Anti-Catholic Dialog on Facebook

I just had an interesting discussion on Facebook with some anti-Catholics who present the typical fundamentist rhetoric regarding the Papacy, Peter as Pope, His Primacy and whether or not he was in Rome.  

****************************************************

On what basis do Catholics say that the apostles were catholic? This is very new to me and I am curious.
Like · · Unfollow Post · February 21 at 1:53am via mobile
Seen by 39

Sacerdotus Michael Well to keep it short and simple, Peter was the first pope.
February 21 at 1:55am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin But how do you come to that conclusion
February 21 at 1:56am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Historical records. Even secular historians accept it.
February 21 at 1:58am · Like

Richard Bushey I am very tired, I will add more tomorrow. But there were times that Peter was corrected and rebuked by the other apostles. Peter had a certain authority, I admit that, but he was not the pope in the sense that contemporary Catholicism has a pope.
February 21 at 2:00am · Like · 3

Richard Bushey Also when they spoke/wrote of him they did not give him any special titles or honorary mentions. He was Simon/Peter. Lol.
February 21 at 2:02am · Like · 2

Sacerdotus Michael Popes are not infallible just by being Pope. There is no doubt that Peter was the first among the disciples. He enjoyed a unique primacy. He is the Pope in every sense we understand today. Remember, Catholicism never changes. The clothes are only what changed.
February 21 at 2:02am · Like

Brooke Anglin Well what about John? He was Jesus' beloved, or loved one.
February 21 at 2:09am via mobile · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael He preached and wrote while in Jerusalem, Ephesus and possibly Patmos.
February 21 at 2:15am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini There is no concept of a pope or papacy in early church history or Scripture. If Peter was the 1st pope, he and the other apostles didn’t know it. I would correct one thing, though, Brooke. They were catholic, since the word “catholic” simply means “universal”. They were not, however, Roman Catholic (RC), as that wouldn’t develop until much later. Thus, all true Christians are part of the catholic church, but not RC. Often RCs read back into that term their own beliefs and assume the early church fathers and the creeds are talking about them! To answer your question, on blind faith, in assuming the RCC is the one true church. But there is no reason to assume that.
February 21 at 2:55am · Like · 3

Brett Coffrini Peter indeed was 1st amongst equals, but to say he was a pope based on that would be a logical leap, unsupported by the Scriptures.
February 21 at 2:55am · Like

Joshua Ortman I think it is a stretch to say that Peter was the first pope, since the Catholic Church technically wasn't established until 380 AD.
February 21 at 8:56am via mobile · Like · 2

Kevin Micuch their logic is that when the 12 were together, "Peter was the one that spoke the most". i literally have seen graphs theyve used to show Peter talks like thrice more than any other person. so they think that shows authority or something i guess lol. i dont see it. when youre in an interrogation room, just because you talk more than the detective doesnt mean you have authority over him
February 21 at 10:22am · Like · 2

Scott Carson Wasnt Paul an apostle? And didnt he write like 80% of the NT? So wouldnt he have spoke the most?
February 21 at 10:45am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall Brooke Anglin, the modern Bishops are the direct successors of the Twelve Apostles. Every Catholic Priest can trace his ordination back to Peter the original Pope. Priests were ordained by Bishops , and they were ordained by the Pope, whose authority can be traced by the laying on of hands in direct succession to Peter, the first Pope. Matthew 16:17-19 is the main scripture from which the Church maintains the authority of Peter and his successors as Shepherds of the Church. But there is also a passage where Jesus tells Peter to feed my Sheep. In Matthew 16, Jesus uses almost the same wording that is in Isaiah 22:22 where the King gives the keys of the to his Chief Steward, or Prime Minister. The King delegates him his authority.
February 21 at 1:27pm via mobile · Like · 1

Keith Hall It is just not true that the Pope is not mentioned in early Church history. All you have to do is go to newadvent.org. The Papacy goes back in an uninterrupted line.
February 21 at 1:31pm via mobile · Like

Keith Hall The word Catholic and the word Bishop are mentioned early as 153 by St. Justin Martyr. And he doesn't mean a mystical body of believers. Catholic, the original Church founded by Christ is a visible structure with a hierarchy going back 2000 years. St. Polycarp and St. Iraneus speak of the Eucharist, Baptism, Ordination, the laying on of hands, Matrimony, Anointing the sick (also in James), and the other Sacraments. The early Church was the Catholic Church.
February 21 at 1:39pm via mobile · Edited · Like

Brooke Anglin It just makes no sense that Christ would found a church that prays to people other than God, and has a checklist like salvation understanding.
February 21 at 1:42pm via mobile · Like · 1

Keith Hall When Catholics pray to Saints, they are simply asking those fellow Church members to pray for them. "Pray" in that sense means simply "to ask." Protestants usually see pray as meaning a form worship. But for Catholics it has two different meanings It is perrfectly fine to ask a fellow Church member to pray for you. It is strictly forbidden for Catholics to worship Mary or any other person. All people ask others to pray for them don't they? The Saints in Heavens and the Church on earth are seen by the Catholic Church as all one Church.
February 21 at 1:58pm · Like · 1

Keith Hall If the Catholic Church was somehow corrupted in the fourth century, you would expect an abrupt change in doctrine from Protestant beliefs to "corrupt" Catholic beliefs. If you read history, we in fact do not see this. Doctrines such as the Eucharist, Confirmation, and the others are seen in the earliest Church documents. The abrupt change took place in 1517, at the start of the Protestantism Reformation, what really should be called the Protestant Revolution. Are we to believe that Christ abandoned his Church for 1200 years. He said he would be with the Church, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. All throughout the Middle Ages Christ was not with the Church?
February 21 at 2:05pm · Like

Keith Hall The ideas of Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and the Priesthood of All Believers are about 500 years old. Catholic doctrines and beliefs date back to the earliest Christian writings and are Scriptural.
February 21 at 2:08pm · Unlike · 2

Brooke Anglin From personal experience with my husband (raised catholic) and what he has told me about Catholicism, some of the things just don't match up with the bible. But he could explain better. I wish he would join the group, but for now that's a no.
February 21 at 2:41pm via mobile · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin I'm not saying by any means that you are not my brother in Christ, just want to clarify that
February 21 at 2:44pm via mobile · Like

Keith Hall Oh, no, I lost my typed paragraph. God must not want me to post that. Lol
February 21 at 2:53pm · Like

Brooke Anglin Lol
February 21 at 2:53pm via mobile · Like

Keith Hall I'm retiring off the page for a while. One could get lost in this eternal sea of religious debate.
February 21 at 2:56pm · Like

Joshua Ortman Keith, not to sound disrespectful, but there was no "Catholic Church" before the 4th Century. There were many "congregations" of Christians, many of them all holding to different doctrines and beliefs, much like we see today. We can see the evidence of this in Revelation and the rebuke of some congregations who had already started to fall away from proper worship.

Along comes Emperor Constantine (who was a pagan his whole life, by the way) in 313 AD proclaiming himself the head of the Christian Church. Constantine was no theologian, but he was a terrific statesman. He knew he could unify his empire through Christianity, but first he had to unify the Christians. He started to universalise Christianity by starting to hold councils, and whatever the councils decided is what Christians were to believe. Hence the term Catholic which is from Greek "universal". Under this new universal religion, pagans were even allowed to hold to pagan customs while saying they were Christian. Biggest case in point for this is December 25th. That was the day for worshipping the sun God, then the church says its for worshipping the Son of God. Win win for everybody.

