"The TRUE church of Christ would NEVER harm their neighbor. "

If this is some sort of basis for not following Catholicism, then I wonder why Protestants follow the words of St. Paul/Saul? Saul set out to destroy Christianity, yet we still read his writings as the Holy Bible. Where is the logic in that? Double Standard?

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003

Answers

When man takes the Scriptures into their own interpretations, wrong things and actions can happen. Look at the men and see how they have not followed the doctrines of their Church, not the Church. Look at Saul and compare him to his outcome--St. Paul.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

rod,

If your implying that we should follow the Roman Church that killed thousands of God's people just because Paul killed Christians when he was Saul, then your wrong.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003.

rod,

Because Jesus showed Paul that he was persecuting His church and that church was MOST CERTAINLY NOT the CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

Making the claim that someone CANNOT have their own interpretation of Scripture is to claim that people are too STUPID or IGNORANT to read and understand what has been written.

This is most certainly a FALSE ASSERTION of the Catholic Church. I have written in this forum several times and have shown you CLEARLY that the Catholic Church is WRONG in this boastful claim and yet you continue to REJECT what has been written. I will continue to pray for you rod that God might open your eyes to the TRUTH of His Word.

If you believe that you CANNOT have your own interpretation of Scripture then it is OBVIOUS that you really have not read, NOR do you care to read or NOR do you care to understand what God has PLAINLY revealed in His Word.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

Kevin stop persecuting me. You are doing quite a job on the Church. You do not know my own interpretations because I have not revealed them. I have my own interpretations and they do conflict with the Church and with some here in this and the other forums. I am trying to point out that St. Paul did a number on Christianity, yet Christians are able to forgive his sins, but continue to remember the sins of the Catholics while making them the sins of the Church. That's like saying that a member of the Church of Christ is responsible for the entire church doctrine when he sins--not true.

Kevin, I read everything that you post and I think about those points. I also read the Bible and I do make interpretations on Scriptures. I have been told to keep it simple. Well, of course, if we keep everything simple, we overlook the real message in each verse. How do you think those doctrines came up with "Faith Alone"? It takes understanding and teaching from our leaders in faith. I'm sure that your church and David's have such leaders. Now, I'm not studpid or ignorant, but I also am not divine. If I were divine, you and all of us wouldn't be having a completely different discussion, yes?

r

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

If I were divine, you and all of us would be having a completely different discussion, yes?

See? I'm not divine; I make mistakes.

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

Here is an example of my interpretations--Baptism:

Kevin, you mentioned that there is no such thing as Holy Water. Well, if that is the case, then there really is no significance to any water. When I read about Nicodemus and the reference to "born again", I do not get the same conventional meaning. To me, baptism is irrelevant. The meaning of "Baptism" has to do with immersing our minds and hearts into the Word, not into water. The message given to Nicodemus was to tell him that his sins are keeping him from the Kingdom of God, so he would have to start all over--born again. But, because it is impossible to be born again, he would have to erase his previous beliefs and start all over in His Word. This is what Baptism means to me. Now, I can't follow my own interpretations because I do not know 100% that I am correct. So, I must choose to conform to one of many theological teachings that are out there. So, I have spent my time learning those doctrines and theologies in order to make an educated "guess". Ignorant? I doubt it. Cautions? Most certainly. Stupid? I've been called worse. Faithful? Yes.

If I begin to assert my interpretations, I may cause someone to start believing me and lose his Salvation. I don't dare do that. I think I'm on save ground discussing Protestantism and Catholicism; both sides are staunch in there beliefs.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

rod,

You wrote, "Kevin stop persecuting me."

Please tell me rod how I am "persecuting you"??? Is this what you do when you do not have an answer to what I have written???

You wrote, "You are doing quite a job on the Church."

If by this you mean the Catholic Church, let me remind you that it is the Word of God that effectively DEFEATS this FALSE CHURCH. I am merely pointing out what God has stated in His Word.

You wrote, "You do not know my own interpretations because I have not revealed them."

That is NOT a true statement rod!!! I know your interpretations because you PLAINLY revealed them in this forum especially your defense of the FALSE CATHOLIC doctrines of the Eucharist, Tradition, Baptism and your disdain for Sola Scriptura. You have also revealed them in Catholic forum in the "Can my children be baptized" Thread.

You wrote, "I have my own interpretations and they do conflict with the Church and with some here in this and the other forums."

If by this you mean they do not conflict with the Catholic Church, to this I agree for that is EXACTLY how you have come across in your posts. I have not called you Catholic, but others in this forum most certainly have labeled you as such.

You wrote, "I am trying to point out that St. Paul did a number on Christianity, yet Christians are able to forgive his sins, but continue to remember the sins of the Catholics while making them the sins of the Church. That's like saying that a member of the Church of Christ is responsible for the entire church doctrine when he sins--not true."

First, it was Jesus who forgave Pauls sin NOT Christians.

Second, Paul was NOT a Christian when he was GUILTY of KILLING those innocent Christians.

Third, the Catholic Church who CLAIMED to be CHRISTIANS and yet they were GUILTY of KILLING innocent people who OPPOSED their FALSE DOCTRINES.

Can you see the difference???

We have been over this ground before about your logic right rod?

You wrote, "Kevin, I read everything that you post and I think about those points."

My intent when I write is NOT to get you to "think about those points" but it is to POINT YOU TO THE WORD OF GOD to see if what I say is the TRUTH. If it is NOT the TRUTH, it should be EASY to point out and REFUTE however, if what I write is in ACCORDANCE with the Word of God then you either choose to believe FALSE DOCTRINES or change your mind and DO WHAT GOD SAYS!!!

You wrote, "I also read the Bible and I do make interpretations on Scriptures."

If you are a Catholic, then you CANNOT have your own interpretation of Scripture. I am not sure why Catholics even bother to have a Bible when they are TOLD what they are to believe.

You wrote, "I have been told to keep it simple. Well, of course, if we keep everything simple, we overlook the real message in each verse."

Who told you to "keep it simple"??? The object is NOT to "keep it simple" but to READ and UNDERSTAND everything that God has said concerning a specific doctrine.

You wrote, "How do you think those doctrines came up with "Faith Alone"?"

They came up with "Faith Alone" in response to the Catholic Church who believed in "Works Based" Salvation. They went from one end of the spectrum (one must work their way to Heaven) to the other spectrum (one does not have to do anything to get to Heaven).

