it's a shame that you as a leader to a church give such a teaching...open your eyes..Simply John 3:16.. says it straight for everyone...Never does it include the Virgin Mary a way to the father...there is only one way..the 10 comendments.. you shall not have gods before me..what do you think that means...with these final note..according to your visions or dreams..please read 2 corinthians 11:13-15..have a good day
@23valluco Catholics do not believe that Mary is another way to the Father. Listening to non-Catholics trying to explain Catholic beliefs is almost comical to me.
I have done research and have come to know that many Christians of old were killed (burned at the stake) and tortured by the Roman Catholic church. I don't believe that jesus came to establish a religion but to gather followers and to Save ALL humanity not just some. The Bible says that no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him.
@javiramir7 From reading the Bible it is certain that Jesus established a Church while on Earth. Matt 16:18 "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Matt 18:15-17, Jesus gives authority to his Church and says that anyone who does not listen to its authority should be treated as an outsider to the community. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15. I agree Jesus came to save all, but if He established a church, shouldn't we be a part of it.
@100PercentCatholic Yes Jesus established a Church but not on Peter but on himself. He said "On This Rock" which is Jesus, the Rock of our salvation. He did not say to peter "On your rock". In Acts 8:39 the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip and went his way rejoicing and Philip saw him no more. Did Philip tell him to join the "Church" or he would be an outsider? No. The eunuch went his way rejoicing. Jesus said that the Kingdom is within you not in a man made building.
@100PercentCatholic And actually, it is jesus that is the pillar and foundation for the truth, because he is "The Way, The Truth and The Life" and no man can come to the father except by HIM. There is not mention of a church here. Jesus said to go and make disciples of all nations not to make them Catholic.
@javiramir7 You can't just pick and choose the passages from the Bible that you like and ignore the ones you don't. Please slowly read 1 Timothy 3:15 and tell me what it calls the pillar and foundation of truth.
@100PercentCatholic I am picking scriptures that I know and I know that I don't know everything. But I don't believe that 1 Tim 3:15 was talking about a single denomination or Great physical church. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit and where two or more are gathered in His name there he is in the midst of us....it could be a building, it could be the park or even a house.....All believers in Jesus are The Church of The Living God. I go by what the Holy Spirit teaches me.
@javiramir7 How can so many different Christians all claim that they go by what the Holy Spirit teaches them, yet all believe something different? Is the Holy Spirit confused? If all Christians are the Church and there are thousands of different denominations that believe something different, how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of truth as it is called in 1 Tim 3:15? Can you have more than one truth? Can 1+1 = 2 and 3? Can the same balloon be red and green?
@100PercentCatholic A Liberal Catholic Priest explained to me that God is not in competition with himself....that all denominations have this One central truth: Jesus is the Son of God. I do know that according to Scripture it is only God who chooses one to be His follower and to come to Jesus, John 6:44.
Jesus Christ assures all believers that he who believes in him has everlasting life : 47. Rom 10:9 also tells us how we can be saved and it is very simple.
@javiramir7 In John 17:22 Jesus prays that His followers would be one just as Jesus and the Father are one. Do you think that God the Father and God the Son only agree on one central truth and disagree on everything else. Matthew 4:4 Jesus says “It is written: One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God." It does not say only some words from God or only the essential words from God, but every word.
@100PercentCatholic That is why in the last days God sends his people the gift of Prophecy Joel 2:28-29. One thing that shows who really is a Christian is one who keeps the true Sabbath day (Saturday) and all the rest of the Ten commandments! Revelation 19:10 says that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. But the "Church" wants to quench this in people. Not too long from now, there will be a revival in the faith of Jesus:Daniel 12:3. Sunday is not the Sabbath!
@javiramir7 We'll that brings me back to my original question. If you say Sunday is not the Sabbath, you are going against what most Christians believe. Many claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit, yet believe that Sunday is now the Sabbath. So what makes your Holy Spirit right and everyone else's wrong?
@100PercentCatholic Ezekiel 22:26. It's a historical fact that the Roman Emperor instituted Sunday (The worship of the Sun god) as the sabbath when the Jewish and Christian believers held it on Saturday. Being a Sephardic Jew, my ancestors had escaped the oppression of the Roman Church and came to America. When Babylon The Great is Exposed, there will be a revival of the original Sabbath day.
@javiramir7 We know the early Christians were meeting on Sunday, the Lord's day (Acts 20:7). The question is did they have the authority to change the Sabbath to Sunday? Did Jesus not give his Church the power to bind and loose (Matt 16:19, 18:18)? What do these passages mean to you?
@100PercentCatholic That is a good point. It appears from the previous verse that the disciples were together for seven days and broke bread on the first day of the week. But I don't know if that means they instituted Sunday as their official day of gathering. I just see that it was a coincidence and that they observed the Sabbath day as well. What binding on earth and in Heaven means to me is to also take into account not :to tamper with the commandments. Dan 7:25.
@javiramir7 I agree that scripture does not explicitly say that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. But no where does scripture teach that everything must be explicitly stated in scripture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 it says, “Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” This "word of mouth" is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition, the faith of the apostles passed down from generation to generation.
@100PercentCatholic There are similarities between the early Christians way and the church that Emperor Constantine created in the 3rd century, but traditions of God are different than traditions of men. Nowhere in scripture does it say that we are to pray to Mary or the Saints and images of reverence is Idolatry. Even the Christmas tree goes way back to old testament times as an Idol. The Roman Church executed and tortured the Christians for their testimnony of Jesus. Foxes' Book Of Martyrs.
@javiramir7 “Nowhere in scripture does it say that we are to pray to Mary or the Saints.” Nowhere does scripture tell us that everything we need to know as Christians is explicitly stated in scripture. Can you show me the verse in the Bible that teaches that scripture ALONE is the sole rule of faith? As I said earlier, God’s word is passed down by “word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)
@100PercentCatholic I agree. That is why God gives his servants visions and prophetic knowledge. The key is: that it has to not contradict the previous words of God. Sir, Revelation 19:10 says that The testimony of jesus is the spirit of prophesy but Churches want to suppress this in people and say that only a pator, priest or the pope has the authority to prophesy. The Bible says otherwise. Not to sound arrogant but I have the gift of prophesy and have visions I can share!
