Catholic Preist Sings Song About Lucifer

[Big Boy Johnson]

You think the wedding feast of the lamb isn't in the bible?

Where did I say that?

The marriage supper of the Lamb has nothing to do with necromany, idolotry, and perkytory being false doctrine not taught in God's Word or by ANY actually Christians.

 

[Mink57]

We we know for sure that those who are doing idolatory and necromancy won't be going to Heaven because God's Word identifies that as being grievous sins that cause people doing these things to not inherit His Kingdom... and there ain't know perkytory either as that's not taught by the Lord in His Word.

Not according to the OSAS crowd! Hey! All *I* gotta do is "believe"...right?

And I guess I don't gotta worry, cuz *I* don't practice idolatory or necromancy...regardless of what *you* might say about it.

I feel sorry for you catholiks... I have a couple of family members that went to the dark side and joined the catholiks and it's sad that have to pay so much money to con their priest in to forgive them of their sins, and they have to give him back rubs and go to his house late at night... who knows what kind of "favors" they have to do to keep their priest dude guy happy.

It's all freaky deaky for sure.

LOL! Sounds like you've been watching too much late night t.v.!

 

[Mink57]

Is that like a crock... pot?

I had heard the catholiks really like weed. Is that true?
Like smoke some really good reefer and talk to all kinds of dead peoples

Where in the bible does it instruct Christians to make fun of others?

 

[Philip James]

Where did I say that?

The marriage supper of the Lamb has nothing to do with necromany, idolotry, and perkytory being false doctrine not taught in God's Word or by ANY actually Christians.

hmm.. let's review:

you said: 'You don't even believe that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world'

which I demonstrated was clearly false by posting the Agnes Dei, sung (or said) at every Mass.

Further I invited you to the Feast at which point you said:

the stuff you cathoolics are talkin 'bout ain't in the Bible... meaning what you're saying is not of the Lord!

So then, which of these things that I said do you not think is in the Bible:

That Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

Or that we have been invited to the Feast?

I don't know any Christians who advocate idolatry or necromancy. Certainly not Catholics. Such are expressly forbidden by the Catholic Church.

As for purgatory:

the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.

If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.

But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

seems pretty clear to me..

Pax et Bonum

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

And I guess I don't gotta worry, cuz *I* don't practice idolatory or necromancy...regardless of what *you* might say about it.

I thought you might have been one of them catholikcs

Where in the bible does it instruct Christians to make fun of others?

Well let's see....there's Psalm 37:13, there's Psalm 2:4, then Psalm 59:8

Not to mention Jesus call Harod a fox (sissy)

Like I mentioned... I have family members that belong to your... thingy bob, where the preachers dress all funny and you guys have to pay to get your sins forgiven and all that.

If you're gonna go around telling people you are catholik, you really need to obtain thicker skin because most Christians that know their bible are going to give you a hard time about it.

Don't take it personally... just switch to the winning team!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

You don't even believe that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world

No... I never said that.

I invited you to the Feast

It would be un-biblical for me to eat a meal with you or to do communion with catholics...

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
Catholics are involved in spiritual fornication by not being led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ who Jesus said would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13), and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

I don't know any Christians who advocate idolatry or necromancy. Certainly not Catholics.

Catholics are actually engaging in idolatry and necromancy.... but of course they will claim they are not.

seems pretty clear to me..

'Bout as clear as mud because it says nothing about perkytory... you people are imagining things!

 

[Phoneman777]

Yeah, I pray for people that are STILL HERE ON EARTH.... and I ask people to pray for me that are STILL HERE ON EARTH

You have no authorization from the Lord to pray to or thru the dead... those that have died, left their body and are no longer alive here on Club Earth! One has to twist scripture to claim God said to do this.



When did Jesus or His Apostles teach anybody to pray to mary and the saints?
Chapter and verse.,... and NO scripture twisting! So far all you got is scripture twisting galore!



also known as Simon the Sorcerer or Simon the Magician

the catholiks really need to stop this witchcraft bidness!



