Originally posted by peejaydYah, some of them are idiots that in their "zeal for the Lord" go against official doctrine of which they are usually ignorant. That would be the mistake of the person not the Catholic Church.
* okay, quite simply put, prove to me that Catholics do not worship the graven images they make... have you ever seen a devout Catholic person?
* they are confusing people... if they do not worship graven images, they why create one? it is unnecessary... the Bible teaches us how to worship God:
"The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.
Ye worship that which ye know not: we worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 4:19-24
* is there a need to create graven images to worship God? nope...
* also, is there a commandment of God that tells the Catholic authorities to create graven images of Biblical saints? nope...
* why worship Mary, wife of Joseph (foster parent of Jesus)? why hold feasts for Mary and the Biblical saints? Jesus never instructed such events...
* the seven sacraments, why pay for them?
"Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely ye received, freely give."
Matthew 10:8
* is there a need for infants to be baptized?
"And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Acts 2:38
* infants and little children does not need baptism because sins are not imputed by God to those who have no experience of the word of righteousness...
"And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Acts 8:36-38
* it is necessary for the "baptizee" to have faith, for him to be baptized by the "baptizer"...
* is there a need to pray for the dead?
* should the Eucharist be done literally? to break and eat bread? is the literal bread really represents the body of Christ? Christ said:
"Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?"
Matthew 15:17
* where did the "body of Christ" went?
* is Saint Peter really the first pope? the word "pope" means father in Greek... i doubt Saint Peter would use it to be his title...
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."
Matthew 23:9
* is Saint Peter really the lead minister of Christians after Christ? he is considered one of the pillars (with Saint James & Saint John), but the abundance of revelations and knowledge of God was given to Saint Paul...
"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16
* even the right hand of fellowship was given to Saint Paul:
"But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."
Galatians 2:7-9
"Of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God,"
Colossians 1:25
Images are generally used as reminders to encourage people to continue in faith and good works.
They don't worship Mary. There is nothing wrong with feasts, they are not detrimental in any way and promote fellowship. But using your same logic why not do cocaine and heroine on a daily basis if Jesus never commanded us not to?
You are not supposed to have to pay for the sacraments and most Catholics do not. I know many that have received all sacraments without ever giving a penny to the Catholic Church.
Read Genesis 17:12 and Leviticus 12:3 and tell me why 8-day old children are inducted into God's covenant?
Acts 2:38 says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized". This directly refers to adults having their children baptized.
Acts 2:39 uses the Greek word "teknon" which refers to infants.
Acts 10:47-48 has all of Cornelius's household being baptized. That includes children. Ditto in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16.
Exodus 12:24-28 should ring a bell with a parent's faith saving their children. 1 Corinthians 7:14 should also remind you of it.
Remember how in Joshua 5:2-7 God punishes Israel for not circumcising its children? Baptism involves the same inclusion of children in a covenant with God, only a better one.
Yes, there definitely is.
It wouldn't matter what happens to it, you miss the significance.
The word "no" in Matthew 23:9 does not equate to a direct commandment. The Greek word used is "me" (with an accent over the e I am unsure of how to reproduce). The use of that word contrasts the meaning you wish to imply. If the Greek word "ou" was used you might have a case, but it is not. As it stands the verse only means not to assign a higher status than is warranted to anyone on earth and to reserve that esteem and worship for God alone.
Furthermore, your assertion shows ignorance of the etymology of the word "pope". At the time of its inception the Greek "papas" would mean "patriarch or bishop" and be applied to many bishops. However, this is irrelevant. By the time the title of pope was in use in Rome (440AD) the church was exclusively using Latin. Pope actually comes from the Latin "papa" which was used of bishops and meant "tutor" in classical Latin.