The only reason I said the church was established in 380 is because that is when it became a state religion.
February 21 at 3:03pm via mobile · Like · 3

Richard Bushey Joshua Ortman Who was St Linus, and the others that are said to have been "pope" after Peter?
February 21 at 3:06pm · Like

Joshua Ortman Linus is said to have died around 76 AD and was Bishop of the Diocese of Rome after Peter. I find it odd that the bible makes no mention of Peter being bishop and makes no mention of succession. Since the bishop of Rome is supposed to be head of the church, and bible books were still being written around the time of Linus' Papal office, the scriptures remain eerily silent about him.
February 21 at 3:17pm via mobile · Like · 4

Richard Bushey I noticed that. Even the book of revelations was finished near the end of the first century, around the time that the fourth pope came into office. Yet none of them mentioned.
February 21 at 3:21pm · Like · 3

Jeff Rainforth I thought Simon Magus was the first Pope? lol.
February 21 at 4:38pm · Like

Kevin Micuch Scott Carson i was talking about "verbally talking" as in Acts and the Gospels
February 21 at 5:32pm · Like · 1

Scott Carson Sarcasm Kevin. But if they really want to view it that way Paul does apear to have dictated most of what he wrote to someone else to write so he still would have verbaly said more.
February 21 at 6:54pm · Like · 2

Sacerdotus Michael With all due respect to my friends here, I have to say that the comments made claiming that the word "pope" and what not is not in Scripture, or that Peter was not the first pope nor in Rome, is intellectually dishonest. Scholars of all faiths and no faith all agree with the history of the Catholic Church and the Papacy as it is presented by the Church. As a former atheist, I value academia greatly. Yet, in academia, one will not find any positions claiming what some claim here regarding the papacy and Peter.

Peter as Pope and as bishop of Rome is not something that is taught solely in Catholic universities. These historical facts are taught in secular universities as well and can be found in any encyclopedia in any library worldwide. The ideas that Peter was not pope nor in Rome stem from the Reformation. Naturally, in order to present one's sect as "true Christianity," one had to attack the one already there. It is like a a rivalry between 2 businesses. One presented an original product first and another newbie comes along and claims that product is faulty and his/her's is better or more unique.

As St. John Neumann, a convert himself said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Again, with all respect to my Protestant friends; Protestant eisegesis cannot be found in Scripture, nor in the thoughts and writings of the early Christians. No matter how hard a Protestant scholar will try to bend their words to favor Protestantism, it will not work. It is no wonder why Catholic coverts from Protestantism convert due to studying Scripture and/or the Early Christians.

Moreover, the fallacious statement that the word "pope" is not in Scripture, therefore it is not valid is absurd. It is a play on words. The word "Bible" is not there either, yet we call the collection of Scriptures that. Moreover, the word "trinity" is not there, nor the canon of Scripture, yet we accept it as valid. Scripture does not even call itself the "Word of God." This label comes from the Catholic Church.

On the topic of the canon, it was the Catholic Church headed by Pope Damasus I who gave us the canon of Scripture. I find it hilarious that some Protestants claim the Papacy is not scriptural when the Papacy existed before the canon of Scripture! I invite you to show me Scripture verses that presents the canon exactly how it should be in the Bible. If you cannot find them, then you have to concede and give respect where it's due: the Catholic Church and the Papacy.

Granted, we will not find words such as "Pope," "pontiff," "Bible," or "Trinity" in Scripture; however, the concepts are there and the early Christians understood them and applied them to the structure of the Church and her Teachings.

In 1 Pet. 5:13, Peter sends his greetings from his location in "Babylon" which is a code word for Rome as we see in Revelations. There is also witness by the early Christians given such as:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1.

Peter's role as the first is extremely significant. He is mentioned 155 times alone while the others are mentioned together about 125 times. Jesus chose Simon to be the Rock upon which He would build His Church and gave Him the keys which stems from IS. 22v22. The keys are a sign of succession and authority. Only Peter is the 'rock.'

I side with academia on this one. Protestant eisegesis cannot stand against it. None of the arguments here against the papacy and the Catholic Church hold weight next to the evidence that academia accepts.
February 21 at 10:26pm · Like · 1

Joshua Ortman I don't think I'll stand with academia on this one, Sacerdotus Micheal. I'll side with Scripture. Matthew 16:18 is the verse most use to say that Peter was the chosen one. Yet if you ACTUALLY read the verse, it doesn't say Peter is the rock that the church is built upon.

In 1Corinthians 10:4, Jesus is identified as the rock that the church is built upon. Peter himself said that Jesus was the rock in 1 Peter 2:4, 6-8 and Acts 4:8-12.
February 21 at 10:58pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael The name Peter means Rock. Jesus changed His name. Why would He do this? Simon is a cool name, there's even a game named after it Yes, Jesus is the Rock. But Jesus names Simon the Rock. This is why the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ."
February 21 at 11:01pm · Like

Joshua Ortman And you contradict what Peter himself says in Scripture
February 21 at 11:03pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael There is no contradiction. Jesus IS the Rock, Jesus IS the real Priest. However, Jesus named Simon the Rock for a specific reason. He gave him the keys for a specific reason. This is why the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. He doesn't replace Christ, or is Christ; the Pope represents Christ as the Shepherd of the Church.
February 21 at 11:05pm · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Don't fathers represent Christ to their children and wives? Aren't we all to be representing Christ? One would think that when one man is in charge things get sticky. Is it not fair to say that a group of leaders is better than one? The apostles were 12. They decided things together. Christ being the head of them as well as the church. At my church we have elders. There is no ONE man in charge.
February 22 at 12:23am via mobile · Like · 2

Brooke Anglin I guess I'm trying to say, there's no evidence of Peter being any more of a "shot caller" than any of the other apostles.
February 22 at 12:24am via mobile · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini And that is the biblical form of church government, Brooke, and the one we see in the earliest church documents. A singular bishop of Rome did not arise until much later.
February 22 at 12:25am · Like · 1

Richard Bushey A shot caller? You have quite the extensive vocabulary!
February 22 at 12:25am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Haha.
February 22 at 12:26am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini If Peter was a pope he certainly didn't know it. He didn't play much of a role at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, other than relaying a personal experience. He exhorts believers as a fellow elder (1 Pet 5:1-3), not pulling rank on them as some kind of pope. He is not infallible in speaking on faith and morals, nor is there any evidence that he was ever in Rome. It is quite strange for the complete absence of pope, not only in early church history, but in Scripture.
February 22 at 12:28am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini Brooke, what you received was a crash course in what passes for modern RC “apologetics”: the unscholarly attempt to rewrite history, assume your conclusions, and reject Scriptural authority. Exhibit A:

“the modern Bishops are the direct successors of the Twelve Apostles. Every Catholic Priest can trace his ordination back to Peter the original Pope. Priests were ordained by Bishops , and they were ordained by the Pope, whose authority can be traced by the laying on of hands in direct succession to Peter, the first Pope. “

Scripture?

“Matthew 16:17-19 is the main scripture from which the Church maintains the authority of Peter and his successors as Shepherds of the Church.”

That is correct. This is the main passage by which Rome bases her tradition. Notice it says nothing about the concept of a papacy. You know you are in trouble when your main prooftext doesn’t support your conclusion!

“ But there is also a passage where Jesus tells Peter to feed my Sheep.”

Yep, still waiting for the text in which Peter becomes Pope.

“ In Matthew 16, Jesus uses almost the same wording that is in Isaiah 22:22 where the King gives the keys of the to his Chief Steward, or Prime Minister. The King delegates him his authority.”

