Featured False Christs

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn't departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset. This is especially made clear with the assistance of biblical commentaries. The evidence of Holy Scripture (RSV) follows:

1. Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

The rock (Greek, petra) referred to here is St. Peter himself, not his faith or Jesus Christ. Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect who "builds." The Church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors - living men (see, e.g., 1 Pet 2:5). Today, the overwhelming consensus of the great majority of all biblical scholars and commentators is in favor of the traditional Catholic understanding. Here St. Peter is spoken of as the foundation-stone of the Church, making him head and superior of the family of God (i.e., the seed of the doctrine of the papacy). Moreover, Rock embodies a metaphor applied to him by Christ in a sense analogous to the suffering and despised Messiah (1 Pet 2:4-8; cf. Mt 21:42). Without a solid foundation a house falls. St. Peter is the foundation, but not founder of the Church, administrator, but not Lord of the Church. The Good Shepherd (John 10:11) gives us other shepherds as well (Eph 4:11).

2. Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . ."

The "power of the keys" has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (cf. Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances, and legislative powers. In the Old Testament a steward, or prime minister is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; 43:19; 44:4; 1 Ki 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5; 18:18; Is 22:15,20-21).

3. Matthew 16:19 ". . . whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law, and secondarily to "condemn" or "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus, St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life, by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (Jn 16:13), and to demand obedience from the
Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him preeminent.

to continue

 

4. Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the "first" (10:2). Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.

5. Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one (only?) example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he ("Cephas") is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (e.g., 1:18-19; 2:7-8).

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

8. Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

12. Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.

13. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).

14. Jesus Christ uniquely associates Himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute-money (Mt 17:24-27).

15. Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (cf. Mt 4:19).

16. Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).

17. Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).

18. Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.

19. Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).

20. Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the upper room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).

21. Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

22. Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).

23. Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).

24. Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11)!

25. Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers "earnest prayer" for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter ("Simon"), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).

36. Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples (Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

 

40. Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" (2:36) - an example of "binding and loosing."

41. Peter was the first "charismatic", having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn't traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

 

My bad. I edited my post. It was an oversight.

 

I really can not see anybody refuting my last posts, as they all come from Sacred Scripture.

 

A prime example of those who proclaim a false Christ is the Mormons, and most Christians are so little informed that they could be of no help to any friend or neighbor or relative who might be deceived.

I knew a lady who was going to be baptized by the Mormons. But a another Christian lady knew enough about the Mormons to dissuade her and she became a loyal member of a Baptist church.

One baptist apologist says the for every Mormon converted, twenty Baptists are converted to Mormonism. http://snowfar4.wix.com/mormonconfusion#!about/c2414

 

It is the teaching of a man--the heretical teaching of a man.
The Bible teaches that all of the apostles were equal in the foundation of the local churches, and that there is no "Church." You are not even familiar with the definition of ekklesia to be qualified to talk about the subject of ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church) let alone its history.

Every church is built like this:
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
--the foundation is all of the apostles and prophets, and Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone. When examined carefully you find that prophets and the apostles together make up the Bible.
1Cor.3:11 establishes Christ as our foundation. He is the chief corner stone, without which the foundation cannot stand. It is not Peter that is the corner stone; it is Christ. Peter is just a stone, equal to the others. Christ is the rock that holds things together.

We call that change. But the Bible hasn't changed. Christ hasn't changed. Our doctrine hasn't changed. But the monstrosity of the RCC changes all the time.
The Assumption, accepted as official dogma only in 1950, is a good example.

What a horrible accusation! You cannot prove that Peter believed any of the major doctrines of the RCC. They are all heretical. Peter had nothing to do with any of them: transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, Purgatory, praying to the saints, indulgences, praying to Mary and for her intercession, the Assumption, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, Limbo, Confession to a priest, penance, the rosary, etc. Peter would reject it all as heresy. It is all man-made--some of it related to Hinduism and no better than the superstitions of Hinduism; certainly not Christian in nature.