You wrote, "It takes understanding and teaching from our leaders in faith. I'm sure that your church and David's have such leaders. Now, I'm not studpid or ignorant, but I also am not divine. If I were divine, you and all of us wouldn't be having a completely different discussion, yes?"

If a church leader does NOT abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9) which IS the New Testament, then they are to be REJECTED as FALSE TEACHERS. I did NOT call you "stupid" NOR did I call you "ignorant".

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

rod,

You wrote, "Kevin, you mentioned that there is no such thing as Holy Water. Well, if that is the case, then there really is no significance to any water."

Here you go with your logic again. There is NO such thing as Holy Water, and I have yet to have someone PROVE beyond a resonable doubt that any such thing exists. There is NO significance to the water for a person can be baptized ANYWHERE in ANY type of water that is sufficient to completely IMMERSE them in order to be baptized FOR the Remission of their sins.

You wrote, "When I read about Nicodemus and the reference to "born again", I do not get the same conventional meaning. To me, baptism is irrelevant."

If "baptism is irrelevant" as you state, then please explain why you seek to have your children baptized??? If baptism is IRRELEVANT as you claim then what Jesus stated in John 3:5, Mark 16:16 and What Peter said in Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 that baptism SAVES is a LIE.

You wrote, "The meaning of "Baptism" has to do with immersing our minds and hearts into the Word, not into water."

Really rod??? Where is your Scriptural PROOF that this is the case??? Please provide book, chapter and verse in your reply.

You wrote, "The message given to Nicodemus was to tell him that his sins are keeping him from the Kingdom of God, so he would have to start all over--born again."

Yes, that is EXACTLY what He told Nicodemus that he had to be BORN AGAIN. This was NOT a new PHYSICAL birth, but a SPIRITUAL birth.

You wrote, "But, because it is impossible to be born again, he would have to erase his previous beliefs and start all over in His Word."

If it is "impossible to be born again" as you assert, then NO ONE CAN BE SAVED. Jesus PLAINLY stated that one MUST BE BORN AGAIN. So how can you state that it is "impossible to be born again"??? Once again, you call Jesus a LIAR.

You wrote, "This is what Baptism means to me."

If this is the case, then this PROVES that you really do NOT UNDERSTAND the meaning NOR do you UNDERSTAND the importance of baptism in the plan of salvation.

You wrote, "Now, I can't follow my own interpretations because I do not know 100% that I am correct."

Then how can you know that you are saved???

You wrote, "So, I must choose to conform to one of many theological teachings that are out there. So, I have spent my time learning those doctrines and theologies in order to make an educated "guess". Ignorant? I doubt it. Cautions? Most certainly. Stupid? I've been called worse. Faithful? Yes."

So, you are trying to COVER all of your bases right rod? Is this what you are saying??? You will make an "educated guess" and still LOSE your salvation if you do not obey the gospel for that is EXACTLY what 2 Thes. 1:7-9 states.

You wrote, "If I begin to assert my interpretations, I may cause someone to start believing me and lose his Salvation. I don't dare do that. I think I'm on save ground discussing Protestantism and Catholicism; both sides are staunch in there beliefs."

And both sides will lead you down the broad road that leads to destruction. (Matt. 7:13-14).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

Now do you see why I don't make my interpretations public, Kevin?

You've done a pretty good job of interpreting my motives and beliefs. Yes, I wish to baptize my children because I have a fear that I may be doing the wrong thing by not having them baptized. But, I must first get an understanding of Baptizm, but not my interpretations. I'm not the one who will be doing the Baptizing, so my interpretations mean nothing. There are extenuating circumstances for Salvation without Baptism. And, children may be included in those circumstances as well as adults who are blameless and ingorant of the Word, but who've seeked the Word to the best of their abilities. This notions is nebulas to me and I would have to study it more. But, you said that anyone can read and understand the Bible and get the meanings. I guess that my interpretations have proved you wrong. I can't rely on my own interpretations and I need to seek out what is true.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 26, 2003.

rod,

It is your own BIAS against the TRUTH that has proven you wrong! Your interpretations are WRONG because you haven't let go of your preconceived beliefs. Go back and re-read the parable of the sower in Luke chapter 8.

You can't take what God says at face value as evidence by your swinging to many different faiths to ensure that you are doing the right thing.

There is ONLY one right way, and that is according to what God has SPECIFICALLY stated in Scripture He requires one to do in order to be saved.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 26, 2003.

"It is your own BIAS against the TRUTH that has proven you wrong!"

That statement could apply to any living soul on earth. I am not proving you wrong in the Scriptures, Kevin. I am proving you wrong in the idea that all men can read the Bible and understand the same things in order to obey God. I don't see the samethings that anyone else, who self-interprets,in this forum sees. So, it isn't true to believe that all men will interpret the same messages as one complete truth. Hey, I'm not the only one who has proven this-- history, Protestantism, sects, etc.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

There is one basic fundamental truth--Salvation exists through faith in God's only Son, Jesus Christ. Man then steps in with their doctrines, which may or may not be divinely inspired. It is up to us to find what is true. The Bible spells it out for us, true, but for some that clarity reveals more.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

Baptism takes various forms and purposes and even absents as the Bible records. So, how does the ordinary person interpret baptism when Dismas' faith superceded his own baptism or lack of baptism? (I know. Some will refute the name "Dismas".) The history books list two names with "Dismas" remaining as the popular name.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

Uh....."absence" not "absents".......Creative Writing 101. rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

"The Most Holy Catholic Church considers God to be the Author of Sacred Scripture and therefore the Bible is indeed the Word of God, but Catholicism sees the Bible as the Written Word and considers Sacred Tradition as the Unwritten or Spoken Word of God. Catholicism uses that second half of the equation in her interpretation of biblical texts. Catholics regard the Bible as the Inspired and Revealed Word of God, but it's also seen as a collection of sacred literature. Rather than just looking at the Bible as one big book, Catholicism treats the Bible as a collection of smaller books under one cover : The Word of God written by men yet inspired by God.

The Bible tells of salvation history, but it's much more than a history book. It contains the Psalms of David ~ songs that the King wrote in honor of God, yet the Bible is much more than a hymnal. It contains poetry, prose, history, theology, imagery, metaphor, analogy, irony, hyperbole, and so on. Because it's not exclusively one form of literature, as you would have in a science textbook, one needs to know and appreciate the various literary forms in the Bible in order to interpret it as the Author intended.

For example, when Jesus says in the Gospel (Mark 9:43), "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off," the Catholic Church has interpreted that to be a Figure Of Speech rather than something to be taken literally. Yet in some cultures of the world, the hands of thieves are cut off.