As often as I’ve heard this argument, I’ve always wondered what the Key (singular) or Isa 22, dealing with the future Davidic Kingdom, have to do with the keys (plural) or Matt 16, dealing with the authority given to the apostles.

“he Papacy goes back in an uninterrupted line.”

Scripture? This is blatantly false. There are contradictory lists of popes, but no unbroken line. The reason for this is very simple. No one in the early church cared who the bishop of Rome was, so no one kept records. The evidence that we have from the earliest church documents is that there were multiple bishops overseeing the church, as per the biblical pattern of church government, unlike Rome, but very similar to most evangelical churches today.

“The word Catholic and the word Bishop are mentioned early as 153 by St. Justin Martyr.”

That’s nice. And who exactly denied this? As has been repeatedly pointed out, RCs must read into those terms their own theology. Bishops are actually mentioned much earlier, in the Scriptures themselves.

“And he doesn't mean a mystical body of believers.”

???

“Catholic, the original Church founded by Christ is a visible structure with a hierarchy going back 2000 years.”

Indeed, the universal church is, but not the RCC.

“ St. Polycarp and St. Iraneus speak of the Eucharist, Baptism, Ordination, the laying on of hands, Matrimony, Anointing the sick (also in James), and the other Sacraments. The early Church was the Catholic Church.”

And all of church history gets whitewashed to make it sound like the early church = the RCC, minus cell phones.

“When Catholics pray to Saints, they are simply asking those fellow Church members to pray for them. "Pray" in that sense means simply "to ask." Protestants usually see pray as meaning a form worship. But for Catholics it has two different meanings.”

Scripture?

“It is strictly forbidden for Catholics to worship Mary or any other person”

One would be hard pressed to see the difference between worship and what Rome claims is veneration of Mary. It would be even harder to see where such is commanded in Scripture.

“If the Catholic Church was somehow corrupted in the fourth century, you would expect an abrupt change in doctrine from Protestant beliefs to "corrupt" Catholic beliefs.”

???

“If you read history, we in fact do not see this. Doctrines such as the Eucharist, Confirmation, and the others are seen in the earliest Church documents”

Of course this is a false argument, since no one claims the early church did not believe in many of these doctrines, just not without the RC spin put on them. Of course, it is Scripture, not early church fathers, that is the authority.

“The abrupt change took place in 1517, at the start of the Protestantism Reformation, what really should be called the Protestant Revolution. Are we to believe that Christ abandoned his Church for 1200 years.”

Of course not. But since you start out with the blind assumption that all of church history was RC, you must assume that any different belief was divergent. Unfortunately, you can’t step outside of your little circle to actually ask if such beliefs are biblical and were the true teaching of the church.

“He said he would be with the Church, and the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. All throughout the Middle Ages Christ was not with the Church?”

Faulty assumption based on faulty premises. If this were true, you would have to believe that the Gates of Hades did prevail at the Reformation. But the Reformers were not teaching any new doctrine. Not only did they ground their beliefs in Scripture, but showed the continuity to the early church. It was Rome, they rightfully argued, which departed from the faith.

“The ideas of Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, and the Priesthood of All Believers are about 500 years old.”

Here is how I know you have never studied church history. No honest student of the history of the church can make this claim without looking through “Rome-colored glasses”. What of Jerome and the other Fathers who bodly proclaimed we are justified by faith alone, the very thing Rome says he couldn’t have possibly said? Athanasius, the great defender of the Trinity, like others in the early church, based his belief on the sufficiency of Scripture. Apparently , he didn’t get the message that he is not supposed to say things like that! Having said all of that, the real issue is what the Scripture teaches. And it is here where Rome fails.

“Catholic doctrines and beliefs date back to the earliest Christian writings and are Scriptural.”

As has been repeated, you hijack the term “catholic” and use it in a most unhistorical way, so yes, catholic beliefs, or those belonging to the universal church, were indeed Scriptural and found in the writings of the ECFs. The same cannot be said for RC dogma.
February 22 at 12:29am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin The part about praying (or asking) to saints, applies to dead ones. That's actually forbidden in scripture. What can a dead saint do for any alive human?
February 22 at 12:33am via mobile · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini Exactly, it is common for RCs to say they ask Mary to pray for us, the same way we ask one another to pray for us. But if I ask you to pray for me, I don’t light a candle before a picture of you on an altar, bow down before it, and proclaim “O Queen of Heaven, I entrust my soul to you!” How can that not be construed as anything but worship?
February 22 at 12:35am · Like · 2

Richard Bushey It's true, I almost never do that when I ask people to pray for me. What I find interesting about Catholicism is that in doctrine, they say that they do not worship Mary, but in practice, they do. If you go into their churches, they absolutely do.
February 22 at 12:37am · Like · 2

Sacerdotus Michael Yes, we all represent Christ to a certain degree;however, the ordain act as Christ. In other words, Christ bestows the Sacraments via them. Your church is obviously formulated after those of the reformation so they are more based on freedom of roles. Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the others. Acts 1:15 - Peter begins the replacement of Judas. Acts 2:14- Peter is the first to speak after Pentecost. Acts 3:6-7 - Peter does the first miracle. Acts 5:3 - Peter initiates the first excommunication. Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to address Peter. 1 Cor. 9:5 - Peter is uniquely set apart from the others. 1 Peter 5:1 - Peter takes the leading role among the other elders.
February 22 at 12:38am · Like

Brett Coffrini You use the Peter most/Peter 1st/Peter only argument, Michael, which is common in RC circles. But the most you can get from that is that Peter had an important role in the early church, not that he was some kind of Pope.
February 22 at 12:41am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini no serious scholar, secular or religious would accept your distortion of history and scripture.
February 22 at 12:41am · Like

Brooke Anglin Praying to a dead saint to ask them to intercede or pray for you, kind of takes away from what Christ is already doing for us.
February 22 at 12:41am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael That important role is the Papacy.
February 22 at 12:42am · Like

Brett Coffrini That is exactly what I would say about Rome's view of church history, Michael. You would be laughed at if you claimed the RCC was the one true church founded by Christ with the same doctrines today.
February 22 at 12:42am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin praying to saints does not take away from Christ. Nothing separates us from Christ, not even death. So asking a saint to pray for us is the same as asking someone living to pray for us. They are still alive in Christ.
February 22 at 12:43am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini "That important role is the Papacy"

Scripture?
February 22 at 12:43am · Like · 2

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini did you read my long response? No academic would accept the claims of Protestantism in regards to history and the existence of dogmas already present since the early day.s
February 22 at 12:44am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter showing that Simon would have a unique role. He would then bestow the keys of heaven and earth mirroring Is 22v22. This shows authority and succession. The early Christians testify to this.
February 22 at 12:45am · Like

Brett Coffrini I did read it. You commit a number of errors and essentially assume your position
February 22 at 12:45am · Like

Brooke Anglin Sacerdotus Michael, no I think you misunderstand me. Asking a saint who is in heaven to pray for us, is not necessary because Christ is already interceding on our behalf to the Father. So to ask a saint who is lesser than Christ to do what Christ already does perfectly, kind of takes away from His role.
February 22 at 12:45am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini et all, I invite you to contact your local university's history department and inquire about Peter as pope.
February 22 at 12:45am · Like

Brooke Anglin Also, Jesus changed a lot of their names didnt He?
February 22 at 12:45am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin does your church pray for you?
February 22 at 12:45am · Like

Brett Coffrini Changing his name doesn't make him a pope, the burden of proof is on you to show the connection between Isa 22 and Matt 16, or did you not read my response.
February 22 at 12:46am · Like