God's Word teaches we are called to obedience which is not earning salvation, it is answering the call to salvation.

After getting born again, if one was after the flesh (sin) they going to hell because they are rebellious and are refusing to be led by the Holy Ghost... feel free to jump in the OSAS is false doctrine threads for more scripture proving this.

I been telling poeple for years that obedience is the outward evidence of the inward conversion, but since most don't care about obedience they have no choice but to deny it.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I been telling poeple for years that obedience is the outward evidence of the inward conversion, but since most don't care about obedience they have no choice but to deny it.

Yep, and since most churches these days are grace changers teaching greasy grace.... people think obediance is earning their way to Heaven which of course it's not.

 

[Phoneman777]

No, it doesn't. The quote you're referring to appears in an article on page four in The Catholic Record titled, "SABBATH OBSERVANCE". However, there is no byline. If there's no byline, it's assumed that the article was written by one of the editors as an opinion piece. An editor's opinion from a small-town newspaper written 100 years ago is hardly what would be considered, "authoritative."

Oh, and just so you know, the part that you quoted, "Sunday is our MARK of authority." does not appear anywhere in the article, nor in the entire newspaper, for that matter.

BreadOfLife is correct in saying, "...but the Church has never taught that the Pope or anybody else is "above" the Word of God." A writer/editor from a 100 year old newspaper article is not the "Church", nor is he an authoritative representative of the "Church."

(Sources: The Catholic Record, September 1, 1923

https://ia902306.us.archive.org/1/items/catholic-record-full/Catholic%20Record%20(full).pdf

Did you know the Roman Catholics changed worship from the Sabbath to Sunday?

Question: Hi, Did you know that the sabbath is Saturday, the seventh day of the week? Sunday is the first day of the week. Did you know that the Papal system takes credit for changing the day of wo…

www.lavistachurchofchrist.org

Did the catholic church excommunicate him for his "heretical" opinion?

Here is an excerpt from The Jesuits Catechism, according to St. Ignatius Loyola: for the instructing and strengthening of all those which are weak in that faith: Second Edition, London, 1681, by A H; Etienne Pasquier.

Q. What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?
A. The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside, as being doubtful (u) André Du Val, Libelli de ecclesiastica et politica potestate, p. 88, 89

Q. What is the Pope?
A. He is the Vicar of Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope.

These statements are indefensible and proof that the catholic church's official position is that the word of the pope is "above the Bible" and thinking person can readily see this is so.

 

[Philip James]

No... I never said that.

Ah yes, my mistake. It was my response to Robert that you took exception with. but the question as to what you found unbiblical in my response stands.

It would be un-biblical for me to eat a meal with you or to do communion with catholics...

Certainly, if you do not believe:

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Catholics are involved in spiritual fornication by not being led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ who Jesus said would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13), and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

This statement is nonsensical. If the promise is that the Spirit would lead us into all Truth, then to abandon the things the Spirit has led 2000 years of our brethren to, is to deny the very promise you seek to uphold

Catholics are actually engaging in idolatry and necromancy.... but of course they will claim they are not.

To engage in idolatry or necromancy would be grave sins indeed.

Happily you are not our judge in this matter ;) (Iconoclasm is a heresy long since dealt with by the Holy Spirit)

Bout as clear as mud because it says nothing about perkytory... you people are imagining things!

the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.

If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.

But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

Is it the ' the person will be saved' or the 'only as through fire' that you are having trouble understanding?

Pax et Bonum

 

[Phoneman777]

WRONG.

The Bible says differently . . .
(James 5:16, 1 John 5:16, Col. 1:24, Rev. 8:5).

YOU are wrong.
"There is ONE mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus".
Do you need help counting to "one"?

There is absolutely no confessional established by these texts you present - rather, they point out the Christian's duty to pray for sinners, in many cases where that sinner has asked for no help. Why? Because when the god of the papacy accuses God of sticking His nose where it doesn't belong, He can point to the prayers of the faithful and tell him to shove it.

Try again.