@javiramir7 Sacred Tradition does not contradict Scripture. It may go against someone’s fallible interpretation. Also, the Church does not teach that only priest or the pope can prophesize. Prophecy is one of many gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:10). I went to a Charismatic Conference a few months ago where many people who were not priests were sharing visions that they had. Please share your visions if you would like.
@100PercentCatholic The first vision was when I was 3 yrs old. One day I went to the living room window to look outside for God and Jesus. There appeared a white cloud and the Father and the Son appeared, standing, Jesus on his right side! After looking for 5 seconds it was so powerful that it took my breath and I looked away giggling full of joy. They were spreading their arms out and smiling with great Joy! I saw their faces, the color of their hair and clothing they wore.
@100PercentCatholic The Father had pure white hair, beard and moustache/hair not too long. A pure white robe and was very bright. The Son had Brown straight hair, not long, a well kept beard and moustache. He wore a Crimson red robe with a long cloth wrapped around him, can't remember what color it was, maybe white? He wasn't as bright as the Father, but brilliant and majestic looking! Jesus does not look like the usual pictures we see, he looks better and stronger.
@100PercentCatholic A year or two later, God The Father showed up in a dream, standing with his back turned and arms stretched out. I was laying in the grass as he was showing me all of his creation. I was in deep awe!
more errors. the essentials brought up are not the essentials of the faith although they are moral beliefs. i never once heard anything about; the deity of Christ, a literal resurrection, the trinity....those are absolutes, baptism in the holy spirit.....and yes the catholic church did invent all of what he said they invented. church fathers do not agree with the roman catholic church, as much as you would want them to. catholicism has perverted the gospel and has a false gospel. it wont save...
@ContendingEarnestly Catholicism has perverted the gospel? Who do you think compiled the books in the New Testament? The bible is a Catholic book. How could you believe the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to decide what books the bible contained, but does not guide it today to exactly where Jesus wants it to be.
@100PercentCatholic that the rcc compiled the N.T. is simply a canard. if your main premise is faulty, your conclusion is faulty. And, the number of epistles or specific books collected into the canon is irrelevant. The video is still laden with errors. The fact is the rcc has a false gospel. it falters in a number of places but just for starters, both recent marian dogmas are necessary for your salvation, just read them. your eternal destination is determined by what you believe about mary! ...
@100PercentCatholic ...continued. salvation is by Jesus and Him alone. If mary is necessary one tinyest bit, that is a false gospel. scripture is clear that belief in Jesus and in Him alone is there salvation.
@ContendingEarnestly A Catholic's relationship with Mary, along with Papal Infallibility, are probably the two most misunderstood things by non-Catholics. Jesus said no one comes to the Father but by me, and I think non-Catholics believe that by praying to Mary we are trying to bypass Jesus or something. That's not it. She is just an intercessor. We don't worship her. BTW, what is your opinion of the numerous Mary appearances, such as the miracle of Fatima, witnessed by 70,000+ people.
@100PercentCatholic i don't misunderstand either, they are both unbiblical. the marian dogmas of the immaculate conception and assumption are both necessary for salvation. popes pius IX and XII, condemn, anathematise and excommunicate all who reject those teachings. Pius IX says you've shipwrecked your faith and Pius XII says you incur the wrath of God. Gods children do not incur His wrath...you've lost your salvation cuz of what you believe about mary....cont
@100PercentCatholic cont...and i'm not talking about catholics 'just' praying to mary. just read Liguori or De montfort and what they teach is light years beyond simply praying. and i haven't seen the rcc come out and censor or backoff on liguori's 'the glories of mary'..in fact it is still sold in catholic bookstores. I have a copy of my own. No, this is not simply praying or verneration, its worship pure and simple. I know people who have consecrated themselves to mary, making them her slave..
"Given how corrupt the catholic church was throughout history how can we trust it"
That is a valid question which the majority of Protestants I have run across do not ask.
The Protestants I have run across simply want to say exactly what Dr. Ray Guarendi said about the minister; "Read the bible with guidance from the HS and then agree with me".
I could also ask the question, why believe any apostle since they were sinners as well? Did Peter, Judas and Thomas sin? Paul?
@ContendingEarnestly hahahahaha this guy contending earnestly is hilarious hahaha false gospel?! hahahahhaha hey do me a favor as your 1st lesson. go to the encylopedia britanica (its the only allowed encylopedia in court of law) type in roman catholic church and see who started it. then type in yours haha i guarentee a human started yours. and doubt the encylopedia britanica is a partisan catholic book haha. its just historical fact the bible is a catholic book, martin luther took what he
@ContendingEarnestly what he wanted and what he didn't want and before he died there were 40 different groups and he said 'what have i done' .. your ancestors were catholic believe it or not. if you look up history and do it with open mind & honesty you'll find this out. if you're up to the challenge. remember this if you make it to heaven you'll be catholic up there b/c there is ONE church HE created. fact. historically accurate
@onearmsteve4192 lots of catholic rhetoric and propaganda. if you keep saying these things to yourself enough you'll believe it. so tell me, what was it luther didn't want? and as far as encylopedia b goes...who cares? it isn't any more infallibe than your popes or magisterium are.
@ContendingEarnestly so historical fact is rhetoric & propaganda? haha you sound like a libtard progressive. the 7 books he removed many many centuries later are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), & Baruch. Bibles also include an additional 6 chapters (107 verses) in Esther & 3 chapters (174 verses) in Daniel.
@ContendingEarnestly By the time of the Protestant Reformation which started in 1517, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
@onearmsteve4192 A number of errors here. But my question is; can you show 'how' or by what vehicle Luther removed these books. And your own say so doesn't count. Have any historical data you care to present? And, a number of early church fathers tell us very clearly that they do not recognize various books of the apocrapha as inspired. Usefull for reading, yes. Inspired as part of the canon, no.
@ContendingEarnestly The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
@onearmsteve4192 I never made any such declaration or comparison. your entire diatribe is based on a straw man- have fun with that. the papacy is unbiblical because it can't be found in scripture, it has nothing to do with impeccability. it simply isn't there. nice diversion though.