Brett Coffrini I happen to know the prof of historical theo here at The Masters College, and already know his view on this.
February 22 at 12:46am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Pope is just another word for father. I use the term to mean the authority of the papacy.
February 22 at 12:47am · Like

Brooke Anglin Yes Sacerdotus Michael, but they are not dead. When were dead with God in heaven, we won't be concerned with things on earth and nor can anyone on earth contact us, or we them.
February 22 at 12:47am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael But they are alive and if Christ is praying for you, why do you need them?
February 22 at 12:47am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Well Brett Coffrini please invite this professor to this discussion.
February 22 at 12:48am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael No academic will state that Peter was not the first pope. This is just absurd.
February 22 at 12:48am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Even atheists accept this fact! They just have issue with the Jesus God part and the power of the Church.
February 22 at 12:49am · Like

Brooke Anglin The Holy Spirit is interceding our prayers to the Father on our behalf. Christ is there pleading on our behalf. Alive people on earth that is. Dead saints are not omnipresent. How can we contact them?
February 22 at 12:49am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Again, why do you need people to pray for you if you have the Son of God already pleading?
February 22 at 12:50am · Like

Brett Coffrini I’ll give you his contact info if you would like to discuss this with him.
February 22 at 12:50am · Like

Brooke Anglin You are failing to make the distinction between alive, and dead in heaven. Lol.
February 22 at 12:50am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini Neither Scripture nor church history recognize that, Michael.
February 22 at 12:51am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Look: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/453832/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle

Saint Peter the Apostle (Christian Apostle) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
www.britannica.com
Disciple of Jesus Christ, recognized in the early Christian church as the leader of the disciples and by the Roman Catholic church as the first of its unbroken succession of popes. Peter, a fisherman,...
February 22 at 12:51am · Like · Remove Preview

Sacerdotus Michael Now are you going to sit here and tell me you are correct and the encyclopedia is not?
February 22 at 12:51am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin NOTHING separates us from Christ, NOT EVEN DEATH.
February 22 at 12:51am · Like

Brett Coffrini Did you even read that article, Michael?
February 22 at 12:53am · Like

Keith Hall Thank you Sacerdotus Michael for posting the truth about the Catholic Church, and for defending her. There can be no doubt that the Catholic Church is the one established by Christ. Contrary to what Brett Coffrini has said, it is, with all due respect, Protestants who attempt to project their beliefs onto the early Church. All one has to do is pick up a book of one of the early Church Fathers, or read them online, and one will know that the Catholic Church is the original, true Church. Protestantism is still quite young compared to the Catholic Church, only about 500 years old - compared to the 2000 year old Church founded by Christ. But when fallacious, entrenched ideas, born of mere acceptance of what is heard, without proper investigation, is encountered, they are difficult to overturn. People don't know what they don't know, as you, I, Cardinal Henry Neumann, and a host of other Protestants who later came to know the truth of the Catholic Church, were at one time. The same old, diehard, Protestant myths are still here. We both know that Constantine did not convert to Christianity until his death, and played little, if any, part in the Council of Nicaea. But the myth still persists among some misinformed Protestants that he established the Church. Saints Ambrose, Iranaeus, Polycarp, (disciple of St. John),Ignatius of Antioch (disciple of Saint John), John Chrysostom, Clement, and a host of others give witness to the true nature of the original Church. I especially liked the statement of Cardinal Neumann - that "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." How true this is. I found out for myself. I myself was an anti-Catholic Protestant. In my graduate studies in Early Modern European History I encountered the Protestant Revolution (I believe Reformation is the wrong label). At the time, I "knew" the Protestant position to be "right." I then encountered the Doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist - a doctrine that is written about by Saint Polycarp and Saint Ignatius of Antioch, (among many other early Church fathers) disciples of Saint John, the Apostle. I was fascinated by and inexplicably drawn to this doctrine, the most sacred and revered of Catholic beliefs, and the source of great reverence held by Catholics in worship at the Mass - Christ is there, body, blood, soul, and divinity. I began watching EWTN, the global Catholic network, still just investigating for history's sake. I found that Catholic worship - the Mass had not changed at all for 2000 years, when I began to read the early Church Fathers. I felt the call of the Holy Spirit and began to attend Mass at my local parish, and the rest, as they say, is history. I will say though, at my first Mass, I felt the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit on me. It could've been nothing else. I felt a warmth overcome me, and I felt in my head almost a burning sensation. Anyway, there is one other thing I wish to mention that I don't think we've addressed here. Catholics have two sources of authority, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the latter being the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles and Bishops in the Church - the oral tradition of the Church (not to be confused with the "traditions of men"). With all of the respect due to my Protestant brothers, Sola Scriptura is not scriptural. Nowhere in scripture can you find that scripture is the only source of authority for Christian belief. But there are scriptures pointing to scripture and sacred tradition as the sources of authority. 2 Thess 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by WORD OF MOUTH or by letter. Mr. Brett Coffrini is blatantly falsifying history. He must try to show that the "RCC" is not historical, that it was somehow divergent from historical Christianity. He in fact cannot do this. He falsified statements by St. Jeromre and Athsnasius. (Notice he does not include the actual quotes and sources of those statements). The end of the matter is, is that no matter how hard Protestantism tried, it has no historical claims to Christianity past the year 1517.
February 22 at 12:57am via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael yes
February 22 at 12:53am · Like

Brett Coffrini Besides, I think Scripture is a higher authority than the encyclopedia
February 22 at 12:53am · Like

Brett Coffrini ok, then you know it is stating RC beliefs and goes on to show problems with that?
February 22 at 12:53am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Where do you think they get the information from???
February 22 at 12:54am · Like

Brooke Anglin I know but thats Christ. You can't deny that we people on earth are separate from dead people in heaven and are forbidden (Deut 18:11; 1 Samuel 28:1-25; 1Chronicles 10:13-14) to make contact with dead people
February 22 at 12:54am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael The bottomline is that the rhetoric you post is from the reformation. It is not biblical nor found in the early Church.
February 22 at 12:54am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael You have every right to question the Pope etc, but you have no right to make your own facts.
February 22 at 12:54am · Like

Brett Coffrini Translation: It challenges my traditions, so it can't be correct!
February 22 at 12:55am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Well you are falling into fundamentalism. Not good...
February 22 at 12:55am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Christ is about the Truth.
February 22 at 12:55am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin it is not about contacting the dead. They are already part of the Body of Christ.
February 22 at 12:56am · Like

Brooke Anglin Was that^^ to me Sacerdotus Michael?
February 22 at 12:56am · Like

Brett Coffrini It’s all narrow circular reasoning: The Peter was the 1st pope so the RCC is true. How do we know the RCC is true? B/c the RCC tells us it is!
February 22 at 12:56am · Like

Brett Coffrini Yes, I do hold to the fundamentals of the faith
February 22 at 12:56am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Ok so then how can they hear our prayers? Are they (the dead saints in heaven) omnipresent?
February 22 at 12:56am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael RCC is not even accurate. You are excluding the uniates.
February 22 at 12:56am · Like

Brooke Anglin it seems more biblical (although it IS NOT biblical at all) to pray to angels who are actually around us and that God sends to protect us than to pray to dead saints in heaven (a completely other realm)
February 22 at 12:58am · Edited · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael How can they hear period? The dead do not have ears. No one has really answered how prayer travels, so that answer can be anything. Quantum entanglement? Its safe to say that since they are still part of the body of Christ, they still "hear" or are in communication with us just like cells communicate with other cells. BUT.. not communication like fortune tellers or the like. I would describe it more like a collective body.
February 22 at 12:58am · Like