Yes, Peter was the lead minister. It is made very clear. Jesus gives him that commission twice. In Matthew 18 Jesus declares Peter the rock on which the church will be built and gives him the keys of life with the power to bind and loose things in both heaven and earth. Look at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter's judgment is final and uncontested because everyone recognizes his authority. Then look at John 21. In verse 15 Jesus tells Peter to "feed" (provide pasture for) for His lambs. Then In verse 16 Jesus tells Peter to "feed [His] sheep". The word "feed" is properly translated "shepherd" and is figuratively used to mean "rule". And then in 17 Jesus tells Peter to provide pasture for his sheep again. There is a distinction made between lambs and sheep. Jesus commands Peter to provide pasture for both the lambs and the sheep, but to rule the sheep. The lambs are the body of Christ (ie. all believers) while the sheep are the pastors and ministers of the word. Peter is in charge of the entire Church by Jesus's commission and is thus unchallenged by anyone else. Look at Acts 15 where no one challenges Peter whatsoever. To assume the "abundance of knowledge and revelations" were given to Paul is a stretch of logic and not very Biblical. After his conversion, Paul immediately seeks out Peter. Why do you think that is?
The last two verses don't bring up any relevant points.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I think this is an odd situation. I have rarely seen anything like this in my experience. However, my argument was based more on your over generalizing. Some people may have their infants baptized for these reasons, but there are many who still do it with its intended meaning.
And here too.. but it must be remembered that the Church of England (the majority church of this country) is more a social club than a religion.. as stated in (satirically but truthfully) in "yes Prime Minister"
Sir Humphrey: "The Queen is a fixture... God is what you might call an optional extra..."
Originally posted by peejayd
** statue?
"Thou shalt not make unto thee [b]any graven image
, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
Exodus 20:4-5* yeah right... 🙄 [/B]
But remember.... the Niceaen Council (if I remember correctly) made it a doctrine of faith to offer venerative worship, but not true worship, to saints etc, and allowed images as a sort of aid to concentration... and as the pope was the successor to St Peter, he had as much right to change doctrine as, for example, St Paul did.... and few Christians ask for the Pauline scriptures and alterations to be removed...
Originally posted by big gay kirkI tend to disagree with the Anglican Church on absolutely everything. However, I definitely agreed with them excommunicating the American Anglican Church. That was a sweet move.
And here too.. but it must be remembered that the Church of England (the majority church of this country) is more a social club than a religion.. as stated in (satirically but truthfully) in "yes Prime Minister"Sir Humphrey: "The Queen is a fixture... God is what you might call an optional extra..."
Originally posted by big gay kirkI don't think it was Nicea. It was the 7th Ecumenical Council if I remember correctly.
But remember.... the Niceaen Council (if I remember correctly) made it a doctrine of faith to offer venerative worship, but not true worship, to saints etc, and allowed images as a sort of aid to concentration... and as the pope was the successor to St Peter, he had as much right to change doctrine as, for example, St Paul did.... and few Christians ask for the Pauline scriptures and alterations to be removed...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Images are generally used as reminders to encourage people to continue in faith and good works.
* images do nothing but confuse the faith of everyone... it was not commanded to make and worship them so they are, by all means, irrelevant to the Christian faith... true worship is in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), no images needed...
Originally posted by Nellinator
They don't worship Mary.
* then, what the heck is hyperdulia? ever heard of the rosary? please tell me what the prayers in the rosary consists of...
Originally posted by Nellinator
There is nothing wrong with feasts, they are not detrimental in any way and promote fellowship.
* never heard of any feast for God or for Christ... only saints and angels... saints and angels of God reject veneration, worship and glory thrown to them...
Originally posted by Nellinator
But using your same logic why not do cocaine and heroine on a daily basis if Jesus never commanded us not to?
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties,
Envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Galatians 5:19-21
* using your logic promotes cocaine and heroine...
Originally posted by Nellinator
You are not supposed to have to pay for the sacraments and most Catholics do not.
* means, some still pays for it and the Catholic authorities still accepts payments...