@ContendingEarnestly Actually, there are many texts that point to the papacy, and there are three passages in the Gospels that are highly relevant. It is worth noting how the apostle Peter is treated in some other texts, ones that might easily be overlooked. For example, have you ever noticed that in all the lists of the apostles in the Gospels, Peter is always mentioned first (cf. Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19)?
@onearmsteve4192 There are no texts that point to the papacy. If there were, you wouldn't dodge the issue by presenting 'lists'. Here are some other 'lists' since you brought them up; As 'pope' we would expect certain things to have happened after the resurrection of Jesus. i.e. Peter's primacy...these verses mention Peter, but not first. Whats that supposed to mean; 1Cor 1:12, 1Cor 3:22, 1Cor 9:5, Gal 2:9. He calls himself a 'fellow elder' 1 Peter 5:1. No one calls him holy father, pope, or...
@ContendingEarnestly don't see how i 'dodged' issue by speaking of it haha. It may not seem to in and of itself. But when you combine this apparently insignificant detail with Matthew 16:13–20, it takes on a deeper meaning. It suggests that the primacy of Peter among the apostles was being taught also by the order in the lists of the apostles. You’re reading Scripture in an either/or fashion. Why can it not be both/and?
@onearmsteve4192 you said there are 'many texts' pointing to the papacy, then proceded to give lists? not really on target there. a list which has little to no meaning has nothing to do with makng Peter pope. There was an inner circle; Peter, James and John, not just Peter. Peter has zero primacy in the N.T. he is a fellow elder, his own words. youre reading way too much into this. and Matt 16 has nothing to do with Peter, the context is Jesus plain and simple.
@ContendingEarnestly yep many texts .. more to come with more of your questions .. enjoy latest post to answer your latest questions. by the way i'm not reading way too much into this you are simply have taken His words out of context. Not your fault though its probably yrs of protestant errors you've heard
@ContendingEarnestly Can’t it be true that the content of Peter’s profession of Christ is the doctrinal foundation of the Church, while Peter himself is the governmental foundation? Or better, why can’t we see Christ as the cornerstone of the Church, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:20, and that this one foundation has doctrinal and governmental manifestations? by the way yes nobody said the word 'pope' 'holy father' probably b/c there wasn't a word yet. but the word bishop was there and pope is
@onearmsteve4192 To your first question, no. Peters confession is what adds people to the church, realizing who Jesus is and commiting yourself to Him. The church is built on and by Jesus Christ, no one else. Eph 2 is a good text. since Christ is the cornerstone and the apostles (plural) form the foundation, where is Peter singled out there? And yes 'Holy Father is used in Jn 17, father is a common greek word. if the Holy Spirit had intended to use these terms for Peter, He would have. He didn't
@onearmsteve4192 ...con't; vicar of Christ. Paul dresses him down in Antioch. Peter was responsible for leading the church astray there. Paul was responsible for protecting the church. Peter wrote 2 epistles, Paul 13, 14 if we count Hebrews. Peters name is mentioned 58 times from Acts on, Paul 156 times. See, lists are easy. No one submitted to Peter, he never headed the church in rome and after Acts 15 hes barely heard from again. You've been led astray , repent and turn to the true Jesus!
@ContendingEarnestly so in your argument is it a popularity contest w/ who wrote more? Peter identifies Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). In turn, Jesus identifies Peter as the rock on which the church is built. The rest of the passage would not make sense if Peter is not being identified as the rock. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: "I will give to you [soi] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you
@onearmsteve4192 you brought up the lists, i just added my own for the sake of the argument. No, Jesus talks to Peter about the rock, which is Jesus Himself. do a study of the O.T. and N.T. Jesus as rock appears over and over. It's Jesus! and Matt 16:19 says 'i will give', He didn't at that time. the parsing is future and the keys were given to all. and btw, the keys is the gospel itself. if you hear the gospel and receive it, you are loosed from your sins. disbelieve, you are still bound by sin
@ContendingEarnestly so how do you explain the fact that Jesus directly addresses St Peter 7 times in this short passage of Matt 16:17-19? Doesn't makes any sense that He would address everything to St Peter & then say 'By the way I'm building the Church on Me." the context seems pretty clear that Jesus gave authority to St Peter, naming him the rock." "you are Peter, & on taute petra' (taute petra= this very rock in greek) "i will build My Chruch'. Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used w/
@ContendingEarnestly the Greek word for 'and' which is 'kai', the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church' the 2nd rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the 1st one. Peter is the rock in both cases. Jesus could have gotten around it if He'd wanted to. He didn't have to say, "and (kai), on this rock I will build My Church' He could've said "but (alla) on this rock I will build My Church" meaning
@onearmsteve4192 The context of Matt 16, the text we are discussing is Jesus, not Peter. Jesus does not say, 'you are Peter and upon you I will build my church'. He says upon this rock. The rock in question has been and always will be Jesus. It is the confession Peter gave which when believed saves the person and God adds them to the church. Peter is simply one of the apostles who collectivly laid the foundation, Christ being the cornerstone.
@ContendingEarnestly actually you have misinterpreted that. Jesus IS talking to Peter. It doesn't look like you read anything from my previous post. Go re-read. Again, Jesus directly addresses St Peter 7 times in this short passage. It doesn't make any sense that He would address everything to St Peter & then say "By the way I'm building the Church on Me' the context seems pretty clear that Jesus gave authority to St Peter naming him the rock.
@onearmsteve4192 the context of the bible is Jesus! remember the disciples on the road to emmaus? It's Peter's confession which adds people to the kingdom of God, not Peter. Peter as a human being adds anyone to the church how? It's Jesus, pure and simple. too much evidence for such a short space so you'll have to dig that out yourself. and Jesus called Simon, Peter way back in Jn 1:42 i believe. Long before Matt 16 would have come around.