The Bible shows that they are ALIVE in Christ.
“Soul Slee” is a false invention from your founder/goddess Ellen White.

Wrong - it says they have "fallen asleep" and will wake up when Christ calls them from the grave.

EGW didn't event "soul sleep" - Solomon, Job, David, etc., plainly tells you the dead know nothing, see nothing, feel nothing, hear nothing, plan nothing, remember nothing, praise nothing, nor have anything to do more with anything that's going on down here. Yes, I know that contradicts that ridiculous papal idea that Mary need only to flash Jesus her naked "breasts that gave Him suck" to calm Him down when He's upset, but that's too bad.

Ever hear about the Transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36, Mark 9:2-7)??
Were “dead” Moses and Elijah communicating with Jesus or not??

You mean Elijah who never died and Moses who was resurected? (What else could have been the point of contention between God and Satan concerning the body of Moses?)

Were they arguing about whether to bury it or cremate it?
Were they arguing about who would get to stuff it and put it by the fireplace?
Were they arguing about whether to donate it to science?

Or, was the devil arguing, "He's a murderer and deserves to remain dead forever!" to which God replied, "Buzz off".

That’s NOT what YOU claimed.
YOU said: “And, some Catholics claim that ONLY Catholics will go to heaven...”

This is NOT a teaching of the Catholic Church.
I OPENLY CHALLENGE you to produce this teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Answer the question:

Can a person enter the kingdom of heaven while wearing a T-shirt that says "The pope is Antichrist and an enemy of Christ"?

I say absolutely. What say you?

Just as the idea that “ONLY Catholics will go to heaven” is not a core tenet of the faith – NOR is it a teaching of the Church.

Look, I know what you're doing so stop it. I'm well aware of the encyclical that says Protestants can remain in their respective faiths as long as they acknowledge the pope as their supreme authority on Earth. However, is that the case with what the catholic church recognizes as the only one "true" Protestant - the SDA church?

"Reason and common sense demand the one or the other of the two alternatives: Either PROTESTANTISM AND THE KEEPING HOLY OF SATURDAY, or catholicity and the keeping holy of Sunday. Compromise is impossible."

The plain truth is this: if a person bows down to the pope as supreme authority, he is a catholic, no matter how much he claims he's a "protestant".

WRONG.
Jesus left the teaching to His CHURCH (Matt. 28:19-20) – to be GUIDED by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) to ALL truth.

You mean the church that puts the leaders and congregation ON EQUAL GROUND, according to Acts 15:23?

Even the prophet Micaiah revealed that God rules by committee, but the whore clothed in purple and scarlet who's drunk on the blood of the saints perfectly represents those who desire to exalt an illegitimate priesthood above the people.

Also – Jesus told Peter – and Peter ALONE to –
“Feed my lambs”
“Tend my sheep”
“Feed my sheep”

Yes, Jesus gave Peter three opportunities to make up for his thrice denial of our Lord. So what?

Paul says the exact same thing to other leaders...are they all "the first pope" as well?

 

[Mink57]

Did the catholic church excommunicate him for his "heretical" opinion?

LOL! Sorry...Getting excommunicated is harder than you think. An unknown non-clerical Catholic having a "difference of opinion" from the Vatican's "official position" is hardly a reason to make a fuss for excommunication.

Here is an excerpt from The Jesuits Catechism, according to St. Ignatius Loyola: for the instructing and strengthening of all those which are weak in that faith: Second Edition, London, 1681, by A H; Etienne Pasquier.

Q. What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?
A. The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside, as being doubtful (u) André Du Val, Libelli de ecclesiastica et politica potestate, p. 88, 89

Q. What is the Pope?
A. He is the Vicar of Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope.

These statements are indefensible and proof that the catholic church's official position is that the word of the pope is "above the Bible" and thinking person can readily see this is so.

No, they're not. Once again, context is key. Those statements are worthless without context.

The Catholic Church's 'official position' comes directly from the Vatican; not some little pamphlet written by God knows who in the 1600's.