At the same time, Catholicism interprets Literally the passage of John 6:55 ~ for "For my flesh is Real Food and blood Real Drink."

Because individuals can disagree on what should be interpreted literally and what isn't, Catholicism resorts to One Final Authority to Definitively Interpret for all Catholics what the biblical text means for the Catholic faith. That Ultimate Authority is called the Magisterium (from the Latin word magister meaning teacher), which is the Authority of the Pope and the Bishops around the world in union with him to instruct the faithful." ~ says Father Brighenti

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 27, 2003.

I'm surprised Kevin. You haven't called me a Gnostic. I have introduced Gnostic interpretations ,too. rod//,p./ ..,p> //

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.

rod,

The truth CAN be known if one SEARCHES for it. (Proverbs 2:1-5).

The parable of the sower says that it is possible for us to UNDERSTAND the truth. (Matt. 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20, Luke 8:11-15).

God says that His Word WILL NOT return to Him void. (Isa. 55:11).

We are BORN AGAIN through the Word of God. (1 Peter 1:23).

Those in the Catholic Church and those in denominations do NOT teach this doctrine and it is PLAINLY REVEALED in the Bible.

If one is forced to the conclusion that God's Word is not enough (as Catholics state with them making their tradition = to the Word of God) and the seed of the Kingdom will not do what God said it would do, this betrays pitiful ignorance of God's Word or a denial of inspiration, or both. If this is the case, then one is guilty of calling God a liar. ONLY those who UNDERSTAND God's Word and DO WHAT IT SAYS will be saved. (Matt. 7:21, Luke 8:15, James 1:22-25).

There will be MANY on judgment day saying "Lord, Lord" but Jesus will say to them 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!' (Matt 7:23).

The problem is that men do NOT want to let go of their Denominational or Catholic bias and that is preventing them from learning and understanding the TRUTH of God's Word.

Two glaring examples - First, the Catholic Church teaches that Baptism can be done by immersion, sprinkling or pouring.

The word "baptize" found in scriptures is translated from the Greek word "baptizo" which literally means "to dip" or "to immerse."

The Greek word for "sprinkle" is "rhantizo," and the Greek word for "pour" is "cheo." These two words are NEVER associated with baptism. The Catholic Church does teach FALSE DOCTRINE when they state that baptism can be by either sprinkling or pouring.

Second, those in Denominations teach that one is saved by "faith only" there is NOTHING in the Bible that teaches that we are saved by "faith only". The Bible teaches that we are saved by "faith" but the ONLY time the words "faith" and "only" are used together it PLAINLY DEFEATS this doctrine for James 2:24 says, "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

The Bible says in 1 John 4:1-2, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." The Bereans searched the Scriptures in Acts 17:11, and we are to do the same.

How does one "test the spirits"???

We do this THROUGH the Word of God for Hebrews 4:12 says, "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.

Kevin-The word "baptize" found in scriptures is translated from the Greek word "baptizo" which literally means "to dip" or "to immerse."

rod-Actually, the word "baptize" is a transliteration, not a translation. The Greek word, of course, being "baptizo".

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.

rod,

You are correct, please forgive my error. The word "baptize" was transliterated from the word "baptizo".

That does not change the meaning of the word.

Baptism is a BURIAL just as Romans 6:3 states. Catholics CANNOT dance around this TRUTH. You don't bury someone by "sprinkling" or "pouring".

This just goes to show you how much Catholics [dis]respect God's Word.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.

Kevin, [ Deleted by Moderator]

Kevin said, "You are correct, please forgive my error."

Surely your 34,001st uninspired one-man-doctrine has many Flaws. And you need someone who is a Catholic, like Rod, to correct your Many Mistakes.

Go to the 2000 year old Catholic Doctrine with No Flaws whatsoever ~ Fully Guided by the Most Holy Spirit for 2000 years.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

This time, Rod , David, and Kevin are right.

First Rod: You are right when you say Water becomes Holy . This is when is consecrated to God for a Godly purpose. So there is at any time, Holy Water.

Baptism is a cleansing. That was the first meaning. That was the baptism of John the baptist, to cleanse sins (forgive sins). That is why the body was immersed in running water in the Jordan, so sins will be washed away. Jews still throw pieces of bread in running water during Yom Kippur to atone for sins. Remember John's words about Jesus: This is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

In this sense, then, Rod, any Christian Church can baptize your children. In the beginning only adults were baptized. But their children were born Christians, so, supposedly, born into the faith, thus in no need to confess thier sins. They are more like the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts, a way to enter the body of believers. That Eunuch, I know, went back to his country, and baptized his own family. He wasn't a priest. But he was now a believer.

As for David: it's true, the Church wasn't called Catholic but it was called the Way (The Church, or as hebrew and Aramaic say, the assembly of God in Christ Jesus).

The word Catholic comes from a letter of Ignatius. Yet, the Catholic Church was born the minute it became necessary to differentiate between Arrians, suporters orf arrius, and Catholics, supporters of Athanasius in 325 AD. Just like the Word Orthodox was used to differentiate Roman Catholics from Orthodox (Eastern Christians).

As for Kevin : Yes, baptism is a burial. The water covers you . It is like drowning.It buries our past. We have become new creatures. That was Pau's main theme throughout his letters.

You must also understand Kevin, that according to the Didache, a christian document from the second century, if there was no running water, then it should be sprinkled.

By the way, baptism was in the nude, Kevin. Look at the historical pictures from the first 5 centuries of Christianity. Even Jesus is portrayed in the nude getting himself baptized.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.

Elpidio,

Baptism CANNOT be a burial if one is "sprinkled". Whether or not one is baptized with or without clothes is of no significance.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), October 28, 2003.

A bit of trivia:

I forget when in history; the blind and infermed would run to posses the water used after a baptism. They believed that the water had miraculous curative abilities.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 28, 2003.

rod,

This is the problems with members of the Roman church. They rely too much on history. Even though the majority isn't always right, and the history Romanists study is a biased one.

God said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words never pass away" (Matthew 24:35 KJV).

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

It was never a Church doctrine and the Church stepped in to put a stop to such nonsense--baptismal water as having healing power for transients. This is sort of like when St. Paul stepped in to put a stop to frivolous "speaking in tongues" by fraudulent people.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.

