Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)

By the way, not that it really matters (after all, I'm a heretic, and you don't listen to heretics, as you have so demonstrated), the Church honors both understandings as mutually good and necessary.

The Church is not built upon a man. The Church is built upon Christ. However, it was God that revealed the Truth of Christ as Messiah to Peter (not to anyone else in that circle, just Peter). God was entrusting Peter, not by his own merit or personhood, with the job of continuing His mission work after He departed.

There is a distinction in this scenario between the man Peter and the Rock of Faith, Jesus Christ. And yet, both are still the Rock. Both rocks are necessary: one is the Faith, and the other is the proclaiming of the one Faith.

I read through your website and its offerings. It goes very much into the depth of the Petros/petra controversy, but spends very little time on why it was that Jesus would give Simon a new name that was so very similar to Christ the Rock. Yes, yes, you spend a little time there, but come to no definite conclusions, only that perhaps it referring to a different midrash (one in Numbers). And yet, you offer no evidence for supporting this one, only that it is a possibility.

But what it does is ignores the plainness of the text. Simon is revealed a heavenly message. Jesus blesses Simon. Jesus renames Simon to Rock/Stone. Then Jesus makes a reference to the rock/stone upon which the Church is built.

Why service up such confusion? If Peter truly has nothing to do with the rock upon which the Church is built, why rename Peter to something so terribly similar (and even the same, Cephas, in Aramaic)?

God is the Rock. God worked uniquely through Peter the Rock. Both are there for the spreading of the Gospel. Both are good and necessary.

 

Yeah, Mike. Didn't you know? When you're Catholic, you're not human or worthy of individual conversation. You're a mindless drone who can't think for himself. I thought this was common knowledge, especially since we're all plugged into that same hive mind!

 

Adam,

May God have mercy on you for helping the enemy of the truth. You are not a historic Baptist i know of.

 

Well, some kind of warp!

There you go Mark, now you've put yourself on the list of people who need a good rebukin'! Get in line right behind me...

 

One day you'll grow up and either wish you didn't say that or forget you said that.

The virtues of maturity and wisdom do a lot of a man (or woman).

May God grant you wisdom and faithfulness as you continue to learn and seek Him more and more.

God Bless,
Bro. Adam

 

Brother Adam, who is not a Catholic, has clearly shown himself to be a serious and determined seeker of truth, rather than its enemy. For this reason I pray that God's blessings be upon him always in his journey towards the Beatfiic Vision.

 

Adam,

And you suppose to convince me that many famous and true historic Baptists who is against Romanism who hate every form of it are not wise and mature as like you do.

If what you call wisdom and maturity is compromising the truth and loving every false way as romanism the best example of it, then i rather be an ignorant and immature as you might call it.

 

May the Lord Bless you and Keep you Faithcontender.

 

faithcontender (and others),

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. It's no pleasure to have to use the tone that sometimes becomes necessary in these sort of exchanges; but sometimes it *is* necessary to get the attention of the reader. I know the delusion that is engrained into the mind, heart, and soul of the 'RC'—usually from their infancy and childhood. They are incapable of seeing the truth as it actually is, because they think they have been taught the truth all their lives.

What a surprise it was for me to learn just how far from the truth was the line I grew up believing. A lot of inner pain involved, betrayal, etc. But It was worth it for the joy of breaking free of it, and seeing Christ as He is in Truth! Joys and blessings in Christ.

Mike

 

Mark, I don't use the word 'catholic' when referring to papists, because it only strengthens the stronghold in their own mind that causes them to think that they are the "one holy, catholic and apostolic Church". Further, their teachings and belief system are not 'catholic' in the true sense of the word. Perhaps you have a better term than 'papist' or 'popery' to refer to those who are the subjects of the 'papacy'.

 

Adam, is that the best you have to offer. How about some serious rebuttal, with substantiating evidence. Are you up to it?

 

Adam, is that the best you have to offer. How about some serious rebuttal, with substantiating evidence. Are you up to it? </font>[/QUOTE]He is. Problem is you're not. You already told Carson that you refuse to acknowledge or read _published_ work relevant to your claims. If you're too busy to read a book why should Adam waste his time thinking you'll read a post?