 

[Phoneman777]

So, you regard the WHOLE KJV as "The Word of God"?

The Textus Receptus NT Greek is trustworthy as the "Word of God" - aficionados of the Alexandrian MSS or the catholic Western MSS are simply blind to the facts.

Even the Apocrypha? (I understand that SOME versions of the KJV include the Apocrypha. Some don't. I'll come back to address this a bit more in a moment...)

Nah, the Apocrypha might contain some good history, but as far as inspiration, nope.

Yet, I've read the opposite. That it's the Alexandrian Family MSS that's more accurate than the other two families.

It's not. There's a ton of missing texts in the Alexandrian that are present in the TR. Since the Codex Sinaticus is among the "oldest" MSS, scholars incorrectly equate "old" with "best" and proceed to accuse the Byzantian MSS - from which the TR is derived - as "altered".

Now, listen to me VERY closely:

According to researchers, there are letters written by the ECFs one to another which contain references to Bible texts that are PRESENT in the Byzantian MSS but MISSING from the Alexandrian...this proves that the Alexandrian MSS - along with the Western - have been corrupted by those who hate the divinity of Jesus, the primary concern of these missing texts.

The whole thing is a sordid mess. These supposed "older and better" MSS are believed to be (which much evidence to support this) from the era of Constantine where he commissioned an "ecumenical" Bible once Christianity became legal - Eusebius, a follower of Origen who , was the overseer in this compilation. About 50 copies were made, but all were rejected by the early church. These copies disappeared, only to reappear in the 19th century as the "oldest, most reliable" MSS.

If we want to get technical, it was actually John the Baptist who referred to Jesus as the "Lamb of God"

JTB was not a disciple of Jesus. Andrew was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as Messiah, a fact so clear I can't believe we're having to discuss it.

No, Christ called Peter "Cephas" which means "the rock" in Aramaic...which is believed to have been the language that Jesus spoke.

sigh........

AFTER HE CONFESSED JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD, JESUS CALLED PETER "PERTROS" WHICH MEANS "SMALL STONE OF INSTABILITY" - IT WAS PETER'S CONFESSION WHICH IS THE "ROCK" UPON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT.

THE ONLY THING "STONY" ABOUT PETER WAS HIS HARD HEAD WHICH MORE OFTEN THAN NOT CAUSES A SOFT BACKSIDE.

...which Peter did, when Jesus asked him, "Peter, do you love me?"...three times.

Yes, once for each of his denials.

Paul says it once.

Pretty sure Paul confesses his love for God throughout his many letters.

No, they don't. Peter is recognized for his role; Paul is recognized for his own roll.

The were both great men of God - but there's nothing which promotes Peter to "first pope". I've explained every text to which you point as having nothing to do with promoting him.

To me, Sola Scriptura is incomplete. A great place to start but...not the whole story...especially if Sola Scriptura means considering ONLY 66 books as "The Bible." By your 'logic', anything written OTHER THAN Job would be outside of Sola Scriptura.

By my logic, anything written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is the Word of God.

The Bible says the "holy Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation". It says it's "quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword...and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart". It's able to make those who study it "perfect before God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed". It says it's "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

Now, please tell me, what good could a sinful man who wears a fish hat that hearkens back to ancient pagan sun worship and actively shields offending priests from prosecution be to anyone who holds such a Word in their hands?

Where is it written that God said, "I will give you 66 books of My Word"?

It wouldn't make any sense for the Bible to declare that the "word of man" (will be preserved) when it's so obvious that the "word of man" HAS been preserved...even before the first book of the Bible was 'penned.' A scholarly consensus is that the Book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible, having been written somewhere between 1900 and 1700 b.c. Yet, the Code of Ur-Nammu (the "word of man") is said to have been written (actually, 'chiseled' in stone) around 2050 b.c. No mention of God in any of the laws.

The point I'm trying to make (albeit, probably poorly...) is that Sola Scriptura kind of limits us to new discoveries as to the nature of God.

And personally, who am *I* to limit God?