THE ROCK ~ THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

Those who know little about history are condemned to repeat it. ~ Father Rutler

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

His Word will never pass away, but clearly, conflicting personal interpretations of His Word are not the same thing as "His Word". His Word cannot contradict or conflict with itself. Interpretations can and do, everywhere we look. The problem with denominational religion is that each sect assumes its particular interpretations of His Word actually ARE His Word. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 08, 2003.

There are MANY ERRORS taught by the Catholics. Hence, this article is headed, "Some Errors of Catholicism." All of their errors could not be discussed in one brief article. At one time, the Catholic Church published its doctrines in papers under the title, "Religious Information Bureau." The general reading public never took the time to investigate the bold Catholic assertions and allowed them to go unchallenged by the truth.

In their published "Information Bureau," they declared that Christ built the Catholic Church and they affirm that he built only one church. In this assertion, they have some truth mixed with error.

It is true that Christ built only one church, but it was NOT the Catholic Church.

The church that Jesus built belongs to Christ and NOT to the pope.

Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). This shows that the church belongs to Christ.

All AUTHENTIC church history teaches that the Roman Catholic Church was not developed as we now have it until some centuries after Christ established his church.

It is an ERROR for Catholics to claim that Christ established the Catholic Church. Many will NOT take time to investigate this FALSE Catholic claim that "Christ established only one church and that was the Catholic Church."

A half truth is a LIE.

Christ built only ONE church, but that was NOT the Catholic Church.

The New Testament declares that the church Christ built is the "church of God," the "body of Christ," "the household of faith," etc. The New Testament NOWHERE MENTIONS the Catholic Church. Neither does it mention anything about the pope, who is the head of the Catholic Church.

Anyone who knows what the Catholic Church is and what the New Testament teaches can know there is the WIDTH OF POLES between the Catholic Church and the church of Christ!!!

Another ERROR taught by the Catholics is that Christ built his church on the apostle Peter. In the new translation of the "New Testament Revised by the Catholic Church," we have this quotation: "Then Jesus answered and said, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but my Father in heaven. And I say to thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:17-18).

In the notes of their "Revised New Testament," we have this comment: "In the gospels the word church is used only here and in 18:17. In the Old Testament it designated the assembly of Israel. Here, in speaking of His church, our Lord means a society of men united to serve God as He had taught them to do. Compared with an edifice, it is said to rest on a rock, as did the house of the wise man of 7:24. That rock was Peter. Of course, the strength of the foundation comes from Christ."

It is a bold claim of the Catholic Church that Christ built his church upon Peter. This is FALSE and is abundantly DISPROVED by the New Testament. The Holy Spirit said through Paul, "So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph. 2:19-20).

Again, Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, "According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:10-11).

So CHRIST is the FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT ? NOT Peter.

The fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, MUST BE PREACHED in order for one to truly preach Christ.

When Catholics claim that the church was built upon Peter, they make a FALSE CLAIM, which CONTRADICTS the teachings of the Holy Spirit. This is a deadly offense against Christ.

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). The name Peter here means a stone, (John 1:42), and in the Greek it's in the masculine gender, Petros. "Upon this rock," as used by our Lord, contradicts the claims of the Catholic Church. Rock, as used here, is in the feminine gender, Petra. It refers to the foundation upon which Christ built his church. Petros, which means a stone, is one thing, and Petra, which means a ledge of rock, is another thing. Jesus did NOT say ? neither did He mean to say ? that his church would be built upon "a stone," but upon a solid "ledge of rock."

What was this Petra upon which the church was to be built? The Catholics CLAIM that it was Peter, but the CONTEXT shows this claim is UNTRUE.

It's CLEAR from the context that Jesus, by using the term Petra, referred to the TRUTH that Peter had just CONFESSED, which was the DEITY OF JESUS. The truth that Jesus is the Son of God is the MOST FUNDAMENTAL and BASIC of ALL TRUTHS pertaining to man's redemption.

Peter was NOT the head of the church that Christ built. Catholics claim that Peter was the first pope and, therefore, the head of the church. They claim that the pope of Rome is the head of the church that Christ built. Peter was NOT a pope at all, therefore he could NOT be the first pope.

Peter was a married man. "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying sick of a fever." (Matt. 8:14). This passage also tells us that Jesus healed Peter's wife's mother. To the church at Corinth, Paul said, "Have we not a right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9:5).

Catholics deny the right of the pope to marry. Neither will they permit a cardinal, bishop or priest to marry.

The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, but he is NOT the head of God's church.

The New Testament CLEARLY, FREQUENTLY, and EMPHATICALLY teaches that CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. (Eph. 5:23; 1:22; Col. 1:18).

These and other scriptures teach that Christ is the head of the church and that He is over all things to the church. That leaves no room for Peter to be the head of the church, and it certainly doesn't leave any room for the pope of Rome to be the head of the church Christ built.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 08, 2003.

Again Kevin falsely accuses and arrogantly judges, "There are MANY ERRORS taught by the Catholics."

TESTIMONY OF A CATHOLIC REVERT:

During my Protestant days I had thought of myself as a pseudo-expert on the errors of Catholicism. However, I had never read a book about Catholicism written by a Catholic author. My knowledge of the Church had come solely from Protestants writing about Catholicism. If I had researched my faith as I research the law, my questions would have been answered much sooner.

In addition, by this time in my life I had read and outlined the New Testament several times. But after my conversion to Catholicism, when I went back and read John 6:48-71, I noticed that I had not even highlighted the text. It was as if I had been reading the Bible with blinders on. Here Christ repeated over and over again,

"UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN AND DRINK HIS BLOOD, YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU",

and I ignored Him. I remember Scott Hahn (an Ex-Presbyterian Minister, now a Catholic) saying that after his conversion to Catholicism he went back and read his old Bible, and there between the highlighted portions was The Catholic Church. It was the same for me. ~ Scott Leary

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 09, 2003.

"At one time, the Catholic Church published its doctrines in papers under the title, "Religious Information Bureau."

A: Really! Funny I have never come across that enroute to my Catholic theology degree?? The only "Religious Information Bureau" I have ever heard of is that run by the Kinghts of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization. The service is useful, but is not an official channel through which the Church disseminates its teachings. It only offers teaching that has already been taught by the Church since the time of the Apostles. Nothing new.

"The general reading public never took the time to investigate the bold Catholic assertions and allowed them to go unchallenged by the truth."

A: Catch 22 - the general public of the early Church had NO way to know the truth EXCEPT the teaching of the Church. The New Testament documents would not be written for another 30 to 70 years, and the Bible would not be compiled for another 350. The fullness of the truth of Jesus Christ existed in one place only - in the teaching of the Church Jesus Christ founded. And that is where people discovered it.