Brooke Anglin Well prayers are heard by God because He is omnipresent.
February 22 at 12:59am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael What you and brett need to remember when you throw the word "biblical" around is that these ideas existed prior to the canon.
February 22 at 1:00am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael The saints pray for us just like we pray for each other here on earth. Death doesn't separate us from Christ. The dead are still part of the same Body of Christ. There are not different bodies, just ONE.
February 22 at 1:00am · Like

Brett Coffrini Is that your way of saying that you can't support your dogmas from Scripture?
February 22 at 1:01am · Like

Brooke Anglin Praying to angels and the dead can be ideas all day long. But that doesnt make them permissible by God who gave us instructions in the bible.
February 22 at 1:01am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael What way? I am merely stating that most teachings of the Church existed before the NT or complete canon of Scripture existed as we know it today. Of course they are supported. Why would the Catholic Church give us the Bible and not use it?
February 22 at 1:03am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin show me in the Bible where it says NOT to pray to a saint or ask a saint/dead person to pray for you.
February 22 at 1:03am · Like

Brooke Anglin Death doesnt separate from Christ, no one is saying that it does. My dead grandma however- different story. I dont "feel" her presence, nor does she have a holy spirit that bears witness to me. I see no where in the bible that says its ok to talk to dead people and expect them to do anything for you. I see things contrary actually.
February 22 at 1:03am · Like

Brett Coffrini "Why would the Catholic Church give us the Bible and not use it?"

Scripture?
February 22 at 1:04am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini show me in Scripture where it lists the canon.
February 22 at 1:04am · Like

Brooke Anglin The bible says not to summon dead people. Thats what it says.
February 22 at 1:04am · Like

Brett Coffrini As often as I've been asked that question by RCs, I've never seen the point of it.
February 22 at 1:04am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Is asking a saint to pray equate to summoning them?
February 22 at 1:04am · Like

Brooke Anglin Saul was inquiring to a dead saint:
1 Chronicles 10:13-14 - So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, [even] against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking [counsel] of [one that had] a familiar spirit, to enquire [of it];
February 22 at 1:05am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini stop avoiding the question. If the Bible is your guide and answers all, it must have the list of the canon in it otherwise how did it come together from Gen - Rev?
February 22 at 1:05am · Like

Keith Hall What is the pillar and foundation of the truth? If you said the Bible, then it would itself disagree with you. New International Version (©1984) 1Timothy 3:15
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
February 22 at 1:05am via mobile · Unlike · 1

Brooke Anglin Ok fair enough Sacerdotus Michael, the word is *inquire*
February 22 at 1:05am · Like

Brett Coffrini I suppose it is meant to put the Bible down. I'll take your response as a "yes" to my question on being an excuse for being unbiblical.
February 22 at 1:06am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael The Church came before the Bible my friends. You have to accept and respect that reality.
February 22 at 1:06am · Like

Brett Coffrini God's providence, now how about you answer my questions of where any of this is biblical.
February 22 at 1:06am · Like

Brooke Anglin Keith Hall, the church would not have survived without Gods word.
February 22 at 1:06am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Show God's providence in guiding the construction of the canon in the bible please.
February 22 at 1:06am · Like

Brett Coffrini I'm sure Moses would be surprised to hear that.
February 22 at 1:06am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin please show where the scriptures call themselves God's word.
February 22 at 1:07am · Like

Brett Coffrini 2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Pet 1:19-21
February 22 at 1:07am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin What are you talking about anyway? lol, has it come to checking my grammar? you know Gods word = Bible dont you?
February 22 at 1:08am · Like

Brett Coffrini Matt 26:13
February 22 at 1:08am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini those passages do not specifically call scriptures the word of God.
February 22 at 1:08am · Like

Brett Coffrini Now before I answer anymore questions, you have to answer mine
February 22 at 1:08am · Like

Brett Coffrini that's nice
February 22 at 1:08am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Scripture = "Word of God" comes from the Catholic Church
February 22 at 1:09am · Like

Brett Coffrini Now if only we could find Scriptural support for that idea...
February 22 at 1:09am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Protestantism is using OUR BOOK and OUR Terminology.
February 22 at 1:09am · Like

Brooke Anglin Umm, I get that conclusion from scripture actually. Just because RCC agrees doesnt mean that they thought it up.
February 22 at 1:09am · Like

Brett Coffrini Especially since the Bible existed before the RCC
February 22 at 1:10am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin LOL so this RCC is an exclusive club I see.
February 22 at 1:10am · Edited · Like

Brett Coffrini Again, that would surprise Moses that we are using YOUR book
February 22 at 1:10am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael No where in scripture does it state it is the word of God. Jesus is the WORD.
February 22 at 1:10am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Evidence that the Bible existed before Pope Damasus please
February 22 at 1:10am · Like

Brett Coffrini Your low view of Scripture noted
February 22 at 1:11am · Like

Brett Coffrini The bible was completed circa AD 95
February 22 at 1:11am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael I value Scripture, but I will not distort its origins nor what it says and does not say.
February 22 at 1:11am · Like

Brooke Anglin Its called the Torah, or Old Testament. lol
February 22 at 1:11am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Is the Old Testament the Bible or the Jewish scriptures?
February 22 at 1:12am · Like

Brett Coffrini I really hope you will study these issues someday, Michael.
February 22 at 1:12am · Like

Brooke Anglin Well then why do you deny that the bible was started by ancient Israel, ie Gods chosen nation
February 22 at 1:12am · Like

Brooke Anglin They are EXACTLY the same
February 22 at 1:12am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael You guys really need to read up on this. As an Atheist this is why turned me off from Protestantism - the dishonesty in regards to facts.
February 22 at 1:12am · Like

Brooke Anglin The OT and Torah ARE the same. lol
February 22 at 1:12am · Like

Brett Coffrini RC, atheist, just another form of disbelief
February 22 at 1:13am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael The Torah are the first 5 books.
February 22 at 1:13am · Like

Brett Coffrini The Gospel is an offense
February 22 at 1:13am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael I'm sorry guys, but you need to set aside the fundamentalism and take in the facts.
February 22 at 1:14am · Like

Keith Hall But what Church is the question Protestants must ask. Which one? There is only one church that has been one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic since the beginning. The Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura threw off that one authority, and opened the floodgates of scriptural interpretation. This presented the world that each person could interpret the Bible for himself, creating thousands of "infallible" interpreters. How does that sound? Without the authority of one Church, the one founded by Christ, chaos in Christian doctrine ensued with the Protestant Revolution. The Bible itself says that the Church is the the pillar and foundation of the truth. It has to be the one founded by Christ. That, we know, is the Catholic Church. Think for a minute. It's all about the question of authority, because truth matters. There are about 30,000 Protestant denominations, each saying it has the truth. But think about it. The Catholic Church has ever since its beginning espoused only one truth, in unity.
February 22 at 1:15am via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 2

Brooke Anglin Nope LOL try again.
February 22 at 1:14am · Like

Brett Coffrini There really isn't much else I could say to you Michael, since you just assume your conclusions in accordance w/ what Mother Church dictated you must believe, even if it contradicts Scripture.
February 22 at 1:14am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini Wow, the 30,000 denomination myth
February 22 at 1:15am · Like

Richard Bushey Sacerdotus Michael Nobody is impressed by arrogance. Most of us look at it as though you were a blowfish, just puffing yourself up to make yourself look bigger. But in reality it is just air. There is nobody here who is going to think that because you tell people that they are being close-minded, that in fact they are being close-minded. People are going to look at the dialogue and the data, not depthless one-liners.
February 22 at 1:15am · Like · 2