Originally posted by Nellinator
I know many that have received all sacraments without ever giving a penny to the Catholic Church.
* all? the person is a priest and is married? wow...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Read Genesis 17:12 and Leviticus 12:3 and tell me why 8-day old children are inducted into God's covenant?
* is induction and baptism, the same?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Acts 2:38 says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized". This directly refers to adults having their children baptized.
* Acts 2:36, Saint Peter is talking to the people to crucified Jesus... Acts 2:37, the people replied to Saint Peter, what shall they do? and Saint Peter answered they need to repent and be baptized... please don't twist the Scriptures...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Acts 2:39 uses the Greek word "teknon" which refers to infants.
* maybe... but it does not refer to baptism anymore... it refers to the promise of God...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Acts 10:47-48 has all of Cornelius's household being baptized. That includes children. Ditto in Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16.
* it's only your pre-conceived idea... infants and little children does not need baptism because sins are not imputed by God to those who have no experience of the word of righteousness...
"And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Acts 8:36-38
* it is necessary for the "baptizee" to have faith, for him to be baptized by the "baptizer"...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Exodus 12:24-28 should ring a bell with a parent's faith saving their children. 1 Corinthians 7:14 should also remind you of it.
* what's this supposed to do with prayer for the dead?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Remember how in Joshua 5:2-7 God punishes Israel for not circumcising its children? Baptism involves the same inclusion of children in a covenant with God, only a better one.
* is circumcision and baptism, the same?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, there definitely is.
* i don't know where this came from...
Originally posted by Nellinator
It wouldn't matter what happens to it, you miss the significance.
* nope... you miss the significance in believing the literal bread is the body of Christ...
Originally posted by Nellinator
The word "no" in Matthew 23:9 does not equate to a direct commandment. The Greek word used is "me" (with an accent over the e I am unsure of how to reproduce). The use of that word contrasts the meaning you wish to imply. If the Greek word "ou" was used you might have a case, but it is not. As it stands the verse only means not to assign a higher status than is warranted to anyone on earth and to reserve that esteem and worship for God alone.Furthermore, your assertion shows ignorance of the etymology of the word "pope". At the time of its inception the Greek "papas" would mean "patriarch or bishop" and be applied to many bishops. However, this is irrelevant. By the time the title of pope was in use in Rome (440AD) the church was exclusively using Latin. Pope actually comes from the Latin "papa" which was used of bishops and meant "tutor" in classical Latin.
* tell me about etymology... pope/pappas means father... patriarch/pater also means father... and my bad, the pope also uses the title address, "most holy father"...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, Peter was the lead minister. It is made very clear. Jesus gives him that commission twice. In Matthew 18 Jesus declares Peter the rock on which the church will be built and gives him the keys of life with the power to bind and loose things in both heaven and earth.
* when Jesus said that, you got the parable, not the mystery... eventhough the name "Peter" means rock, that does not automatically mean that Peter is the Rock on which the church will be built... Jesus was speaking in the third person... the Rock is Jesus Himself...
"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Romans 9:33
"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
I Peter 2:5-8
"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Ephesians 1:20-23
Originally posted by Nellinator
Look at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter's judgment is final and uncontested because everyone recognizes his authority.
* he is one of the pillars... with Saint James and Saint John... Saint Peter's authority should be recognized...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Then look at John 21. In verse 15 Jesus tells Peter to "feed" (provide pasture for) for His lambs. Then In verse 16 Jesus tells Peter to "feed [His] sheep". The word "feed" is properly translated "shepherd" and is figuratively used to mean "rule". And then in 17 Jesus tells Peter to provide pasture for his sheep again. There is a distinction made between lambs and sheep. Jesus commands Peter to provide pasture for both the lambs and the sheep, but to rule the sheep. The lambs are the body of Christ (ie. all believers) while the sheep are the pastors and ministers of the word. Peter is in charge of the entire Church by Jesus's commission and is thus unchallenged by anyone else.
