock. He has the keys.
Mormons are direct descendents of Joseph. They have the Golden Plates.
Jesus is the manna, that only lasts a day. He is the law that was abolished. Jesus is just the cargo.
Inasmuch as she contained our Savior, who saves us.
Peter is the Rock. He's got the Keys.
So Jesus, the King of the House of David, who ultimately posesses the key of the House of David, was unaware that the vice-regent of the House of David wore over his shoulder a key representing his office when He gave "the keys of the kingdom to Peter?
You haven't been paying attention. Or ... maybe you couldn't get past the *personalities" to see it. LOL
Mary is the Holy Mother AND the Ark of the Covenant who saves us.
Peter is the Rock and he has the Keys.
Mormons are direct descendents of Joseph. They have the Golden Plates and the Stick of Joseph.
Jesus is manna that is only good for one day and ends the Law that wasn't working anyhow. Jesus is cargo.
Mary is amid the oaks of Bashan, her proper abode.
People who don't know Scripture won't know the time of their visitation.
The Lord is making a wedding feast and where the eagle is, there will be the corpse.
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.