"In their published "Information Bureau," they declared that Christ built the Catholic Church and they affirm that he built only one church. In this assertion, they have some truth mixed with error."

A: Christ said "I will build my Church", not "my churches". Indeed, if He did found multiple churches, that would guarantee truth mixed with error, for a church is defined by its beliefs, different churches teach conflicting beliefs, and conflicting beliefs cannot both be true. Christ said He would build ONE Church. He prayed to His Father that it would remain ONE (John 17:21); and, He predicted that men would build their own churches, in defiance of His stated will (2 Tim 4:3). "It is true that Christ built only one church, but it was NOT the Catholic Church."

A: Well whatever it was, it must have a 2,000 year history, because that's when Christ founded His Church - 2,000 years ago. To identify His Church, start by making a list of all Churches with a 2,000 year history. All churches for which official documents can be produced dating from every century since the time of Christ. You won't need a large piece of paper. There is only one.

"The church that Jesus built belongs to Christ and NOT to the pope. Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). This shows that the church belongs to Christ."

A: Yes! Obviously! Who else would it belong to? This same verse also reveals who Christ selected as the foundation upon which to build His Church - the Apostle Simon, whose name Christ had changed to "Rock" immediately before making the above statement.

"All AUTHENTIC church history teaches that the Roman Catholic Church was not developed as we now have it until some centuries after Christ established his church."

A: Pure nonsense. There is absolutely NO historical record, not a single line of text, revealing the presence of any Christian church on this planet except the Holy Catholic Church between the time of Christ and the Orthodox schism of the 11th century. Written historical records indicate that the Church founded by Christ was calling itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the 1st century. Written documents of the Holy Catholic Church exist from every successive century until the present day, and NO writings of - or about - any other Christian church exist from earlier than the 11th century. Obviously no documents relative to your tradition exist prior to the 16th century.

"The New Testament declares that the church Christ built is the "church of God," the "body of Christ," "the household of faith," etc. The New Testament NOWHERE MENTIONS the Catholic Church. Neither does it mention anything about the pope, who is the head of the Catholic Church."

A: The Church described in the New Testament was a Church united in belief and worship, not fragmented by denominational chaos. The Catholic Church today is still the only place where that same unity of teaching can be found. Every biblical reference to "the Church" is a reference to the Holy Catholic Church, for history clearly reveals that there was NO other Church in existence at the time. The Bible doesn't mention the specific name "Catholic" for the same reason it doesn't mention the specific name "Trinity", or for that matter the specific term "Bible". Because the Catholic Church introduced these terms after the texts of the New Testament had been completed. So what? The Catholic Church didn't become the Church of Christ when it adopted that name. It had its identity from the time Christ founded it, and if it changed its name today it would still be the same one true Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men, with the same history, roots, and identity.

"Anyone who knows what the Catholic Church is and what the New Testament teaches can know there is the WIDTH OF POLES between the Catholic Church and the church of Christ!!!"

A: Anyone who knows what Protestantism is knows that there is a WIDTH OF POLES between what one denomination teaches and what another denomination teaches. Any thinking person recognizes that truth cannot contradict truth, and therefore MUST conclude that Protestantism is filled with error. It therefore cannot possibly qualify as the Church of Christ, since Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide HIS Church to ALL TRUTH, and that whatsoever His Church bound on earth is bound in heaven.

It is a bold claim of the Catholic Church that Christ built his church upon Peter. This is FALSE and is abundantly DISPROVED by the New Testament. The Holy Spirit said through Paul, "So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph. 2:19-20).

A: Amen! If Christ was not the cornerstone, then it would not have been nearly as significant when Christ, "the Rock", used that exact same expression in describing the Apostle Simon, telling him to his face, "Thou Art Rock". The meaning is obvious. Simon would stand in the place of Christ as His personal Vicar and representative, guiding and administrating His Church, protecting ti from error and denominationalism, not by any authority Simon himself possessed, but by the authority of "the Rock" Himself, Jesus Christ.

"So CHRIST is the FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT ? NOT Peter."

A: Sorry, but the clear words of Christ to Simon were: "THOU art Rock", not "I am Rock". "Thou" means "You" - Second person nominative - no other meaning. Christ identified Simon, and no other, as the Rock upon whom Christ would build His Church, and changed Simon's very name to "Rock" ("Peter") to emphasize the point He was making.

"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). The name Peter here means a stone, (John 1:42), and in the Greek it's in the masculine gender, Petros. "Upon this rock," as used by our Lord, contradicts the claims of the Catholic Church. Rock, as used here, is in the feminine gender, Petra. It refers to the foundation upon which Christ built his church. Petros, which means a stone, is one thing, and Petra, which means a ledge of rock, is another thing. Jesus did NOT say ? neither did He mean to say ? that his church would be built upon "a stone," but upon a solid "ledge of rock."

A: Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic word for "Rock" is "Kepha" (from which we get the alternate form of Peter's name - Cephas). What Jesus actually said is "Thou are KEPHA, and upon this KEPHA I will build my Church". When these words of Jesus were translated into Greek, "Kepha" was translated directly into its Greek equivalent, the feminine singular noun "Petra", meaning, of course, "Rock". However, the translators faced one small problem. In Greek, a feminine noun may not be used as a man's name. Therefore, in the first usage in this sentence, where Jesus changes Simon's name, "Petra" is masculinized to "Petros". That is the ONLY reason why the spelling is different in the two appearences of this one word in this single sentence. We know there is no difference in meaning here, both from the fact that there was no difference in the original Aramaic, and from the fact that biblical/literary experts who have subsequantly translated the Bible from Greek into many other languages have universally recognized this grammatical quirk, and never translated the two words as having different meanings - because they don't. They are exactly the same word, with a masculine ending applied where required.

"It's CLEAR from the context that Jesus, by using the term Petra, referred to the TRUTH that Peter had just CONFESSED, which was the DEITY OF JESUS. The truth that Jesus is the Son of God is the MOST FUNDAMENTAL and BASIC of ALL TRUTHS pertaining to man's redemption"

A: If "Petra" in the second usage in this sentence did not refer to Simon the Aostle, then what possible reason could Jesus have had in changing Simon's name to "Petra" (masculinized form) earlier in the same sentence? Suppose a man is being promoted to the rank of admiral in the Navy. The Chief of Naval Operations tells him "you are now an admiral, and upon this admiral I am placing responsibility for the entire Pacific fleet". Who in their right mind would think that he is speaking of two different admirals here? In the same way, when Jesus tells SIMON to his face "YOU are Rock, and upon THIS Rock I will build my Church", how can there be any valid, reasonable, honest doubt that both references to "Rock" apply to one and the same person? To interpret otherwise is do do violence to the obvious meaning of the text.