* read the context of John 21, on verse 15 Jesus asks Saint Peter if he loves him more than his work (fishing)... all overseers are commanded to feed the church:
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Acts 20:28
Originally posted by Nellinator
Look at Acts 15 where no one challenges Peter whatsoever. To assume the "abundance of knowledge and revelations" were given to Paul is a stretch of logic and not very Biblical.
"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16
* even Saint Peter find some epistles hard to understand... because of the wisdom of God given to Saint Paul...
Originally posted by Nellinator
After his conversion, Paul immediately seeks out Peter. Why do you think that is?
* Saint Peter is one of the pillars, and Saint Paul is a new convert...
Originally posted by Nellinator
The last two verses don't bring up any relevant points.
* the authority of Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas...
Originally posted by big gay kirk
But remember.... the Niceaen Council (if I remember correctly) made it a doctrine of faith to offer venerative worship, but not true worship, to saints etc, and allowed images as a sort of aid to concentration...
* venerative worship is still worship... saints like Saint Peter or Saint Paul should not be worshipped...
Originally posted by big gay kirk
and as the pope was the successor to St Peter, he had as much right to change doctrine as, for example, St Paul did.... and few Christians ask for the Pauline scriptures and alterations to be removed...
* Saint Peter and Saint Paul did not change any doctrine of Christ... 😉
Originally posted by peejaydImages only confuse those who lack faith.
* images do nothing but confuse the faith of everyone... it was not commanded to make and worship them so they are, by all means, irrelevant to the Christian faith... true worship is in spirit and in truth (John 4:24), no images needed...* then, what the heck is hyperdulia? ever heard of the rosary? please tell me what the prayers in the rosary consists of...
* never heard of any feast for God or for Christ... only saints and angels... saints and angels of God reject veneration, worship and glory thrown to them...
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
Idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties,
Envyings, drunkenness, revellings, [b]and such like
Galatians 5:19-21* using your logic promotes cocaine and heroine...
* means, some still pays for it and the Catholic authorities still accepts payments...
* all? the person is a priest and is married? wow...
* is induction and baptism, the same?
* Acts 2:36, Saint Peter is talking to the people to crucified Jesus... Acts 2:37, the people replied to Saint Peter, what shall they do? and Saint Peter answered they need to repent and be baptized... please don't twist the Scriptures...
* maybe... but it does not refer to baptism anymore... it refers to the promise of God...
* it's only your pre-conceived idea... infants and little children does not need baptism because sins are not imputed by God to those who have no experience of the word of righteousness...
"And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him."
Acts 8:36-38* it is necessary for the "baptizee" to have faith, for him to be baptized by the "baptizer"...
* what's this supposed to do with prayer for the dead?
* is circumcision and baptism, the same?
* i don't know where this came from...
* nope... you miss the significance in believing the literal bread is the body of Christ... [/B]
Not worship, not worship. No, I'm sure you know exactly. Once you provide an example of worship I'll believe you.
So you haven't heard of the two main feasts then? The Feast of the Resurrection and the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord? Saints would reject veneration, but not necessarily veneration.
And you are able to determine what "and such like means" how? Your assumption of my logic is based on false pretense. You are only progressing in proving my point.
Yah, and they shouldn't.
Yah, I quite literally have.
It is being brought into covenant with God, so yes it is.
You are in error of what the Bible actually says. Peter answers the question very specifically. "You and yours must each be baptized" (Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon) is precisely what Peter says. He specifically includes the children of professing believers.
The "promise" of God is a covenant. Baptism is entrance into that covenant.
Apparently you are unaware of the scriptures.
Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 clearly contradict you. Romans 5:12-19 is the most glaring, however. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says that in Adam all die. If the wages of sin is death why would children die in Adam?
You go on to confuse the meaning of a profession of faith. There is not a need for profession of faith if one is not able to do so. Those verses do not contradict that in any way.