Brett Coffrini Amen
February 22 at 1:15am · Like

Brooke Anglin I cant believe that its being denied that the Torah is the OT in English. And by Torah, I mean WRITTEN TORAH.
February 22 at 1:15am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael No Brett Coffrini if you read my story you would see that I did my own research. This is why I found truth in the Catholic Church. I did not have a filter in place that forced me to screen Catholicism or any other faith. I saw it objectively, catholicism made more sense.
February 22 at 1:16am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey you can't be naive and deny the historical facts. You are not entitled to your own facts buddy.
February 22 at 1:16am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael It is like telling an American George washington wasn't the first president despite the historical documentation.
February 22 at 1:17am · Like

Brooke Anglin Sacerdotus Michael you have no clue as to historical facts if you deny that the Written Torah is our Old Testament.
February 22 at 1:17am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael If you guys hate the Pope and Catholic Church, fine, but please do not distort history in order to make your case more viable. That's all I ask as an academic.
February 22 at 1:17am · Like

Keith Hall Brooke Anglin The saints in heaven are outside of time. We don't know how they hear our prayers. It's a matter if faith, just as in all other matters of religion.
February 22 at 1:18am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini I've been where you are Michael. There is error in everything you say. You can't step outside of your little box to realize that, that is why you are surprised that historians and scholars disagree with you.
February 22 at 1:18am · Like

Brooke Anglin Um no, I dont hate the pope. I just dont believe he has any rank. lol
February 22 at 1:18am · Like

Richard Bushey Sacerdotus Michael Look, like I said, if you want to make your case, then make it without the arrogance. It is not appreciated or welcome here. It is also unmerited.
February 22 at 1:18am · Like

Brett Coffrini No, here we go with accusations of hate. I guess that's what you do when you are losing an argument.
February 22 at 1:18am · Like

Brooke Anglin Keith Hall, the bible doesnt indicate that they do hear our prayers. They would have to be omnipresent, omniscient to do so.
February 22 at 1:19am · Edited · Like

Sacerdotus Michael There is no error. I am an academic, I take facts seriously. This is not about being arrogance, but about being truthful.
February 22 at 1:19am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Sacerdotus Michael If you do take facts seriously, you will recant the false statement that the RCC gave us the bible.
February 22 at 1:19am · Edited · Like

Sacerdotus Michael See there's a difference between Peter was the first Pope and did Peter really deserve to be called that.
February 22 at 1:20am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin And that the bible did not exist prior to the Church.
February 22 at 1:20am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Academia holds that Peter was indeed the first pope. We can disagree or agree as to whether or not he merited that position; however, we cannot distort the historicity of it.
February 22 at 1:20am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Please answer me Sacerdotus Michael. lol.
February 22 at 1:21am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael The Church was born on Pentecost, someone here mentioned the Bible appeared in AD 95 I believe. Look at in the incoherence..
February 22 at 1:21am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini academia apparently only = believing RCs
February 22 at 1:21am · Like

Brooke Anglin No he said it was COMPLETED, Sacerdotus Michael.
February 22 at 1:22am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini anyone who shows different facts must be ignored
February 22 at 1:22am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini do you know what a uniate is?
February 22 at 1:22am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael You guys do know there are other scriptures that existed at the same time??
February 22 at 1:22am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael The 27 books were NOT the only ones around as "scripture."
February 22 at 1:23am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Sacerdotus Michael do you know what the Written Torah is? It is the bible, pre Catholic Church.
February 22 at 1:23am · Like

Brett Coffrini Wrong, there was only Scripture, the other books were not Scripture
February 22 at 1:23am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Our Old Testament is EXACTLY the same as the Written Torah.
February 22 at 1:23am · Like · 2

Richard Bushey Apparently Sacerdotus Michael would have us believe that all secular historians are Roman Catholic. In any case, I am not very interested in what academia believes. This is a theology group, and a biblical discussion.

Suppose we were trying to determine whether macro-evolution was biblical and some know-it-all came in and assured us that there is verifiable evidence for it. Well that is nice to know, but we are trying to determine whether it is a coherent biblical doctrine.
February 22 at 1:24am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael No brooke, the TOrah are the first 5 and the Tanakh are the canon that we use, or most use.
February 22 at 1:24am · Like

Brooke Anglin the tanakh IS THE WRITTEN TORAH Michael.
February 22 at 1:25am · Like

Brooke Anglin But I am so glad you googled that.
February 22 at 1:25am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael I understand what you mean Richard Bushey, but we must stand by what is established as factual. Suppose I presented the idea that Jesus was an alien and cited passages?
February 22 at 1:26am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Suppose I stated Jesus is Horus... These are opinions that exist and are debated, but academia does not find credible.
February 22 at 1:26am · Like

Richard Bushey ...? There would be two ways to analyze whether Jesus is an alien/Horus. Biblically (the way that this group does) and historically. Secondly, if you wanted to refute a historical concept, it is not enough to just say, "all secular history is 100% unanimously RC." You would have to give some arguments.
February 22 at 1:28am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin there is no need to get defensive. I did not use google as you can see that I misspelled.
February 22 at 1:28am · Like

Keith Hall If we want to express the truth - Brett Coffrini says scripture is his only authority. But this is unscriptural. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the Bible is the sole authority of Christian belief. The argument logically self-destructs. It says "All Christian beliefs have as their authority the Bible alone - except this one." It's like saying, "There are no moral absolutes - except this one." You see that the statement is invalid and logically unsound. Scripture alone is not scriptural. It's simply a fact. Brett Coffrini, thank you for the compliment by the way. You could not offered better praise to me than calling me a Catholic apologist. Nice try. We also don't find the terms "fundamentalist," Protestant, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc in the Bible.
February 22 at 1:29am via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 1

Brett Coffrini "Brett Coffrini Says scripture is his only authority."

Where did Brett Coffrini say this?
February 22 at 1:30am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey I understand your approach; however, in most of your comments you are biased and take the side of Protestantism.
February 22 at 1:30am · Like

Brooke Anglin No you spelled it right. But you must now recant the previous statement you made about the bible only existing after the church. And I believe you finally googled it because finally you agreed. The Written Torah = Tanakh
February 22 at 1:30am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini Also, can you show me where the bible says it is a lesser authority? Otherwise that is a self refuting argument too, right Keith (cause we all know you are consistent)
February 22 at 1:30am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael I'm still waiting for either of you to answer my canon in Scripture question. I think it is a valid question. The Catholic Church does not have a dogma/doctrine on it. It is a question out there in the open.
February 22 at 1:31am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini I find it funny how the RCs keep saying they are waiting for answers to questions that have been answered while they dodge the ones posed to them.
February 22 at 1:32am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael No Brooke Anglin, what I mean is that the Bible as we know it today did not exist prior to the Church. There were MANY scriptures being used. It wasn't until the Pope listed the canon in his decreed that we got the official "word of God." All other scriptures were rejected.
February 22 at 1:32am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini where have you answered my question? Please show, I must have missed it.
February 22 at 1:33am · Like

Brett Coffrini "It wasn't until the Pope listed the canon in his decreed that we got the official "word of God."