@ContendingEarnestly "You are rock, & on this rock I will build My Church" seems pretty crystal clear to me. See again my Greek translations above it is apparent you didn't read that. Here's even a stronger case that can be made for Christ meaning Peter was the rock on which He would build His Church. When Jesus gave Simon the name 'Rock', we know it was originally given in Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew, & the language that Jesus & the apostles spoke. & the Aramaic word for rock is kepha
@onearmsteve4192 thats an old excuse. the earliest translations of Matthew we have today are in greek, not aramaic. and since koine greek was the merchants/trade language it would have been well known to Jesus and the disciples. and in greek petra and petros are not the same thing. interesting the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write in greek and not aramaic, isn't it? Jesus is talknig to Peter about the rock, not that he is the rock.
@ContendingEarnestly noticed i gave you the greek translations way before i mention aramaic. i brought in aramaic to better prove my argument and strengthen it. You're non intellect fails to notice this and just keeps arguing for the sake of arguing. How is this an old excuse? hahah historical facts are old excuses now? Fact Christ spoke Aramaic. Fact the Bible was translated into Greek. Fact it was later translated into Latin by St Jerome b/c Latin was the language of the 'poor'
@ContendingEarnestly This is transliterated in Greek as Cephas or Kephas, & translated as Petros. In Aramaic, nouns do not have gender as they do in Greek so Jesus actually said & St Matthew 1st recorded, "You are Kephas & on this kephas I will build My Church." Clearly Peter is the same rock both times. In John 1:42 "Jesus looked at Sion and said, "So, you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter).
@onearmsteve4192 the aramaic is a rabbit trail. why not stick with what the text was actually written in? also, just a cursory review of the N.T. reveals Peter not doing a whole lot of anything, cept getting chewed out at Antioch and writing a couple of letters. he takes no major role, no one bows down to him or bestows any of the lavish tiltes your church does its current pope. if anything he learned humility and kept busy for the Lord. He has a great reward awaiting him, but pope? nope.
@ContendingEarnestly aramaic is a rabbit trail hahaha so i have now shown you greek translation AND aramaic translation but you still refuse to learn or listen. If anyone else views this communication they will say 'man that Contending earnestly guy just argues for the sake of arguing. he won't do his own research or learn from the lesson being given but just arguing nonsense'. I can't make it any simpler for you, sir. If you won't listen why should I continue
@ContendingEarnestly I'm assuming that last part you wrote 'if you hear the gospel & receive it, you are loosed from your sins' you are buying into that 'sola scripture' thing? What if I told you that is another false comment. Works must be used as well.
@onearmsteve4192 another straw man. i didn't say anything about ss. the gospel is the power of God to salvation for all who believe...Rom 1:16. So, yes when someone hears the gospel and believes, they are loosed from their sins. When they hear and reject, they are still bound by their sins.
@ContendingEarnestly actually through reconciliation you are loosed from your sins. hence when Christ breathed on his disciples and said "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). not by faith alone. works is needed or why have commandments
@onearmsteve4192 No, it isn't through reconciliation. thats an anachornism you just threw in there. the bible knows nothing of auricular confession. No-one details every minute sin which is then absolved by a sacramental priest...has not happened one time in scripture. youre reading what you believe into scripture. the Father sent Jesus to ''seek and save that which was lost' Luke 19:10, to be our propitiation, be a ransom for many. this is the gospel, believe and be saved. reject and be damned.
@ContendingEarnestly so Jesus's own words are me 'reading what I believe into scripture" haha and you got authority or clearance for that assumption where? yourself? or did you go to a church to get the correct interpretation? Tell Jesus I'm reading too much into his direct quote. ahhahaha.
@ContendingEarnestly bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."If Jesus did not mean that Peter was to be the rock, then why would he give him the keys of the kingdom?The Greek pronoun soi is singular referring only to Peter. The power of the keys is given to Peter alone in this passage. The phrase about binding and loosing connotes jurisdiction, not just a primacy of example or honor.
@ContendingEarnestly again The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.
Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether.
this is a historical fact if you want to look it up further
@onearmsteve4192 the fact is this. luther finished his translation of the n.t. in 1522 and it contained all of the books we currently have. he finished the o.t. in 1534 and it contained all books of the old testament including the apocrapha. his final edition 1545 a year before he died contained all n.t. books as well as all o.t. books including the apocrapha. so where did he remove anything? thats your burden to show, which to this point you haven't. sorry for the delay, been sick.
@ContendingEarnestly hope you're feeling better. you should have looked up history while you were down before you asked 'where di he remove anything' haha. the Catholic Bible has 73 books whereas Luther's has 66 so who took them out? gee must been Luther. its NOT my burden to show its your burden to do research on your own. Not hard to find out. in your thinking the Church had it wrong up until Luther came around and he himself edited the Bible?
@onearmsteve4192 sticking your head in the sand isn't going to cause your problems to disappear. luthers first edition of his bible 1534 has every book of the bible you possess today. 27 in the N.T. and all O.T. books including the apocrapha. closing your eyes and plugging your ears while yelling 66 isn't going to change the fact that luther's blble has all the books you recognize today. if you think they've been removed, that is your burden to prove not mine. so far you've shown me zilch.
@ContendingEarnestly the 7 books he removed that are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), & Baruch. Bibles also include an additional 6 chapters (107 verses) in Esther & 3 chapters (174 verses) in Daniel. all those are in his version and the original Catholic version .. is that what I am hearing from you? did you look this up for fact or you just typing words? no sir i have shown you plenty. you refuse to view facts
@ContendingEarnestly There are few things more central to Christianity than the Bible. Yet how do we know which books should be included? No book of the Bible ever lists the other books. For Catholics, assurance lies in the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church throughout Christian history. The Council of Rome in 382, under Pope Damasus, first listed the Old and New Testament books as Catholics know them today.
@ContendingEarnestly This list of books was formalized at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, before the removal of seven Old Testament books by the Protestant reformers
@onearmsteve4192 the first dogmatic pronouncement on the canon wasn't till 1546 at trent. and again you keep offering roman catholic propaganda in lieu of evidence.
@ContendingEarnestly Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.
@ContendingEarnestly We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18)
it's a shame that you as a leader to a church give such a teaching...open your eyes..Simply John 3:16.. says it straight for everyone...Never does it include the Virgin Mary a way to the father...there is only one way..the 10 comendments.. you shall not have gods before me..what do you think that means...with these final note..according to your visions or dreams..please read 2 corinthians 11:13-15..have a good day
23valluco 2 weeks ago
@23valluco Catholics do not believe that Mary is another way to the Father. Listening to non-Catholics trying to explain Catholic beliefs is almost comical to me.