"Peter was a married man. "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying sick of a fever." (Matt. 8:14). This passage also tells us that Jesus healed Peter's wife's mother. To the church at Corinth, Paul said, "Have we not a right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9:5). Catholics deny the right of the pope to marry. Neither will they permit a cardinal, bishop or priest to marry."

A: For the sake of accuracy, the fact that Simon Peter had a mother-in-law doesn't mean he was married at that time. It only means he had been married at some time. However the whole question is completely irrelevant anyway. Earlier in the history of the Church married men were eligible to be bishops. Today they are not. This is a regulation of the Church governing its priesthood, not a doctrine of the faith. Any large organization has to make rules governing how it will be run, or there will be chaos; and the rules have to be changed as needs change. It is the same in Protestant churches, as well as non-religious organizations. So the fact that the rule is different now than it was 2,000 years ago has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus's appointing Simon Peter as universal shepherd of His Church.

"The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, but he is NOT the head of God's church"

A: Since you have been unable to offer any evidence suggesting that they are not one and the same, and I have offered ample evidence indicating that they ARE one and the same, the case rests.

"The New Testament CLEARLY, FREQUENTLY, and EMPHATICALLY teaches that CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. (Eph. 5:23; 1:22; Col. 1:18)"

A: Yes, it does, because the Catholic Church allowed that written document into the Bible at the time it compiled the book. It would not have done so unless that teaching was totally in agreement with Catholic teaching. A Vicar is an appointed representative of, not a replacement for, the Head.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 09, 2003.

I posted, "It is true that Christ built only one church, but it was NOT the Catholic Church."

To which Paul replied, "Well whatever it was, it must have a 2,000 year history, because that's when Christ founded His Church - 2,000 years ago. To identify His Church, start by making a list of all Churches with a 2,000 year history. All churches for which official documents can be produced dating from every century since the time of Christ. You won't need a large piece of paper. There is only one."

My reply: Just because a Church has a 2,00 year history does NOT mean that this is the TRUE church that Christ founded on the day of Pentecost. The SEED OF THE KINGDOM is the Word of God. (Luke 8:11). Whenever that SEED is planted in good and honest hearts, a child of God is born (when they obey the gospel). There is NO need for a so called 2,000 year Church history because the pattern for the church is located in the pages of the New Testament.

I posted, "The church that Jesus built belongs to Christ and NOT to the pope. Jesus said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). This shows that the church belongs to Christ."

To which Paul replied: "Yes! Obviously! Who else would it belong to? This same verse also reveals who Christ selected as the foundation upon which to build His Church - the Apostle Simon, whose name Christ had changed to "Rock" immediately before making the above statement."

My reply: It is interesting to note that if Peter is the "Rock" as Paul FALSELY asserts, then why is this NOT mentioned in any other passage in the entire New Testament??? It is also interesting to note that in other passages it is JESUS who is the "rock" and NOT Peter. (1 Cor. 10:4).

I posted, "All AUTHENTIC church history teaches that the Roman Catholic Church was not developed as we now have it until some centuries after Christ established his church."

To which Paul replied: "Pure nonsense. There is absolutely NO historical record, not a single line of text, revealing the presence of any Christian church on this planet except the Holy Catholic Church between the time of Christ and the Orthodox schism of the 11th century. Written historical records indicate that the Church founded by Christ was calling itself the Holy Catholic Church before the end of the 1st century. Written documents of the Holy Catholic Church exist from every successive century until the present day, and NO writings of - or about - any other Christian church exist from earlier than the 11th century. Obviously no documents relative to your tradition exist prior to the 16th century."

My reply: No, it is NOT pure nonsense as Paul asserts. If one can show that Peter was the true vicar of Christ on earth and the head of the church as the council of Florence decreed in 1439, one would still need to prove that his appointment was passed on to others. Roman Catholicism has a most difficult task to PROVE Peter was the first pope. Then, they have an even harder task to prove apostolic succession. It is difficult to show the chain before Boniface III. The early historians differ in their lists before Boniface III, who was given the title "universal pope". Before him, Pelgius II and Gregory the Great repudiated the title and position. Still, they are listed in the unbroken chain of succession.

If true, church tradition takes precedence over scripture. It isn't important to appeal to scripture for the doctrine of purgatory, sprinkling, incense, candles, images, holy water, prayers to Mary, etc. They clearly would not find it taught.

The TRUTH IS that six hundred years after Peter, a universal pope is ordained. (Boniface III). But, to give him power, he must then claim to have been in this long chain of command back to Peter. Like the Pharisees, they "worship him in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Mat. 15:7-9). I have tested the spirits and found them not of God (1 John 4:1; cf. Gal. 1:6-9, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

I posted, "The New Testament declares that the church Christ built is the "church of God," the "body of Christ," "the household of faith," etc. The New Testament NOWHERE MENTIONS the Catholic Church. Neither does it mention anything about the pope, who is the head of the Catholic Church."

To which Paul replied: "The Church described in the New Testament was a Church united in belief and worship, not fragmented by denominational chaos. The Catholic Church today is still the only place where that same unity of teaching can be found. Every biblical reference to "the Church" is a reference to the Holy Catholic Church, for history clearly reveals that there was NO other Church in existence at the time. The Bible doesn't mention the specific name "Catholic" for the same reason it doesn't mention the specific name "Trinity", or for that matter the specific term "Bible". Because the Catholic Church introduced these terms after the texts of the New Testament had been completed. So what? The Catholic Church didn't become the Church of Christ when it adopted that name. It had its identity from the time Christ founded it, and if it changed its name today it would still be the same one true Church founded by Jesus Christ for all men, with the same history, roots, and identity."

My reply: There is a reason the Catholic Church is NOT mentioned in Scripture because it is NOT the Church that Jesus built!!! Paul can dance all around and give you reasons such as "there is no mention of the specific name Trinity or Bible" but that does NOT change the fact that Catholic doctrines have NO basis in the New Testament.

I posted, "Anyone who knows what the Catholic Church is and what the New Testament teaches can know there is the WIDTH OF POLES between the Catholic Church and the church of Christ!!!"