And, for that matter, who are *you* ... or anyone else...to limit God?

Is God not allowed to go outside of the Bible? Did he not approach Saul...whose name was changed to Paul...before that passage was written?

The books of the Bible were not written all at once. And NOWHERE in ANY of the books does it say, "My Word will begin with Genesis and END with Revelation."

"The grass withereth and the flower fadeth away, but the Word of God endureth forever".

My God is well able to preserve His Word, that those who love Him and want to do His will can discover it from this Word.

BTW, the will of God is found in Psalms 40:8 KJV:

"I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart".

 

[Phoneman777]

WRONG.

If an SDA made a stupid comment – should I assume that ALL SDAs believe in his idiocy??
Repeating your nonsense doesn’t make it “true”.

That's funny...the only stupid comments from my church are those from SDA leaders who wish to join in the ecumenical disaster that is spearheaded by the "mother church". Jesuit infiltrators, not doubt, who have a scheduled swim meet in Fire Lake soon.

I guarantee you that it certainly was NOIT a Pope.

Posting obscure quotes from a non-verifiable sources is beneath MOST people.
Unfortunately, YOU’VE manages to crawl lower than most . . .

How pathetic of you to refer to mainstream catholic literature as "non-viable sources". Why the papacy which murdered millions for the "crime" of refusing to acknowledge a piece of DEAD BREAD is the literal body of Christ so unwilling to excommunicate (or sentence to death) such persons who publish "heresies" in your works?

(BECAUSE IT AIN'T HERESY.)

Why would it need to say this??
NOBODY claims that the Pope is the judge of our souls.

You're so misinformed about catholicism, one wonders if you're a true catholic.
READ IT AND WEEP, DB:

Q. What if the Holy Scriptures command one thing, and the Pope another contrary to it?
A. The Holy Scriptures must be thrown aside, as being doubtful (u) André Du Val, Libelli de ecclesiastica et politica potestate, p. 88, 89
Q. What is the Pope?
A. He is the Vicar of Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and there is but one Judgment-Seat belonging to God and the Pope.

The Jesuits Catechism, according to St. Ignatius Loyola: for the instructing and strengthening of all those which are weak in that faith: Second Edition, London, 1681, by A H; Etienne Pasquier.​

Let the apology tour of DB begin...

More of your phoney SDA manure . . .

“Above you in the WORD and doctrine”.
This ISN’T about discipline - but about instruction in the Word.

The Word itself is "profitable...for instruction", DB. I don't need some crusty old robed fool who doesn't know the difference between an epistle and an apostle "instructing" me on anything.

It ISN’T about keeping you out of Heaven.
It’s about the Authority of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

The ONLY person keeping you out of Heaven is YOU.

Try as you might, "binding and loosing" has NOTHING to do with granting or revoking the salvation of anyone by a mere man, especially a man who can't keep his hands out of other kid's pants.

It has to do with "church discipline" which, if done according to God's will, is approved by Him, not vice-versa.

 

[Phoneman777]

And yet I have PROVEN that this is not the case and that apostate Jerusalem fits the description FAR closer.

I've shown you that John's looking into the future - Jerusalem has already been laid to waste.

And I already acknowledged that and differentiated his role from the ministerial priests.

You are arguing in circles . . .

No, you argued there are THREE levels of priesthhood, the high priest, Levites, and the lay priesthood of the people.

I shut that down by pointing out the high priest is fully a part of the Levitical priesthood, which leaves only TWO levels: the Levites and the lay people.

And today, you guys are left mad because Jesus is fulfilling in heaven the earthly priesthood you guys covet so badly, but can never have. You're also mad that I'm as much a priest as the pope...I hereby condemn him as an enemy of Christ for his heretical teachings and practices toward both adults and little kids.

Another idiotic SDA objection.

I suppose if the host was square, it would NOT be a “sun-god”??

DB, let's not pretend the round wafer "host" and the golden monstrace in which it's place is not a direct representation of paganism, where the "host" is the penis and the monstrance is the womb, and the joining of the two is the "life giving" power of the sun god.