100PercentCatholic 2 weeks ago
I have done research and have come to know that many Christians of old were killed (burned at the stake) and tortured by the Roman Catholic church. I don't believe that jesus came to establish a religion but to gather followers and to Save ALL humanity not just some. The Bible says that no one can come to the Father unless the Father draws him.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 From reading the Bible it is certain that Jesus established a Church while on Earth. Matt 16:18 "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Matt 18:15-17, Jesus gives authority to his Church and says that anyone who does not listen to its authority should be treated as an outsider to the community. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth in 1 Timothy 3:15. I agree Jesus came to save all, but if He established a church, shouldn't we be a part of it.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic Yes Jesus established a Church but not on Peter but on himself. He said "On This Rock" which is Jesus, the Rock of our salvation. He did not say to peter "On your rock". In Acts 8:39 the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized by Philip and went his way rejoicing and Philip saw him no more. Did Philip tell him to join the "Church" or he would be an outsider? No. The eunuch went his way rejoicing. Jesus said that the Kingdom is within you not in a man made building.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic And actually, it is jesus that is the pillar and foundation for the truth, because he is "The Way, The Truth and The Life" and no man can come to the father except by HIM. There is not mention of a church here. Jesus said to go and make disciples of all nations not to make them Catholic.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 You can't just pick and choose the passages from the Bible that you like and ignore the ones you don't. Please slowly read 1 Timothy 3:15 and tell me what it calls the pillar and foundation of truth.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic I am picking scriptures that I know and I know that I don't know everything. But I don't believe that 1 Tim 3:15 was talking about a single denomination or Great physical church. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit and where two or more are gathered in His name there he is in the midst of us....it could be a building, it could be the park or even a house.....All believers in Jesus are The Church of The Living God. I go by what the Holy Spirit teaches me.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 How can so many different Christians all claim that they go by what the Holy Spirit teaches them, yet all believe something different? Is the Holy Spirit confused? If all Christians are the Church and there are thousands of different denominations that believe something different, how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of truth as it is called in 1 Tim 3:15? Can you have more than one truth? Can 1+1 = 2 and 3? Can the same balloon be red and green?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic A Liberal Catholic Priest explained to me that God is not in competition with himself....that all denominations have this One central truth: Jesus is the Son of God. I do know that according to Scripture it is only God who chooses one to be His follower and to come to Jesus, John 6:44.
Jesus Christ assures all believers that he who believes in him has everlasting life : 47. Rom 10:9 also tells us how we can be saved and it is very simple.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 In John 17:22 Jesus prays that His followers would be one just as Jesus and the Father are one. Do you think that God the Father and God the Son only agree on one central truth and disagree on everything else. Matthew 4:4 Jesus says “It is written: One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God." It does not say only some words from God or only the essential words from God, but every word.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic That is why in the last days God sends his people the gift of Prophecy Joel 2:28-29. One thing that shows who really is a Christian is one who keeps the true Sabbath day (Saturday) and all the rest of the Ten commandments! Revelation 19:10 says that the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. But the "Church" wants to quench this in people. Not too long from now, there will be a revival in the faith of Jesus:Daniel 12:3. Sunday is not the Sabbath!
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 We'll that brings me back to my original question. If you say Sunday is not the Sabbath, you are going against what most Christians believe. Many claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit, yet believe that Sunday is now the Sabbath. So what makes your Holy Spirit right and everyone else's wrong?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic Ezekiel 22:26. It's a historical fact that the Roman Emperor instituted Sunday (The worship of the Sun god) as the sabbath when the Jewish and Christian believers held it on Saturday. Being a Sephardic Jew, my ancestors had escaped the oppression of the Roman Church and came to America. When Babylon The Great is Exposed, there will be a revival of the original Sabbath day.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 We know the early Christians were meeting on Sunday, the Lord's day (Acts 20:7). The question is did they have the authority to change the Sabbath to Sunday? Did Jesus not give his Church the power to bind and loose (Matt 16:19, 18:18)? What do these passages mean to you?
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic That is a good point. It appears from the previous verse that the disciples were together for seven days and broke bread on the first day of the week. But I don't know if that means they instituted Sunday as their official day of gathering. I just see that it was a coincidence and that they observed the Sabbath day as well. What binding on earth and in Heaven means to me is to also take into account not :to tamper with the commandments. Dan 7:25.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 I agree that scripture does not explicitly say that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. But no where does scripture teach that everything must be explicitly stated in scripture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 it says, “Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” This "word of mouth" is what Catholics call Sacred Tradition, the faith of the apostles passed down from generation to generation.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic There are similarities between the early Christians way and the church that Emperor Constantine created in the 3rd century, but traditions of God are different than traditions of men. Nowhere in scripture does it say that we are to pray to Mary or the Saints and images of reverence is Idolatry. Even the Christmas tree goes way back to old testament times as an Idol. The Roman Church executed and tortured the Christians for their testimnony of Jesus. Foxes' Book Of Martyrs.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 “Nowhere in scripture does it say that we are to pray to Mary or the Saints.” Nowhere does scripture tell us that everything we need to know as Christians is explicitly stated in scripture. Can you show me the verse in the Bible that teaches that scripture ALONE is the sole rule of faith? As I said earlier, God’s word is passed down by “word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic I agree. That is why God gives his servants visions and prophetic knowledge. The key is: that it has to not contradict the previous words of God. Sir, Revelation 19:10 says that The testimony of jesus is the spirit of prophesy but Churches want to suppress this in people and say that only a pator, priest or the pope has the authority to prophesy. The Bible says otherwise. Not to sound arrogant but I have the gift of prophesy and have visions I can share!
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 Sacred Tradition does not contradict Scripture. It may go against someone’s fallible interpretation. Also, the Church does not teach that only priest or the pope can prophesize. Prophecy is one of many gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:10). I went to a Charismatic Conference a few months ago where many people who were not priests were sharing visions that they had. Please share your visions if you would like.