 

jmgainor,

Please do me a small favor as a token of your willingness to to be open and honest.

In your article that claims that the Papacy is direclty responsible for the assination of Abraham Lincoln, you quote Pope Pius IX in what is called the "Instruction 20." from June 1866.

I have been unable to find this online, only a spot few references to it. Could you please provide the following:

1) Where you found the document to quote it.
2) You use an ellipsis (spelling?), i.e., there is a ... in the quote, meaning there is a portion missing from the quote. Could you please fill in the blank for me?

 

By the way, this is from Mary Ann's website:

"This clearly written, straightforward book backs up its assertions with extensive documentation, including hundreds of Internet articles and pictures which you can see for yourself."

No offense, but if we're supposed to trust someone based on "hundreds of Internet articles" and "pictures," I hope this is a big elaborate joke.

 

GraceSaves, Who do you think revealed this same truth to Nethanael in John 1.45-49? or to Martha in John 11.27? Or earlier to Peter in John 6.68-69? Should we make 'popes' of them (and their 'successors') as well?

This is discussed in the Hebrew of Matthew page. The Aramaic was unlikely to have been kepa/kepa; but rather kepa/shua. There is no reliable manuscript support for the kepa/kepa theory, and other translations of petros/petra within the text show that it was more likely kepa/shua in Matthew 16.18. But Rome won't tell you that, because it is in their interests that you continue to believe the lie.

But you would have done better to call Peter the 'stone' to differentiate between him and God and/or Christ, the 'Rock'—the same as the Scripture does

 

It's quite simple, brother. None of the others received a name change, were told that upon them the Church would be built, nor were the given the keys to the kingdom nor the power of binding and loosing.

You move from possibility to certainty, yet you seek others to trust you? You said it was "unlikely" to be kepa/kepa, yet what the Catholic Church says is a "lie." That doesn't follow. At your best, you could say "you continue to believe their interpretation/theory." Unless you have undeniable proof, you are hardpressed to accuse of lying.

It's not always an either/or. It can just as easily be a both/than. You have still not asserted why Simon is renamed to be, in your opinion, "little stone/rock." Please explain the significance of Simon being called something that is diminuative after just receiving a heavenly revelation and being blessed by the Son of God, and then given the keys and the power of binding and loosing.

 

Hi jm,

I think your phrasing is charming, and I encourage you to continue using it. It's a fun throwback to the Know-Nothingism of the 1850's (and, further back, to the heyday of "No Popery" in England).

Ah, the good old days ...

Mark H.

 

GraceSaves,

First, you're mistaken about the ellipsis. There isn't one on my website. Actually, that page was done long ago, and I didn't save the source (I checked the folder with the Start/Find function, and didn't find it). I remember finding the quote, and my further research determined that it was of sufficient integrity to use it, but I don't remember the exact sources now. If I were compiling the page now, I would save the source.

However, I did an online search, and found some sources that quote the passage:

http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Slavery.htm

http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/slavery1.htm

http://www.womenpriests.org/teaching/piusix.htm

http://churchslavery.blogspot.com/

There are several more places where the passage is quoted. But if you want to look at them, you'll have to dig them up yourself.

 

Adam, is that the best you have to offer. How about some serious rebuttal, with substantiating evidence. Are you up to it? </font>[/QUOTE]He is. Problem is you're not. You already told Carson that you refuse to acknowledge or read _published_ work relevant to your claims. If you're too busy to read a book why should Adam waste his time thinking you'll read a post? </font>[/QUOTE]Harley, this will be my last response to you. I am fully aware of all of the arguments, and have addressed them in the Papacy Uncovered website. I have far more important things to do than to read the same arguments all over in StephenRayspeak. It was a lazy and cheap shot on the part of Carson. He was only saying, "I can't respond to your material; but Stephen Ray does. You should read his book to find out." I offered Carson to discuss the material here, but, thus far, he has absented himself. Hmmmm

I thought for a moment I saw an 'ignore' function on this board at one time. If I find that there is one, you're going on it, along with MikeJ, or whatever his name is, Adam, etc.

I'm off this board for the moment. I have other things to do.

 

That's MikeS. If I'm to be ignored you'll need to spell it right.

Hurry back!