No, they are idolatrous in nature and no doubt had some of their beginnings with Constantine who tried to introduce pagan practices into Christianity in the fourth century when the RCC was born and made a state church.
For more true history see:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2386

Hostile? You mean those who have not been blinded by RCC propaganda and can look at the truth objectively. The question is: Are you able to do the same?

Why not use the actual words that were written:

Matthew 16:18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτης
--There is no better translation than the above that one could use. The words are clear and cannot be confused.
I have bolded the two words for you: petros, which comes first; and petra, which occurs second.
Jesus says: You are (a) stone, and upon this rock I will build my church.
The stone is different from the rock. It is a play on words. Peter is only a stone in the grand scheme of things. There are only two possible interpretations left: 1) His testimony of the deity of Christ, or 2) that it refers to Christ himself, which is the most likely since Christ is referred to as "rock" throughout the rest of Scripture--not Peter.
For example, not only in the verses already given 1Cor.3:11; Eph.2:20, but also in: 1Cor.10:4
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

But he is the foundation: 1Cor.3:11; Eph.2:20, etc.
Scripture does not contradict itself.

Catholics don't understand what Peter taught.
They don't believe Peter's history, of where he was and when.
They deny the doctrines of Peter.
They don't have much understanding at all.

πετρος He is a stone, no greater than any of the other apostles; one that was rebuked by the Apostle Paul.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
--And at this late stage not one was above the other. They all had the same duty--to bring the local church into a mature state.

Later he gave the same keys to all the apostles. Peter was not above any of them.

The power of the keys was in the power of the gospel. The key was the gospel which was the entrance to heaven. The Pharisees had locked up heaven by keeping knowledge from the people. Now the gospel, with its freedom from sin and entrance into the kingdom of God was being preached by all the apostles. This was the key. Only by responding to the gospel could the doors of heaven open to an individual. The gospel was the key.

You have no way of demonstrating that through scripture.
IOW, it is one thing to string a line of references behind a sentence. It is quite another to explain them. Those references have nothing to do with Christ or his apostles, and especially nothing to do with Peter.
I have the keys to heaven!

This is a reference to church discipline as he says the same thing in Matthew 18:18 where church discipline is specifically spoken about. It is the discipline that a local church would take, and the steps are proscribed. But the RCC doesn't believe in such. Even in pedophiles, they just move one from one parish to another only for them to carry on their heinous crimes. They are never prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The verses are speaking of the decisions of a local church. It is not speaking to Peter alone. It is in the context of a congregation.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
--It was not Peter's decision, but the entirety of the church, the local church, and he wasn't speaking of Rome either.

 

shodan. the morman church also gets a few Catholics , usually those who do not know their Christian Faith. I myself left the Church until I realized that I was being indoctrinated into half truths, non -truth, exaggerations, misinformation against my former Church, then to really top it off, the real swaying factor that made me return "Home" was Lorraine Boettner [ spell ?} the author of Roman Catholicism and the Jack Chick lies. Those guys only could spew out real lies, I knew this because after researching for example Jack Chick's pal the supposed ex-priest [ never was a priest or Catholic] just a counterfeit ex- priest. Anyways after further research on the Holy Bible along with unbias Christian history I returned to the Church of my birth. First thing I did was to take the cotton out of my ears and listen to the Holy Bible being read at every Mass, little did I realize that Jesus was always there waiting for me but I was not ready to accept Him until some friends introduced me to a Bible Believing Baptist church. I found out about the Bible along with the Church that compiled its Sacred Inerrant Canonical List. The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Church that I belong to told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn't tell you? You only know it because the Bishops of His Church through the guidance of the HS definitively declared the Bible Canon at the end of the fourth century and that is a true fact of documented Jewish, main-line Protestant, Catholic and secular history.

Common sense told me that if the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians' determination of the Bible Canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Church that Jesus formed during His ministry for three plus years Teaching "only" His Apostles and they their replacements/ successors about the "Fullness of the Christian Faith " which combines Sacred Scripture along with Sacred Apostolic Traditional Teaching.