To which Paul replied: "Anyone who knows what Protestantism is knows that there is a WIDTH OF POLES between what one denomination teaches and what another denomination teaches. Any thinking person recognizes that truth cannot contradict truth, and therefore MUST conclude that Protestantism is filled with error. It therefore cannot possibly qualify as the Church of Christ, since Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide HIS Church to ALL TRUTH, and that whatsoever His Church bound on earth is bound in heaven."

My reply: Please notice dear readers that Paul did NOT answer the question, and my post still STANDS that there is a WIDTH OF POLES between the Catholic Church and the church of Christ. The Apostles were guided into ALL truth (not the Church) and we have that truth WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament.

I posted, "It is a bold claim of the Catholic Church that Christ built his church upon Peter. This is FALSE and is abundantly DISPROVED by the New Testament. The Holy Spirit said through Paul, "So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone." (Eph. 2:19-20)."

To which Paul replied: "Amen! If Christ was not the cornerstone, then it would not have been nearly as significant when Christ, "the Rock", used that exact same expression in describing the Apostle Simon, telling him to his face, "Thou Art Rock". The meaning is obvious. Simon would stand in the place of Christ as His personal Vicar and representative, guiding and administrating His Church, protecting ti from error and denominationalism, not by any authority Simon himself possessed, but by the authority of "the Rock" Himself, Jesus Christ."

My reply: Jesus did NOT say "Thou Art Rock", this is another assertion by Paul with NO basis in the TRUTH. Jesus ACTUALLY said in Matt 16:18, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Please notice that Jesus said "thou art Peter" NOT "thou art Rock" as Paul FALSELY asserts. Peter is NOT the ROCK, it is JESUS who is the ROCK!!! I challenge you Paul to find another passage in the entire Old and New Testament which states that Peter is the "ROCK"!!!

I posted, "So CHRIST is the FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT ? NOT Peter."

To which Paul replied: "Sorry, but the clear words of Christ to Simon were: "THOU art Rock", not "I am Rock". "Thou" means "You" - Second person nominative - no other meaning. Christ identified Simon, and no other, as the Rock upon whom Christ would build His Church, and changed Simon's very name to "Rock" ("Peter") to emphasize the point He was making."

My reply: Sorry, Paul you do ERR, not speaking the TRUTH. Jesus specifically said, "thou art Peter" NOT "THOU art Rock" as you FALSELY assert. I do not know which Bible you are using, but the text "thou art rock" is NOT found in ANY reliable translation of the Word of God. The relationship between the name "Peter", and the term "rock", is the basis of the Catholic argument. The fact is, however, the Lord took deliberate pains to draw a clear contrast between Peter, and the "rock" to which He alluded.

Note these very important points: Petros (Peter) is a masculine gender noun; petra (rock) is a feminine form. The change in grammatical form is not incidental. Petros suggests a small rock, whereas petra indicates a boulder. The contrast is significant. Jesus employed the second person, su (you), in addressing Peter, but He changed to the third person, taute (this) when referring to the rock. In this narrative, the Lord uses the symbolism of the construction of a building to make His point. Within the illustration, Christ is the builder, the church is the edifice, and Peter's confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, is the foundational truth upon which the house of God was to be erected. The church of Jesus Christ was NOT founded upon Peter. Catholicism is a CORRUPTION of the primitive Christian system. It is a manifestation of that great DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH of which Paul warned. (See 2 Thes. 2:1ff; 1 Tim. 4:1ff).

I posted, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." (Matt. 16:18). The name Peter here means a stone, (John 1:42), and in the Greek it's in the masculine gender, Petros. "Upon this rock," as used by our Lord, contradicts the claims of the Catholic Church. Rock, as used here, is in the feminine gender, Petra. It refers to the foundation upon which Christ built his church. Petros, which means a stone, is one thing, and Petra, which means a ledge of rock, is another thing. Jesus did NOT say neither did He mean to say that his church would be built upon "a stone," but upon a solid "ledge of rock."

To which Paul replied: "Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic word for "Rock" is "Kepha" (from which we get the alternate form of Peter's name - Cephas). What Jesus actually said is "Thou are KEPHA, and upon this KEPHA I will build my Church". When these words of Jesus were translated into Greek, "Kepha" was translated directly into its Greek equivalent, the feminine singular noun "Petra", meaning, of course, "Rock". However, the translators faced one small problem. In Greek, a feminine noun may not be used as a man's name. Therefore, in the first usage in this sentence, where Jesus changes Simon's name, "Petra" is masculinized to "Petros". That is the ONLY reason why the spelling is different in the two appearences of this one word in this single sentence. We know there is no difference in meaning here, both from the fact that there was no difference in the original Aramaic, and from the fact that biblical/literary experts who have subsequantly translated the Bible from Greek into many other languages have universally recognized this grammatical quirk, and never translated the two words as having different meanings - because they don't. They are exactly the same word, with a masculine ending applied where required."

My reply: The FACT is, Matthew's Gospel record was written in Greek; and the Greek CLEARLY reflects a distinction between the masculine petros, and the feminine petra. So the argument stands.

I posted, "It's CLEAR from the context that Jesus, by using the term Petra, referred to the TRUTH that Peter had just CONFESSED, which was the DEITY OF JESUS. The truth that Jesus is the Son of God is the MOST FUNDAMENTAL and BASIC of ALL TRUTHS pertaining to man's redemption"

To which Paul replied: "If "Petra" in the second usage in this sentence did not refer to Simon the Aostle, then what possible reason could Jesus have had in changing Simon's name to "Petra" (masculinized form) earlier in the same sentence? Suppose a man is being promoted to the rank of admiral in the Navy. The Chief of Naval Operations tells him "you are now an admiral, and upon this admiral I am placing responsibility for the entire Pacific fleet". Who in their right mind would think that he is speaking of two different admirals here? In the same way, when Jesus tells SIMON to his face "YOU are Rock, and upon THIS Rock I will build my Church", how can there be any valid, reasonable, honest doubt that both references to "Rock" apply to one and the same person? To interpret otherwise is do do violence to the obvious meaning of the text."

My reply: While there is obviously a word play between "Peter" and "rock, " if Jesus intended to affirm clearly that Peter was to be the "foundation" of the church, he simply could have said "And upon you I will build my church". If this conversation between Christ and Peter was intended to establish the fact that the church was to be built upon the apostle himself (with the implication of successors as Catholics assert), it is strange indeed that Mark, who produced his Gospel record from the vantage point of Peter, totally omits the exchange (see Mk. 8:27-30).