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic The first vision was when I was 3 yrs old. One day I went to the living room window to look outside for God and Jesus. There appeared a white cloud and the Father and the Son appeared, standing, Jesus on his right side! After looking for 5 seconds it was so powerful that it took my breath and I looked away giggling full of joy. They were spreading their arms out and smiling with great Joy! I saw their faces, the color of their hair and clothing they wore.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic The Father had pure white hair, beard and moustache/hair not too long. A pure white robe and was very bright. The Son had Brown straight hair, not long, a well kept beard and moustache. He wore a Crimson red robe with a long cloth wrapped around him, can't remember what color it was, maybe white? He wasn't as bright as the Father, but brilliant and majestic looking! Jesus does not look like the usual pictures we see, he looks better and stronger.
javiramir7 4 months ago
@javiramir7 Wow, that's awesome!
100PercentCatholic 4 months ago
@100PercentCatholic A year or two later, God The Father showed up in a dream, standing with his back turned and arms stretched out. I was laying in the grass as he was showing me all of his creation. I was in deep awe!
javiramir7 4 months ago
religion is a matter of opinion if it wasn't then y are there so many protestant churches with different beliefs??
peacemaker20000 11 months ago
excelent video! I am glad to be Catholic!
willthacheerleader18 1 year ago
more errors. the essentials brought up are not the essentials of the faith although they are moral beliefs. i never once heard anything about; the deity of Christ, a literal resurrection, the trinity....those are absolutes, baptism in the holy spirit.....and yes the catholic church did invent all of what he said they invented. church fathers do not agree with the roman catholic church, as much as you would want them to. catholicism has perverted the gospel and has a false gospel. it wont save...
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly Catholicism has perverted the gospel? Who do you think compiled the books in the New Testament? The bible is a Catholic book. How could you believe the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to decide what books the bible contained, but does not guide it today to exactly where Jesus wants it to be.
100PercentCatholic 1 year ago 9
@100PercentCatholic that the rcc compiled the N.T. is simply a canard. if your main premise is faulty, your conclusion is faulty. And, the number of epistles or specific books collected into the canon is irrelevant. The video is still laden with errors. The fact is the rcc has a false gospel. it falters in a number of places but just for starters, both recent marian dogmas are necessary for your salvation, just read them. your eternal destination is determined by what you believe about mary! ...
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@100PercentCatholic ...continued. salvation is by Jesus and Him alone. If mary is necessary one tinyest bit, that is a false gospel. scripture is clear that belief in Jesus and in Him alone is there salvation.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly A Catholic's relationship with Mary, along with Papal Infallibility, are probably the two most misunderstood things by non-Catholics. Jesus said no one comes to the Father but by me, and I think non-Catholics believe that by praying to Mary we are trying to bypass Jesus or something. That's not it. She is just an intercessor. We don't worship her. BTW, what is your opinion of the numerous Mary appearances, such as the miracle of Fatima, witnessed by 70,000+ people.
100PercentCatholic 1 year ago 9
@100PercentCatholic i don't misunderstand either, they are both unbiblical. the marian dogmas of the immaculate conception and assumption are both necessary for salvation. popes pius IX and XII, condemn, anathematise and excommunicate all who reject those teachings. Pius IX says you've shipwrecked your faith and Pius XII says you incur the wrath of God. Gods children do not incur His wrath...you've lost your salvation cuz of what you believe about mary....cont
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@100PercentCatholic cont...and i'm not talking about catholics 'just' praying to mary. just read Liguori or De montfort and what they teach is light years beyond simply praying. and i haven't seen the rcc come out and censor or backoff on liguori's 'the glories of mary'..in fact it is still sold in catholic bookstores. I have a copy of my own. No, this is not simply praying or verneration, its worship pure and simple. I know people who have consecrated themselves to mary, making them her slave..
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@100PercentCatholic Who do you think compiled the books in the New Testament?"
True which is why it's even more untrustworthy. Given how corrupt the catholic church was throughout history how can we trust it
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84
"Given how corrupt the catholic church was throughout history how can we trust it"
That is a valid question which the majority of Protestants I have run across do not ask.
The Protestants I have run across simply want to say exactly what Dr. Ray Guarendi said about the minister; "Read the bible with guidance from the HS and then agree with me".
I could also ask the question, why believe any apostle since they were sinners as well? Did Peter, Judas and Thomas sin? Paul?
MrChristianBeliever 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly hahahahaha this guy contending earnestly is hilarious hahaha false gospel?! hahahahhaha hey do me a favor as your 1st lesson. go to the encylopedia britanica (its the only allowed encylopedia in court of law) type in roman catholic church and see who started it. then type in yours haha i guarentee a human started yours. and doubt the encylopedia britanica is a partisan catholic book haha. its just historical fact the bible is a catholic book, martin luther took what he
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly what he wanted and what he didn't want and before he died there were 40 different groups and he said 'what have i done' .. your ancestors were catholic believe it or not. if you look up history and do it with open mind & honesty you'll find this out. if you're up to the challenge. remember this if you make it to heaven you'll be catholic up there b/c there is ONE church HE created. fact. historically accurate
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 lots of catholic rhetoric and propaganda. if you keep saying these things to yourself enough you'll believe it. so tell me, what was it luther didn't want? and as far as encylopedia b goes...who cares? it isn't any more infallibe than your popes or magisterium are.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly so historical fact is rhetoric & propaganda? haha you sound like a libtard progressive. the 7 books he removed many many centuries later are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), & Baruch. Bibles also include an additional 6 chapters (107 verses) in Esther & 3 chapters (174 verses) in Daniel.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 'books he removed many centuries later'? whats that supposed to mean? when did he remove them?
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly By the time of the Protestant Reformation which started in 1517, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)--and thus considering them inspired--for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 A number of errors here. But my question is; can you show 'how' or by what vehicle Luther removed these books. And your own say so doesn't count. Have any historical data you care to present? And, a number of early church fathers tell us very clearly that they do not recognize various books of the apocrapha as inspired. Usefull for reading, yes. Inspired as part of the canon, no.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 I never made any such declaration or comparison. your entire diatribe is based on a straw man- have fun with that. the papacy is unbiblical because it can't be found in scripture, it has nothing to do with impeccability. it simply isn't there. nice diversion though.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly Actually, there are many texts that point to the papacy, and there are three passages in the Gospels that are highly relevant. It is worth noting how the apostle Peter is treated in some other texts, ones that might easily be overlooked. For example, have you ever noticed that in all the lists of the apostles in the Gospels, Peter is always mentioned first (cf. Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19)?