There was no Bible as you know it for 400 years after Christ's death, and it wasn't even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period? Some of you need to get familiar with basic history. Jesus Christ established a Church to proclaim the Good News. He never intended on having the Bible be the sole infallible guide for the Christian faith. This is why the Catholic Church is one, and your Protestant denominations are 30,000 +.

Christ's only One True Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither).

 

So? Someone's name had to go first. Did you want Matthew to record them in alphabetical order like your elementary school teacher did? Peter was recorded first because he was one of the first followers. Duh!

Do some study:
Mark 5:37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.
James and John were brothers. Those two together with Peter were in business (fishing) before they started following Jesus. Thus: Peter, James, and John, as they were previously known. Nothing changed.

petros = stone, not rock. Christ is "the rock," chief cornerstone, foundation, Eph.2:20; 1Cor.3:11

There is no such thing as a universal church; the Bible teaches no such concept.
You are wrong. Peter is never referred to as the Chief Shepherd. That is blasphemy. Only Christ is referred to as the Chief Shepherd. The phrase is used only one time in Scripture:
1 Peter 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
--Why the blasphemy?

Duh! That is because:
1. Satan was going to sift him like wheat.
2. He was about to deny the Lord three times.
3. His flesh was weak.
Taking all those things into consideration he needed more prayer, and doesn't give him the qualities of the leader that he should have been.

Really?
Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

Romans 15:1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

No he wasn't. John the Baptist confessed the deity of Christ many times before that.
So did Nathaniel.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

So did Andrew:
John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
--This was long before Matthew 16. In fact this confession was before Simon Peter ever met Jesus! Andrew already knew!

So had John the Baptist. I receive divine revelation every time I read God's Word.

So was Paul. In fact when Paul spoke in the Jews language everyone was silenced:
Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

And again:
Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Compared to Peter, the officials and magistrates feared Paul.
Acts 16:38 And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans.
39 And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city.

Jesus appeared many times to Paul.

No it wasn't. Look if you want qualifications and a good comparison, here it is:
Peter was with Jesus for three years. He shared that three years with 11 other disciples being taught by Christ. And even then that time was still distracted by Jesus debating with others or healing others (which took up a great deal of his time). So much of that 3 years was not what one would call "quality time."

On the other hand:
Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
--Here Paul testifies that the gospel he received was not from men. He was taught directly by Christ himself. He received direct revelation from Christ.

Galatians 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
--He emphasizes that "he conferred not with flesh and blood."

Galatians 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
--Paul was taught personally by the Lord Jesus Christ for 3 years (as long as the Apostles were), but without any interruption from anyone. Three years of direct revelation from Jesus Christ alone.
For evidence of this look at 1Cor.11:23-26. He describes the last supper in the upper room with disciples perfectly and quotes the words of the Lord Jesus Christ word for word though he was not there.
If any man was qualified it was Paul.

Get the story straight from John 20.
Mary Magdalene was the first at the empty tomb. She ran and told Peter and the apostles.
Peter and John ran to the tomb. John got their first, but did not enter in right away, although he saw what was there.
Then Peter arrived, went in, but did not necessarily believe. (6)
Then the account says:
John 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.
--The "other disciple" is John. It appears that John understood and was the first to believe what had actually transpired.

Maybe it is the other way around. Remember that Peter had denied the Lord.
So the angel says: "Go and tell the disciples 'and Peter'" as if to say: Be sure to include Peter among the disciples. It was a great sin he had committed.

This was Peter leading them into sin. Fishing was their old way of life. They had a new life. It wasn't fishing.
Matthew 4:19: Follow me and I will make you fishers of men.
Peter was disobeying the Lord and leading others with him.

And so? He was also naked. Does that also count for brownie points?

Yes, and Mary was completely silent. It is the last time Mary is mentioned. Peter is more important than Mary. Imagine that. But you pray to Mary and not to Peter, why is that?
"Holy Peter, Apostle of Christ, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Amen"
--I guess he doesn't have as much power in heaven as Mary does, right?