I posted, "Peter was a married man. "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother lying sick of a fever." (Matt. 8:14). This passage also tells us that Jesus healed Peter's wife's mother. To the church at Corinth, Paul said, "Have we not a right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" (1 Cor. 9:5). Catholics deny the right of the pope to marry. Neither will they permit a cardinal, bishop or priest to marry."

To which Paul replied: "For the sake of accuracy, the fact that Simon Peter had a mother-in-law doesn't mean he was married at that time. It only means he had been married at some time. However the whole question is completely irrelevant anyway. Earlier in the history of the Church married men were eligible to be bishops. Today they are not. This is a regulation of the Church governing its priesthood, not a doctrine of the faith. Any large organization has to make rules governing how it will be run, or there will be chaos; and the rules have to be changed as needs change. It is the same in Protestant churches, as well as non-religious organizations. So the fact that the rule is different now than it was 2,000 years ago has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus's appointing Simon Peter as universal shepherd of His Church."

My reply: The FACT of the matter is that Peter WAS MARRIED for he was an ELDER (Bishop) in the church. In order to be an elder in the church, one MUST be married for 1 Tim. 3:2-5 states this as a FACT and also they MUST have CHILDREN. Verse 5 SPECIFICALLY states that if he cannot rule his own house well, then how will he take care of the church of God???

I posted, "The pope is the head of the Catholic Church, but he is NOT the head of God's church"

To which Paul replied: "Since you have been unable to offer any evidence suggesting that they are not one and the same, and I have offered ample evidence indicating that they ARE one and the same, the case rests."

My reply: There is NO biblical evidence that Peter was the first pope, NOR is there any biblical evidence that a successor of a pope was to be appointed to continue in the place of Peter. Your whole foundation of Catholicism FALLS down flat on its face for there is NO evidence that Peter was ever a pope.

I posted, "The New Testament CLEARLY, FREQUENTLY, and EMPHATICALLY teaches that CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH. (Eph. 5:23; 1:22; Col. 1:18)"

To which Paul replied: "Yes, it does, because the Catholic Church allowed that written document into the Bible at the time it compiled the book. It would not have done so unless that teaching was totally in agreement with Catholic teaching. A Vicar is an appointed representative of, not a replacement for, the Head."

My reply: Please tell everyone here Paul where there is EVER mentioned in the Word of God where a "Vicar" or "an appointed representative of" is ever mentioned in the Bible??? I challenge you Paul to provide book, chapter and verse in the New Testament where this so called "Vicar" is required???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 09, 2003.

Kevin fabricated, "Just because a Church has a 2,000 year history does NOT mean that this is the TRUE church that Christ founded on the day of Pentecost. The SEED OF THE KINGDOM is the Word of God. (Luke 8:11). Whenever that SEED is planted in good and honest hearts, a child of God is born (when they obey the gospel). There is NO need for a so called 2,000 year Church history because the pattern for the church is located in the pages of the New Testament."

What REASONABLE thing does your new extremist Baby "church" which sprouted this year ~ tripping here, there, and everywhere (not to mention defecating) ~ have to say against the Pillar and Foundation of Truth ~ The Ancient Rock ~ the 2000 year old Most Holy Catholic Church ~ who Wrote, Sifted, Identified, Assembled, Published, Correctly Interpreted, and Correctly Applied the Most Holy Catholic Bible given to humankind?

Who are you to malign the Sacred Erudite Teachings of Holy and Wise Men ~ which spanned Two Milleniums ~ AND Divinely Inspired by the Most Holy Spirit?

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

James,

Sorry, I didn't "fabricate" anything. Go back and re-read what Luke 8:11 says!!! Are you now going to say that God is FABRICATING???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 12, 2003.

Kevin,

Sorry, you fabricated many things. Go back and re-read the Entire Most Holy Catholic Bible and the Catechism of the Most Holy Catholic Church!!! Are you now going to say that you are NOT FABRICATING???

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

James,

If I am guilty of "fabricating" you have YET to prove that I am guilty of such from the word of God!!!

Where is your PROOF???

You are a MASTER of giving out assertions but severely LACKING in the PROVING department.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 13, 2003.

Kevin,

Your blatant lie that there is no Eucharist is a Great Fabrication. Tell that to Saint Peter and the Eleven and see how they will look at you with extreme indignation.

If you are not guilty of fabricating you have YET to prove that you are not guilty of such from the word of God!!!

Where is your PROOF???

You are a MASTER of giving out assertions but severely LACKING in the PROVING department.

The 2000 year history of the Most Holy Catholic Church proves that you are so wrong.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 tlls us about the last supper. Catholics call it the Eucharist. So it is in the Bible.

Did the bread and Wine turned into real flesh and real blood, that is another story we cannot prove from the Bible.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 15, 2003.

James,

My PROOF is in the word of God!!!

Your PROOF is NOT in the word of God!!!

There IS a BIG difference!!!

You CHOOSE to believe a lie, and I choose to believe what God has PLAINLY revealed in His word!!!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 15, 2003.

The Most Holy Catholic Church is the Greatest Enemy of the Most Horrendous Crime of Abortion.

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion." ~ Blessed Mother Teresa

My PROOF is in the Word of God ~ The Most Holy Catholic Bible!!!

Kevin, You have no proof whatsoever; you have a Grotesque Misinterpretation of The Most Holy Catholic Bible!!!

There IS a BIG difference!!!

"Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!" ~ Blessed Mother Teresa

Kevin, You CHOOSE to believe a lie, and I choose to believe what God has PLAINLY revealed in His word ~ The Most Holy Catholic Bible!!!!!

The Most Holy Pope is the Greatest Enemy of the Most Horrendous Crime of Abortion.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

What does "abortion" have ANYTHING to do with the topic we are discussing on this thread???

Even though we were NOT talking about "abortion", James still does NOT provide ANY biblical proof in his reply.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 20, 2003.

duuggh! The primary quote of this thread is, "The TRUE church of Christ would NEVER harm their neighbor." Abortion harms our neighbor. The Most Holy Catholic Church is the Greatest enemy of Abortion.

-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.

Abortion was NOT even brought up in this thread until James made a comment on November 20th.

Abortion has NOTHING to do with harming one's neighbor.

How about answering what is posted instead of bringing up something that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

The ISSUE being discussed was how the Catholic Church KILLED many heretics and this being true, they could NOT be the TRUE church of Christ.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 21, 2003.