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 There are no texts that point to the papacy. If there were, you wouldn't dodge the issue by presenting 'lists'. Here are some other 'lists' since you brought them up; As 'pope' we would expect certain things to have happened after the resurrection of Jesus. i.e. Peter's primacy...these verses mention Peter, but not first. Whats that supposed to mean; 1Cor 1:12, 1Cor 3:22, 1Cor 9:5, Gal 2:9. He calls himself a 'fellow elder' 1 Peter 5:1. No one calls him holy father, pope, or...
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly don't see how i 'dodged' issue by speaking of it haha. It may not seem to in and of itself. But when you combine this apparently insignificant detail with Matthew 16:13–20, it takes on a deeper meaning. It suggests that the primacy of Peter among the apostles was being taught also by the order in the lists of the apostles. You’re reading Scripture in an either/or fashion. Why can it not be both/and?
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 you said there are 'many texts' pointing to the papacy, then proceded to give lists? not really on target there. a list which has little to no meaning has nothing to do with makng Peter pope. There was an inner circle; Peter, James and John, not just Peter. Peter has zero primacy in the N.T. he is a fellow elder, his own words. youre reading way too much into this. and Matt 16 has nothing to do with Peter, the context is Jesus plain and simple.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly yep many texts .. more to come with more of your questions .. enjoy latest post to answer your latest questions. by the way i'm not reading way too much into this you are simply have taken His words out of context. Not your fault though its probably yrs of protestant errors you've heard
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly Can’t it be true that the content of Peter’s profession of Christ is the doctrinal foundation of the Church, while Peter himself is the governmental foundation? Or better, why can’t we see Christ as the cornerstone of the Church, as Paul says in Ephesians 2:20, and that this one foundation has doctrinal and governmental manifestations? by the way yes nobody said the word 'pope' 'holy father' probably b/c there wasn't a word yet. but the word bishop was there and pope is
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 To your first question, no. Peters confession is what adds people to the church, realizing who Jesus is and commiting yourself to Him. The church is built on and by Jesus Christ, no one else. Eph 2 is a good text. since Christ is the cornerstone and the apostles (plural) form the foundation, where is Peter singled out there? And yes 'Holy Father is used in Jn 17, father is a common greek word. if the Holy Spirit had intended to use these terms for Peter, He would have. He didn't
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly the bishop of Rome.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 ...con't; vicar of Christ. Paul dresses him down in Antioch. Peter was responsible for leading the church astray there. Paul was responsible for protecting the church. Peter wrote 2 epistles, Paul 13, 14 if we count Hebrews. Peters name is mentioned 58 times from Acts on, Paul 156 times. See, lists are easy. No one submitted to Peter, he never headed the church in rome and after Acts 15 hes barely heard from again. You've been led astray , repent and turn to the true Jesus!
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly so in your argument is it a popularity contest w/ who wrote more? Peter identifies Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). In turn, Jesus identifies Peter as the rock on which the church is built. The rest of the passage would not make sense if Peter is not being identified as the rock. In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: "I will give to you [soi] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 you brought up the lists, i just added my own for the sake of the argument. No, Jesus talks to Peter about the rock, which is Jesus Himself. do a study of the O.T. and N.T. Jesus as rock appears over and over. It's Jesus! and Matt 16:19 says 'i will give', He didn't at that time. the parsing is future and the keys were given to all. and btw, the keys is the gospel itself. if you hear the gospel and receive it, you are loosed from your sins. disbelieve, you are still bound by sin
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
Comment removed
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly so how do you explain the fact that Jesus directly addresses St Peter 7 times in this short passage of Matt 16:17-19? Doesn't makes any sense that He would address everything to St Peter & then say 'By the way I'm building the Church on Me." the context seems pretty clear that Jesus gave authority to St Peter, naming him the rock." "you are Peter, & on taute petra' (taute petra= this very rock in greek) "i will build My Chruch'. Also, when a demonstrative pronoun is used w/
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly the Greek word for 'and' which is 'kai', the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun. In other words, when Jesus says 'You are rock, and on this rock I will build My Church' the 2nd rock He refers to has to be the same rock as the 1st one. Peter is the rock in both cases. Jesus could have gotten around it if He'd wanted to. He didn't have to say, "and (kai), on this rock I will build My Church' He could've said "but (alla) on this rock I will build My Church" meaning
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly another rock. He would have then had to explain who or what this other rock was. But He didn't do that.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 The context of Matt 16, the text we are discussing is Jesus, not Peter. Jesus does not say, 'you are Peter and upon you I will build my church'. He says upon this rock. The rock in question has been and always will be Jesus. It is the confession Peter gave which when believed saves the person and God adds them to the church. Peter is simply one of the apostles who collectivly laid the foundation, Christ being the cornerstone.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly actually you have misinterpreted that. Jesus IS talking to Peter. It doesn't look like you read anything from my previous post. Go re-read. Again, Jesus directly addresses St Peter 7 times in this short passage. It doesn't make any sense that He would address everything to St Peter & then say "By the way I'm building the Church on Me' the context seems pretty clear that Jesus gave authority to St Peter naming him the rock.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 the context of the bible is Jesus! remember the disciples on the road to emmaus? It's Peter's confession which adds people to the kingdom of God, not Peter. Peter as a human being adds anyone to the church how? It's Jesus, pure and simple. too much evidence for such a short space so you'll have to dig that out yourself. and Jesus called Simon, Peter way back in Jn 1:42 i believe. Long before Matt 16 would have come around.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly you read with blinders on your eyes
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly "You are rock, & on this rock I will build My Church" seems pretty crystal clear to me. See again my Greek translations above it is apparent you didn't read that. Here's even a stronger case that can be made for Christ meaning Peter was the rock on which He would build His Church. When Jesus gave Simon the name 'Rock', we know it was originally given in Aramaic, a sister language of Hebrew, & the language that Jesus & the apostles spoke. & the Aramaic word for rock is kepha
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 thats an old excuse. the earliest translations of Matthew we have today are in greek, not aramaic. and since koine greek was the merchants/trade language it would have been well known to Jesus and the disciples. and in greek petra and petros are not the same thing. interesting the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write in greek and not aramaic, isn't it? Jesus is talknig to Peter about the rock, not that he is the rock.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly noticed i gave you the greek translations way before i mention aramaic. i brought in aramaic to better prove my argument and strengthen it. You're non intellect fails to notice this and just keeps arguing for the sake of arguing. How is this an old excuse? hahah historical facts are old excuses now? Fact Christ spoke Aramaic. Fact the Bible was translated into Greek. Fact it was later translated into Latin by St Jerome b/c Latin was the language of the 'poor'
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly This is transliterated in Greek as Cephas or Kephas, & translated as Petros. In Aramaic, nouns do not have gender as they do in Greek so Jesus actually said & St Matthew 1st recorded, "You are Kephas & on this kephas I will build My Church." Clearly Peter is the same rock both times. In John 1:42 "Jesus looked at Sion and said, "So, you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter).