Nothing, I missed that point. I addressed prayer for the dead two paragraphs later. That part was a continuation of my previous point and one I would prefer you not avoid.
Circumcision and baptism have the same significance unless you care to argue that the New Covenant is a narrower covenant than the Old Covenant in which case you would be in err of scriptures. The New Covenant is better and broader and includes children just as the old did. Why you wish to exclude children from it is beyond me.
I dunno, if there are twenty words in the language Jesus could have used to support a symbolic body of Christ I would suspect He would use one to suggest it instead of referring to it as His literal body.
Originally posted by peejaydNo, pope = papa = tutor. Did you miss that part of purposely ignore it. His address in English is stupid and He should not use it.
* tell me about etymology... pope/pappas means father... patriarch/pater also means father... and my bad, the pope also uses the title address, "most holy father"...* when Jesus said that, you got the parable, not the mystery... eventhough the name "Peter" means rock, that does not automatically mean that Peter is the Rock on which the church will be built... Jesus was speaking in the third person... the Rock is Jesus Himself...
"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed."
Romans 9:33"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
I Peter 2:5-8"Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Ephesians 1:20-23* he is one of the pillars... with Saint James and Saint John... Saint Peter's authority should be recognized...
* read the context of John 21, on verse 15 Jesus asks Saint Peter if he loves him more than his work (fishing)... all overseers are commanded to feed the church:
"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
Acts 20:28"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16* even Saint Peter find some epistles hard to understand... because of the wisdom of God given to Saint Paul...
* Saint Peter is one of the pillars, and Saint Paul is a new convert...
* the authority of Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas...
* venerative worship is still worship... saints like Saint Peter or Saint Paul should not be worshipped...
* Saint Peter and Saint Paul did not change any doctrine of Christ... 😉
Jesus is the rock of our salvation. Jesus is not speaking in the third person and there is absolutely nothing but the whims of fools to suggest He was. Jesus specifically told Peter He would build His church on Peter. You see it is Jesus's church and Christ is the foundation of our salvation, but the Peter is the rock on which that church is built. Your verses do not contradict that in the least and fail to realize the truth of Matthew 16. All you have done is affirm the truth that Catholics and all other Christians believe: that Christ is the High Priest of the church.
Yes, but his declaration was infallible unless you wish to argue that Jesus was lying to him in Matthew 16.
In fact it does not refer to his work at all. Jesus pointedly asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. Jesus did not ask Peter while they dined, He asked after all the disciples had had fellowship together. Also, knowledge of Greek will tell you that He is referring to the nearest plural noun which is the disciples.
The disciples are all sheep, save Peter who is their head. They all have the responsibility to feed the lambs and even Peter is not immune to the reprimands of those under him. I have not suggested as such so I fail to see your point. Peter's commission is given to him directly by Jesus with very specific instructions. No one else is given this special commission, but all are given the Great Commission.
In fact, Peter does not suggest that he has trouble understanding at all. However, Peter understands that others may not have the knowledge and understanding given to him, Paul and the other apostles.
That doesn't answer the question. Why did he not seek out James or John? Why does no one question Peter's declarations? Why is Peter given two special commissions by Christ when no one else is? Why does Paul seek only Peter and not just any of the disciples and then spend time learning from Peter?
Which I never argued against.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Images only confuse those who lack faith.
* so why make images? why tolerate the creating of it? not to mention, it's against the Scriptures...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Not worship, not worship. No, I'm sure you know exactly. Once you provide an example of worship I'll believe you.
* Catholics praying the rosary is an obvious evidence of worshipping Mary, what example do you still need?
Originally posted by Nellinator
So you haven't heard of the two main feasts then? The Feast of the Resurrection and the Feast of the Nativity of our Lord?
* yeah, literal feasts... still none for the Father...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Saints would reject veneration, but not necessarily veneration.
* saints do reject veneration, period...
Originally posted by Nellinator
And you are able to determine what "and such like means" how?