Um, no
February 22 at 1:33am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini Go back and read my comments
February 22 at 1:34am · Like

Brooke Anglin No, the New Testament is what did not exist. The Torah, or OT was the only scripture used by Gods people. And it was Gods inspired word through His people. Prior to the NT.
February 22 at 1:34am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael I'm speaking of the Bible we use today, both OT and NT, not just the OT. Obviously the Torah was not called the Bible. Please show evidence of this.
February 22 at 1:34am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini please show how my statement is incorrect. Please show evidence that the Biblical canon existed prior to the Church.
February 22 at 1:36am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin The bible we use today existed prior! It's called the Old Testament, or Torah. Just because the NT was absent, doesn't mean the rest was nonexistent
February 22 at 1:36am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin Today, Christians could get by on the Old Testament alone.
February 22 at 1:36am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin Richard Bushey can explain this.
February 22 at 1:36am via mobile · Like

Richard Bushey What am I explaining? Lol.
February 22 at 1:38am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Ok, I'm curious to hear these ideas because they are foreign to me based on my studies.
February 22 at 1:39am · Like

Brett Coffrini How about you back up your claims?
February 22 at 1:39am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Can't Jewish people have salvation through Christ with the OT alone? Therefore shouldn't we be able to as well? Richard Bushey
February 22 at 1:39am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall I never said the Bible was the lesser authority. It cannot be separated from Sacred Tradition. So show me where I'm inconsistent Brett Coffrini. So you do hold that Sacred Tradition is also authoritative. I love the way Protestants like Brett Coffrini accuse us of answering non- existent questions because they can't possibly answer ours. Red herrings- anything to shift the subject away from talking about the truth - the truth that he does not possess.
February 22 at 1:42am via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 1

Brett Coffrini "I'm curious to hear these ideas because they are foreign to me based on my studies."

I think that is the most honest thing you have said, and it is why I said I wish you would really study these things, and nor just from a RC viewpoint.
February 22 at 1:40am · Like

Richard Bushey What I said was that prior to Christ, Christ's sacrifice was retroactive, sufficient for salvation for those who threw themselves on the mercy of God. knowing that they are a sinner.
February 22 at 1:42am · Like · 1

Richard Bushey But I would never advocate the sort of Billy Graham salvation where people can come to Christ "without knowing it" or whatever he said.
February 22 at 1:43am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Yes, I sense a blog post coming on this. I just find it absurd the denial of historical facts. Atheists would have a field day with this rhetoric, not to mention a history class.
February 22 at 1:43am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Then I misunderstood. I was recalling a conversation about the Torah being sufficient because of all the prophesies of Christ?
February 22 at 1:43am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini “I never said the Bible was the lesser authority. “

Ok, I’m glad to hear you now hold to the historic, biblical view of sola scriptura and rejected Rome’s view of sola ecclesia

“It cannot be separated from Sacred Tradition. So show me where I'm inconsistent Brett Coffrini.”

Scriptural proof requested, and if you cite passages that talk about tradition, please show that the tradition mentioned is exactly the same as what the RCC believes”

“ So you do hold that Sacred Tradition is also authoritative.”

Only in as far as sacred tradition = Scripture

“ I love the way Protestants like Brett Coffrini accuse us u of not answering non- existent questions because they can't possibly answer ours.”

Maybe you would like to answer one of my non-existent questions and tell me where my response is unbiblical in the multitude I have answered?
February 22 at 1:43am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Then why don't the Jews believe in Christ Jesus??
February 22 at 1:45am · Like · 1

Richard Bushey Sacerdotus Michael I continue to see you just asserting that there is a denial of facts, like some mantra that if you keep repeating it will become real. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You are trying to act like some sort of intellectual elistist and be a bully, as if it were irrational to reject Roman Catholicism.
February 22 at 1:45am · Like

Brooke Anglin Some do. They are Messianic Jews.
February 22 at 1:46am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin Others are still waiting for the Messiah. But messianic Jews believe in the NT.
February 22 at 1:46am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey read the entire dialog and you will see what I mean. I even posted a link to the encyclopedia! Its ok to reject Catholicism, Islam or whatever; but it's not ok to distort its history.
February 22 at 1:46am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin I already admitted that I must have misunderstood Richard. I believe what he was saying is that the Old Testament revelations from the prophets would lead Jewish people to the New Testament
February 22 at 1:48am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin And now that I have recanted my mistake, maybe you can recant yours.
February 22 at 1:48am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall Brett Coffrini You have answered nothing. You only deal in polemics. You have yet to show me where sola Scriptura is in the Bible? So, where is it? Show me if you can.
February 22 at 2:32am via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 1

Keith Hall Let me show you a few scriptures.
February 22 at 1:51am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6 But we strongly caution you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to draw yourselves away from every brother who is walking in disorder and not according to the TRADITION that they received from us.
February 22 at 1:55am via mobile · Unlike · 1

Sacerdotus Michael May I recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546/ref=reg_hu-rd_add_1_dp

Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
www.amazon.com
This voluminous study examines the question of the Papacy in theological, biblical, and historical context, attempting to dispel doubts about the traditional Roman Catholic position by an impessive collection of data and commentary.
February 22 at 1:55am · Like · Remove Preview

Keith Hall 1Cor 15:12 I PREACHED to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold fast - unless you believe in vain."
Note the reference to memory: the whole drift of the passage is an oral gospel and tradition transmitted by preaching and preserved by memory.
February 22 at 2:29am via mobile · Edited · Like

Keith Hall 1 Corinthians 11:23 - For I have RECEIVED from the Lord what I have also DELIVERED to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the same night that he was handed over, took bread,
February 22 at 1:59am via mobile · Edited · Like

Keith Hall 1Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brothers, because you are mindful of me in everything, in such a way as to hold to my precepts as I have HANDED THEM DOWN to you.
February 22 at 2:01am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin 2 thess 3:6 Is your strongest argument but it fails because none of the apostles ever talked about praying to dead people
February 22 at 2:01am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Revelation 5:8
New International Version (NIV)
8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.
February 22 at 2:03am · Like

Keith Hall 1Thess 2:13 For this reason also, we give thanks to God without ceasing: because, when you had accepted from us the Word of God which you HEARD from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but (as it truly is) as the Word of God, who is working in you who have believed.
February 22 at 2:28am via mobile · Edited · Like

Keith Hall The commonly asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and Tradition, is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men.
February 22 at 2:06am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall 2 Timothy 1:13-14 Hold to the kind of sound words that you have HEARD from me in the faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. Guard the good entrusted to you through the Holy Spirit, who lives within us.
February 22 at 2:09am via mobile · Edited · Like

Keith Hall 2Tim 2:2 and by the things which you have HEARD from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who shall then be suitable to teach others also.
February 22 at 2:11am via mobile · Edited · Like

Brooke Anglin And don't equate praying to Christ who was 100% man and 100% God to the Virgin Mary because she was only 100% woman.
February 22 at 2:11am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall St. Paul says that Timothy is not only to receive and follow the pattern of his ORAL teaching, in addition to his written instruction, but also to teach others the same. The Catholic Church seeks to do this with regard to the entire Deposit of Faith - the Apostles' teaching.
February 22 at 2:14am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin Yeah the universal church (catholic) not RCC
February 22 at 2:15am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall Brett Coffrini You have yet to show me where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. You know why? You can't. It's not in there. How do you think Christian beliefs were communicated by the mostly illiterate population before scripture was even written? Orally. And it is this Sacred Oral tradition which the Church, along with Sacred Scripture, has handed down for its duration.
February 22 at 2:23am via mobile · Edited · Like

Brett Coffrini “You have answered nothing. “

I challenge you to show me a single question I have not answered, while you and Michael continue to dodge every question you can’t answer. I am beginning to see I was wrong in giving you the benefit of the doubt, Keith, as you are a very dishonest man, not interested in the truth.