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 the aramaic is a rabbit trail. why not stick with what the text was actually written in? also, just a cursory review of the N.T. reveals Peter not doing a whole lot of anything, cept getting chewed out at Antioch and writing a couple of letters. he takes no major role, no one bows down to him or bestows any of the lavish tiltes your church does its current pope. if anything he learned humility and kept busy for the Lord. He has a great reward awaiting him, but pope? nope.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly aramaic is a rabbit trail hahaha so i have now shown you greek translation AND aramaic translation but you still refuse to learn or listen. If anyone else views this communication they will say 'man that Contending earnestly guy just argues for the sake of arguing. he won't do his own research or learn from the lesson being given but just arguing nonsense'. I can't make it any simpler for you, sir. If you won't listen why should I continue
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly I'm assuming that last part you wrote 'if you hear the gospel & receive it, you are loosed from your sins' you are buying into that 'sola scripture' thing? What if I told you that is another false comment. Works must be used as well.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 another straw man. i didn't say anything about ss. the gospel is the power of God to salvation for all who believe...Rom 1:16. So, yes when someone hears the gospel and believes, they are loosed from their sins. When they hear and reject, they are still bound by their sins.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly actually through reconciliation you are loosed from your sins. hence when Christ breathed on his disciples and said "‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21–23). not by faith alone. works is needed or why have commandments
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 No, it isn't through reconciliation. thats an anachornism you just threw in there. the bible knows nothing of auricular confession. No-one details every minute sin which is then absolved by a sacramental priest...has not happened one time in scripture. youre reading what you believe into scripture. the Father sent Jesus to ''seek and save that which was lost' Luke 19:10, to be our propitiation, be a ransom for many. this is the gospel, believe and be saved. reject and be damned.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly so Jesus's own words are me 'reading what I believe into scripture" haha and you got authority or clearance for that assumption where? yourself? or did you go to a church to get the correct interpretation? Tell Jesus I'm reading too much into his direct quote. ahhahaha.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."If Jesus did not mean that Peter was to be the rock, then why would he give him the keys of the kingdom?The Greek pronoun soi is singular referring only to Peter. The power of the keys is given to Peter alone in this passage. The phrase about binding and loosing connotes jurisdiction, not just a primacy of example or honor.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 answered already. but you were going to show me where luther removed all those books. still waiting on that one.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly again The books missing from Protestant Bibles are: Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Esther and Daniel.
Martin Luther, without any authority whatsoever, removed those seven books and placed them in an appendix during the reformation. They remained in the appendix of Protestant Bibles until about 1826, and then they were removed altogether.
this is a historical fact if you want to look it up further
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 the fact is this. luther finished his translation of the n.t. in 1522 and it contained all of the books we currently have. he finished the o.t. in 1534 and it contained all books of the old testament including the apocrapha. his final edition 1545 a year before he died contained all n.t. books as well as all o.t. books including the apocrapha. so where did he remove anything? thats your burden to show, which to this point you haven't. sorry for the delay, been sick.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly hope you're feeling better. you should have looked up history while you were down before you asked 'where di he remove anything' haha. the Catholic Bible has 73 books whereas Luther's has 66 so who took them out? gee must been Luther. its NOT my burden to show its your burden to do research on your own. Not hard to find out. in your thinking the Church had it wrong up until Luther came around and he himself edited the Bible?
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 sticking your head in the sand isn't going to cause your problems to disappear. luthers first edition of his bible 1534 has every book of the bible you possess today. 27 in the N.T. and all O.T. books including the apocrapha. closing your eyes and plugging your ears while yelling 66 isn't going to change the fact that luther's blble has all the books you recognize today. if you think they've been removed, that is your burden to prove not mine. so far you've shown me zilch.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ContendingEarnestly the 7 books he removed that are: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach), & Baruch. Bibles also include an additional 6 chapters (107 verses) in Esther & 3 chapters (174 verses) in Daniel. all those are in his version and the original Catholic version .. is that what I am hearing from you? did you look this up for fact or you just typing words? no sir i have shown you plenty. you refuse to view facts
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly There are few things more central to Christianity than the Bible. Yet how do we know which books should be included? No book of the Bible ever lists the other books. For Catholics, assurance lies in the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church throughout Christian history. The Council of Rome in 382, under Pope Damasus, first listed the Old and New Testament books as Catholics know them today.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 off topic and not accurate anyway.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly yes history is never on topic or accurate to one that doesn't like hearing it
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly This list of books was formalized at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, before the removal of seven Old Testament books by the Protestant reformers
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@onearmsteve4192 the first dogmatic pronouncement on the canon wasn't till 1546 at trent. and again you keep offering roman catholic propaganda in lieu of evidence.
ContendingEarnestly 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly propaganda hahahahahahahhahahahah you're funny
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
Comment removed
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true.
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago
@ContendingEarnestly We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18)
onearmsteve4192 1 year ago