* if you are of God, you know what that means... and it surely prohibits heroine and cocaine even if you cannot read those words verbatim...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Your assumption of my logic is based on false pretense. You are only progressing in proving my point.
* there's nothing wrong in "sola scriptura" so long as you are guided by the Holy Spirit... your logic still promotes cocaine and heroine...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, and they shouldn't.
* and? even they did those things, they are still Christians? bah! they are Catholics, yes... Christians? nope...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah, I quite literally have.
* does not practice celibacy? that's odd...
Originally posted by Nellinator
It is being brought into covenant with God, so yes it is.
* so is marriage, yet marriage =/= baptism...
Originally posted by Nellinator
You are in error of what the Bible actually says. Peter answers the question very specifically. "You and yours must each be baptized" (Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon) is precisely what Peter says. He specifically includes the children of professing believers.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
"de Petros phemi pros autos metanoeo kai baptizo hekastos humon epi onoma lesous Christos eis aphesis hamartia kai lambano dorea hagios pneuma"
Acts 2:38
* the statement is very clear, kiddo... you mean to say, Saint Peter commanded the children to repent too? don't make me laugh...
Originally posted by Nellinator
The "promise" of God is a covenant. Baptism is entrance into that covenant.
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."
"gar epaggelia esti humin kai humon teknon kai pas eis makran hosos kurios hemon theos an"
Acts 2:39
* that, my friend, is an obvious pre-conceived assumption... the message is clear... Saint Peter never commanded to baptize the children... what he said was "the promise is unto you and to your children"... please do not try to twist the Scriptures...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Apparently you are unaware of the scriptures.
* do tell and prove...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 clearly contradict you. Romans 5:12-19 is the most glaring, however. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says that in Adam all die. If the wages of sin is death why would children die in Adam?
* irrelevant argument... just tell me is it Biblical to pray for the dead...
Originally posted by Nellinator
You go on to confuse the meaning of a profession of faith. There is not a need for profession of faith if one is not able to do so. Those verses do not contradict that in any way.Nothing, I missed that point. I addressed prayer for the dead two paragraphs later. That part was a continuation of my previous point and one I would prefer you not avoid.
* "a parent's faith saving their children" has nothing to do in praying for the dead...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Circumcision and baptism have the same significance unless you care to argue that the New Covenant is a narrower covenant than the Old Covenant in which case you would be in err of scriptures. The New Covenant is better and broader and includes children just as the old did. Why you wish to exclude children from it is beyond me.
* even in the time of Christ, male infants were still circumcised eight days from birth, still it's not baptism, still outside that weird parallelism of yours... Biblical records show that Christ left us an example, eventhough He was circumcised as infant, He was baptized an adult...
Originally posted by Nellinator
I dunno, if there are twenty words in the language Jesus could have used to support a symbolic body of Christ I would suspect He would use one to suggest it instead of referring to it as His literal body.
* then the host/hostia used in the Holy Mass/Eucharist in Catholic worship services is dumb and unBiblical...
Originally posted by Nellinator
No, pope = papa = tutor. Did you miss that part of purposely ignore it.
O.E. papa, from M.L. papa "bishop, pope" (in classical L., "tutor"😉, from Gk. papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father."
>> from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pope/ and http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pope&searchmode=none/
* now, tell me... is it me ignoring "pope = papa = tutor"? or is it you completely overlooking "pope = papa = father"?
Originally posted by Nellinator
His address in English is stupid and He should not use it.
* so if the pope in Rome is using the title "Most Holy Father", what's the point of defending your argument that "pope = papa = tutor"? my, my, my...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Jesus is the rock of our salvation. Jesus is not speaking in the third person and there is absolutely nothing but the whims of fools to suggest He was. Jesus specifically told Peter He would build His church on Peter.
* Jesus specifically told Peter He would build His Church upon this rock... not on Peter...