Someone had to lead the business meeting. Better Peter than Mary.

Nonsense.
This was the day of Pentecost. It started with supernatural signs, one of which was speaking in tongues. That in and of itself was speaking the praises of God.
This gave rise to the opportunity to Peter to preach.

The question is: when did the "church" era begin. Some on the board believe it began in Matthew 16 or earlier. A church is an assembly. When Christ had his disciples around him they were, for all intents and purposes, an assembly. And there was much preaching between then and Pentecost.
So Peter preached on Pentecost.
It was Stephen that preached to the Jews in Acts 7. Does that make Stephen greater than Peter? It was Stephen's sermon that influenced Saul? It was Stephen's countenance that radiated like an angel's. None of those things are said of Peter. Your comparisons are silly.

This really is tiresome and ridiculous. It proves nothing. Only that you are straining at gnats and trying to swallow a camel? It won't work.

 

Here is a few more before I quit:

You don't know that.
The facts are this. Luke is writing this book. He centers his writing around Peter in the first half and around Paul in the second half. Maybe Thomas did a miracle before Peter and it is not recorded. You have no evidence. Luke is selective in the material he chooses. Read the introduction to the book.

So? Paul utters more anathemas than Peter, and then rebukes Peter himself!

False! Only God can work miracles. That he used the shadow of Peter is only incidental. He used Balaam's ass in the OT also.

That is what Luke records. Is it possible that James did something similar not recorded by Luke?
Now I need to stop wasting my time.

 

DNK, thank you I will answer your last two many questioned/answers post at a later time, nice weather up here ,been busy with outside work. I was hoping to hear a response from shodan on my reply to him, maybe you could comment on my other post of number 288 or anybody who wants to challenge it

 

The church of Christ is built upon the Rock that is christ, period...

Jesus gave the keys to proclaim the gospel message to ALL of the Apostles there, plural, not just to peter...

ALL of us today can do same thing they did, proclaim that in jesus is salvation...

And you CANNOT refute that paul wrote far more then party, God gave tghru him to us the greatest book of all, Romans, and that Paul had authority to reuble peter...

IF there is a Pope, and there were NONE of that time, far greater case can be made for paul than peter!

 

Scripture was present way before the RCC. You know the letters the Apostles wrote were circulated and read to the brothers and sisters in Christ. The OT scriptures were available. How did the we get the OT if the RCC wasn't there to tell people what scripture was?

The process of the establishment NT cannon was a fairly simple process. Written by the Apostles, written under Apostolic authority and acceptance by early church as authentic. When assembling the cannon, it was "we receive" this as scripture, not "we choose" this as scripture. Scripture declared itself..... It was not chosen.

Before 1500, the church still had scripture. The letters where available. Teachers, had access to them and did teach from them. The claim of the RCC that there was no scripture before the 1546 is a myth. There is still 99 manuscripts existing today, that were written before 400 A.D. Written before 1546, there is still 5,700 Greek NT manuscripts surviving. If you count other languages, there is nearly 25,000 surviving NT manuscripts. The church had scripture. They church has always had scripture. To say they didn't is a RCC myth.

You also say, the Bible was not intended to be the infallible guide. What was the other? It wasn't Peter. Paul shows us how Peter can fail.

 

Post#58
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2213949

 

You know, prior to now, I had not considered the RCC to be a cult, but the more I read RC apologists here, the more convinced I am that it is a cult and its followers brainwashed cult members. They acts just like it, refusing to admit or see the truth about the RCC and its clearly false claims, proven false by scholarship, history, and especially the NT -- and even by some of its own adherents.

In this respect, the RCC is like all cults -- they have a little truth mixed in with lots and lots of falsehood, and paganism. They are like the Mormons, in that they believe in progressive revelation, and have even more doctrines based on that than the Mormons do.

I think our Catholic friends here are good people, but they are tragically mistaken and have swallowed lies and half-truths and refuse to even consider the overwhelming evidence that the RCC is not the one true church, not even A true church, but a sham.

 

This is over 30 pages and needs to be closed.