In the two Babylons, Hislop shows how the papacy is a perfected carbon copy of Eastern sun worship of the sun god - the similarities are as countless as they are uncanny.

NOWHERE is this “teaching” in the Catechism – and I OPENLY CHALLENGE you to produce the paragraph.

Will you EVER stop lying??

2 Thessalonians 2 says the Man of Sin papacy would "show himself that he is God" - by innumerable signs, tokens, and even twisted teachings, the papacy fulfills this prophecy perfectly.

 

[Phoneman777]

Yep, and since most churches these days are grace changers teaching greasy grace.... people think obediance is earning their way to Heaven which of course it's not.

It's their love of sin.

A bridegroom will stand there reciting his "forsaking all others" vow with excitement, while a bachelor in the audience cringes at the sound of it as he spies out which emotionally overloaded bridesmaid offers the best opportunity for another "conquest".

Love makes all the difference is the world, as does the lack thereof.

 

[Phoneman777]

No, they're not. Once again, context is key. Those statements are worthless without context.

The Catholic Church's 'official position' comes directly from the Vatican; not some little pamphlet written by God knows who in the 1600's.

The problem is that the speaks out of both sides of its mouth by virtue of allowing authoritative authors to author heresy without fear of consequence.

If the church wishes to shed its horrid reputation, it needs to start taking action against "heretics" who publish heresy in their publications...but they won't do that, not now or ever. It serves their purpose.

 

[Mink57]

The problem is that the speaks out of both sides of its mouth by virtue of allowing authoritative authors to author heresy without fear of consequence.

What's an "authoritative" author?

If the church wishes to shed its horrid reputation, it needs to start taking action against "heretics" who publish heresy in their publications...but they won't do that, not now or ever. It serves their purpose.

The thing is, that even *you* put the word "heretics" in quotes, and I'm glad you did. The dictionary definition of a heretic is a very general definition. But the Catholic Law definition is a bit more detailed:

1. The person in question must have had a valid Christian baptism
2. the person claims to still be a Christian
3. the person publicly and obstinately denies or positively doubts a truth that the Catholic Church regards as revealed by God (through the Scriptures or Sacred tradition)
4. the disbelief must be morally culpable, that is, there must be a refusal to accept what is known to be a doctrinal imperative.

Heresy in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless ALL four of those "elements" are met, the person in question would not be considered to be a "formal" heretic.

There is a difference between a "formal" heretic and a "material" heretic. There are also differences between manifest, occult, public, and private heretics.

See how convoluted it gets?

As for The Jesuit's Catechism I have been unable to get hold of the 48 page booklet so far, but I can tell you this: The Jesuits have quite often bucked heads with the Vatican on a number of issues. For me, more research (by me) is needed for me to comment any further.

 

[Mink57]

The Textus Receptus NT Greek is trustworthy as the "Word of God" - aficionados of the Alexandrian MSS or the catholic Western MSS are simply blind to the facts.

Nah, the Apocrypha might contain some good history, but as far as inspiration, nope.

It's not. There's a ton of missing texts in the Alexandrian that are present in the TR. Since the Codex Sinaticus is among the "oldest" MSS, scholars incorrectly equate "old" with "best" and proceed to accuse the Byzantian MSS - from which the TR is derived - as "altered".

Hmm. I'm pretty new to this whole Apologetics 'game', so there's a lot I don't know about. I'll have to do a little research on the TR.

Now, listen to me VERY closely:

According to researchers, there are letters written by the ECFs one to another which contain references to Bible texts that are PRESENT in the Byzantian MSS but MISSING from the Alexandrian...this proves that the Alexandrian MSS - along with the Western - have been corrupted by those who hate the divinity of Jesus, the primary concern of these missing texts.

O.k. Can you provide an example of what's missing from the Alexandrian MSS?