Originally posted by Nellinator
You see it is Jesus's church and Christ is the foundation of our salvation, but the Peter is the rock on which that church is built. Your verses do not contradict that in the least and fail to realize the truth of Matthew 16.
* the Church of God is not built on Peter but on Christ... Christ is the foundation, true... because Christ is the Rock on which the Church of God was built...
Originally posted by Nellinator
All you have done is affirm the truth that Catholics and all other Christians believe: that Christ is the High Priest of the church.
* so who is the High Priest of the Catholic church? tell me, is it Christ or the pope? but i can tell you that Christ is the Apostle and High Priest of God's Church (Hebrews 3:1)...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, but his declaration was infallible unless you wish to argue that Jesus was lying to him in Matthew 16.
* Jesus never said that the Church would be built on Peter... the Church would be built on the Rock, who is Christ Himself...
Originally posted by Nellinator
In fact it does not refer to his work at all. Jesus pointedly asked Peter whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. Jesus did not ask Peter while they dined, He asked after all the disciples had had fellowship together. Also, knowledge of Greek will tell you that He is referring to the nearest plural noun which is the disciples.
* the disciples are "these"? knowledge of the Bible will tell you to consider the context of the verse... Jesus was talking about Peter's work and not the other disciples... he who receives the Apostles also receives Christ and the Father (Matthew 10:40), he who hears the Apostles also hears Christ and the Father (Luke 10:16), loving the Apostles is also loving Christ and the Father... Christ will not ask Peter if he loves Him more than the other disciples, but if he loves Him more than his work, which is fishing...
Originally posted by Nellinator
The disciples are all sheep, save Peter who is their head.
* Peter is a disciple, he is also one of the sheep... but Peter is also an Apostle elected by Christ, Peter is an overseer like the other Apostles... those overseers are all commanded to feed God's Church (Acts 20:28)...
Originally posted by Nellinator
They all have the responsibility to feed the lambs and even Peter is not immune to the reprimands of those under him. I have not suggested as such so I fail to see your point. Peter's commission is given to him directly by Jesus with very specific instructions. No one else is given this special commission, but all are given the Great Commission.
* Saint Peter's authority should be recognized, there is no problem with that, he is an Apostle of Christ just like the other Apostles...
Originally posted by Nellinator
In fact, Peter does not suggest that he has trouble understanding at all. However, Peter understands that others may not have the knowledge and understanding given to him, Paul and the other apostles.
"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16
* Saint Peter find some epistles hard to understand... this is not to belittle Saint Peter... but the fact remains that there is wisdom of God given to Saint Paul which is really hard to be understood...
Originally posted by Nellinator
That doesn't answer the question. Why did he not seek out James or John? Why does no one question Peter's declarations? Why is Peter given two special commissions by Christ when no one else is? Why does Paul seek only Peter and not just any of the disciples and then spend time learning from Peter?
* Acts 15:13, 19 narrates the judgment of Saint James... why does no one question James' judgment? is James the head?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Which I never argued against.
* the twelve Apostles are witnesses, and three of them (Peter, James and John) are considered pillars, the closest to Jesus, they have authority which i also never argued against... my point is the authority of Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas as they were given the right hands of fellowship by the pillars... most specifically Saint Paul, unto whom God gave exceeding greatness of revelations and wisdom...
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, it is purely unnecesary. the fact that it was done can not be conveniently explained away. anyhow, back on topic, it doesnt matter cause most of it is paulanity anyway. looks like jesus and john took a back seat.
This may have already been answered but it WAS necessary to be baptized. It was a commandment from God that every man should believe and be baptized. He was baptized to show Heavenly Father that even though the baptism does nothing to remit his nonexistent sins...it was to show that He (Jesus Christ) was humble enough to submit to Gods commandments "to fulfill all righteousness". Also, Jesus Christ was supposed to be an example for man to follow so he also did it to show "us" that we are to "believe and be baptized in his name" etc.
Edit...yup, it looks like it was answered already. Sorry.