The whole thing is a sordid mess. These supposed "older and better" MSS are believed to be (which much evidence to support this) from the era of Constantine where he commissioned an "ecumenical" Bible once Christianity became legal - Eusebius, a follower of Origen who , was the overseer in this compilation. About 50 copies were made, but all were rejected by the early church. These copies disappeared, only to reappear in the 19th century as the "oldest, most reliable" MSS.

Interesting...

JTB was not a disciple of Jesus. Andrew was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as Messiah, a fact so clear I can't believe we're having to discuss it.

sigh........

AFTER HE CONFESSED JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD, JESUS CALLED PETER "PERTROS" WHICH MEANS "SMALL STONE OF INSTABILITY" - IT WAS PETER'S CONFESSION WHICH IS THE "ROCK" UPON WHICH THE CHURCH IS BUILT.

THE ONLY THING "STONY" ABOUT PETER WAS HIS HARD HEAD WHICH MORE OFTEN THAN NOT CAUSES A SOFT BACKSIDE.

Can you point me to the source you're using that states that "Pertros" means "small stone of instability"?

Yes, once for each of his denials.

Pretty sure Paul confesses his love for God throughout his many letters.

O.k....

The were both great men of God - but there's nothing which promotes Peter to "first pope". I've explained every text to which you point as having nothing to do with promoting him.

The texts that I listed are really a 'short list'. There are other points -- both inside and extra-biblical -- that the RCC uses to satisfy its understanding of Peter's role as 'the rock' of the RCC.

I look at the Bible like I do secular law. There's primary law and secondary law. Primary law would be like, the US Constitution...Federal and State statutes, etc. Basically stating the LAW itself ("Anyone who exceeds the speed limit of 65 mph on an Interstate highway may be subject to a fine up to $1000 for every 5 mph in excess of the posted limit or a fine plus 6 months in jail." Not a real law, but you get the gist) Secondary law would be writings such as Legal encyclopedias and Law digests.

I see the Bible in a similar fashion. The Bible is primary law. Writings of the Church 'Fathers' would be secondary law. Scripture...primary. Footnotes on the Scriptures...secondary. The thing is, that secondary law often supports primary law.

At least, that's how *I* see it.

By my logic, anything written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost is the Word of God.

How do you know what's written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

The Bible says the "holy Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation". It says it's "quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword...and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart". It's able to make those who study it "perfect before God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed". It says it's "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".

I agree...that is, IF we can both agree on what "scripture" is...
See, you don't consider the Apocrypha to be scripture, whereas, Catholics do. There's evidence that at least some of those books were used by the Jews...and the removed. There's much speculation as to WHY, but the truth, to this day, is unknown.

Now, please tell me, what good could a sinful man who wears a fish hat that hearkens back to ancient pagan sun worship and actively shields offending priests from prosecution be to anyone who holds such a Word in their hands?

A man who could repent...a man who can be an example of what not to do...

"The grass withereth and the flower fadeth away, but the Word of God endureth forever".

My God is well able to preserve His Word, that those who love Him and want to do His will can discover it from this Word.

His Word means nothing unless we practice what He preaches...

BTW, the will of God is found in Psalms 40:8 KJV:

"I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart".

Just because the law is "written on our hearts" does NOT mean that we all 'read' our hearts. The serial killer who claims to "believe" in God, obviously didn't get the memo...

 

[Mink57]

I thought you might have been one of them catholikcs

I AM one of "them" Catholics.

Well let's see....there's Psalm 37:13, there's Psalm 2:4, then Psalm 59:8

Not to mention Jesus call Harod a fox (sissy)

Psalm 37:13, 2:4 and 59:8 does not instruct Christians to make fun of others.

And Jesus referred to Herod as a 'fox' because Herod was sly...not a 'sissy'.

Like I mentioned... I have family members that belong to your... thingy bob, where the preachers dress all funny and you guys have to pay to get your sins forgiven and all that.

If you're gonna go around telling people you are catholik, you really need to obtain thicker skin because most Christians that know their bible are going to give you a hard time about it.

Don't take it personally... just switch to the winning team!

Why do *I* have to get "thicker skin"? Why don't YOU tone it down?