“You have yet to show me where sola Scriptura is in the Bible? So, where is? Show me if you can.”

I don’t recall you asking me this question, but essentially what you are asking is where does the Bible teach its own authority, which it does repeatedly. The burden of proof is on RCs to prove where the Bible tells us to to take a lower view of itself and exalts sola ecclesia. I await your answer.

“2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6 But we strongly caution you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to draw yourselves away from every brother who is walking in disorder and not according to the TRADITION that they received from us.”

Apparently you must have missed it when I said this (further proof you don’t read what I write): “…if you cite passages that talk about tradition, please show that the tradition mentioned is exactly the same as what the RCC believes”
February 22 at 2:31am · Like

Brett Coffrini "May I recommend this book”

Here is the perfect example of what I mean when I say you must rely on poor scholarship: http://vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html
February 22 at 2:31am · Like

Brett Coffrini “The commonly asserted dichotomy between the gospel and tradition, or between the Bible and Tradition, is unbiblical itself and must be discarded by the truly biblically minded person as (quite ironically) a corrupt tradition of men.”

Once again, you are found not fighting against me, but against the Word of God (Matt 15:6-9).

“St. Paul says that Timothy is not only to receive and follow the pattern of his ORAL teaching, in addition to his written instruction, but also to teach others the same. The Catholic Church seeks to do this with regard to the entire Deposit of Faith - the Apostles' teaching”

And where does Paul identify this as the traditions currently held by the RCC? Please point me where I can find such traditions that speak about the assumption of Mary and the infallibility of the pope.
February 22 at 2:32am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini The balls in your court, Keith, show me where the Bible teaches sola ecclessia.
February 22 at 2:32am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael You are citing AOMIN? Dr. White is known to do poorly against Catholic apologists. lol. We are still waiting for you to answer my question.
February 22 at 2:38am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael http://vimeo.com/8925866

Boston College Debate on the Pope #1: Was Peter the First Vicar of Christ?
Larry Wessels, Director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas/ Christian Debater; see websites: BIBLEQUERY ORG (answers 7700 Bible Questions), HISTORYCART COM (documents…
February 22 at 2:40am · Like · Remove Preview

Brett Coffrini Welcome to the bizarro world of Michael, where Dr. White doesn't win every debate against RCs (is that the reason they are so afraid to debate him?), the early church was entirely RC, and Michael has answered every question but Brett hasn't.
February 22 at 2:40am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael I contacted Dr. White back in 2006 to debate and I got the typical dilly dally response. lol
February 22 at 2:41am · Like

Brett Coffrini And yet RCs fear debating him for some strange reason...
February 22 at 2:41am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael When where??? I just posted a debate! lol
February 22 at 2:42am · Like

Brett Coffrini There are standing challenges for several RCs to debate him. They won't do it.
February 22 at 2:43am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Can you verify this?
February 22 at 2:43am · Like

Brett Coffrini This isn't secret information, Michael.
February 22 at 2:44am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael This is the first I've heard of it.
February 22 at 2:44am · Like

Brett Coffrini Why doesn't that surprise me?
February 22 at 2:45am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Why did his people refuse to allow me to debate him then?? Perhaps my past as a rationalist scared him?
February 22 at 2:45am · Like

Keith Hall "That scripture is the Rule if Faith is in fact an assumption so congenial to the state of mind and course of thought usual among Protestants, that it seems to them rather a truism than a truth. If they are in controversy with Catholics on any point of faith, they at once ask, "Where do you find it in scripture?" And if Catholics reply, as they must do, that it is not necessarily in scripture in order to be true, nothing can persuade them that such an answer is not an evasion, and a triumph to themselves. Yet it is by no means self-evident that all religious truth is to be found in a number of works [the Bible] which were written at different times, and did not always form one book; and in fact it is a doctrine very hard to prove....It is an assumption so deeply sunk into the popular mind, that it is a work of great difficulty to obtain from its maintainers an acknowledgement that it is an assumption." Cardinal John Henry Newmann, "An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent"
February 22 at 2:48am via mobile · Edited · Like

Brett Coffrini I don't work for AOMIN, so I can't tell you that, but he has debated skeptics before.
February 22 at 2:46am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Well I would've loved to see him debate Hitchens.
February 22 at 2:46am · Like

Brett Coffrini I believe they tried to set that up
February 22 at 2:47am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Dr. White mainly uses ad hominem to debate though. I doubt any serious person would want to engage a person who only attacks them and not their points.
February 22 at 2:48am · Like

Brett Coffrini Nope, not at all. He has always been respectful, even when his opponents have not (including RC ones)
February 22 at 2:49am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael He has also had trouble with Dr. Sungenis.
February 22 at 2:49am · Like

Brett Coffrini Even most RCs have trouble w/ Sungenis!
February 22 at 2:49am · Like

Keith Hall Brett Coffrini Pay attention. I'm not claiming Sola Ecclesia - you made that up by yourself - wow, you're good. If you would take the time to read my post, then you would know that I stated Scripture and Tradition cannot be separated. Please keep up. By the way I've already given you 1 Tim 3:15 that states that the Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth. Pretty slick how you try to skirt the issue by trying to say "no you show me." At least get my claim right. Come on you can do better than that.
February 22 at 2:56am via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 1

Brett Coffrini “Pay attention. I'm not claiming Sola Ecclesia - you made that up by yourself - wow, your good.”

Ok, so you don’t believe the RCC is the final authority and one true church founded by Christ. Noted.

“ If you would take the time to read my post, then you would know that I stated Scripture and Tradition cannot be separated. Please keep up.”

Still waiting for Scriptural support. You haven’t kept up.

“ By the way I've already given you 1 Tim 3:15 that states that the Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth.”

Yes, great proof of sola Scriptura, the church is to uphold the Truth. Not the opinion of the pope, not the apocrypha, not tradition. Also, note how it doesn’t say the RCC. Do you think the fact that Paul just got through talking about church offices may have something do with that?

“Pretty slick how you try to skirt the issue by trying to say "no you show me." At least get my claim right. Come on you can do better than that.”

Silly me, wanting things like “facts” and “evidence”!
February 22 at 2:58am · Like

Keith Hall Note that Brett Coffrini cannot show where Sola Scriptura is in the Bible. That's because it's not there. Sola Scriptura then, by its own assertion, is debunked.
February 22 at 2:58am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall End of story.
February 22 at 2:59am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael I think Brett Coffrini is playing contrarian now. The dialog has gone to no man's land.
February 22 at 2:59am · Like

Brett Coffrini You got me Keith. The Bible isn't authoritative. How crazy to think it is. End of story.
February 22 at 2:59am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini Brett's just waiting for Keith to back up his opinions and assertions
February 22 at 2:59am · Like

Keith Hall Brett Coffrini Your posts are unintelligible.
February 22 at 3:00am via mobile · Unlike · 1

Sacerdotus Michael You have failed to 1) Show where Scripture lists the canon 2) Show evidence that the Bible existed before the Catholic Church 3) Show evidence for Sola Scriptura.
February 22 at 3:00am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Also brooke did not address my Rev. quote regarding the bowls of incense/prayer. If dead people cannot hear or pray for us, then where did they come from?? Why are they holding prayers of the people of God? Why are they presenting it to the Lamb? Shouldn't Jesus hold the prayers before His Father?
February 22 at 3:03am · Like

Keith Hall All Brett Coffrini LOL you call me dishonest. Ad hominem. Please stop repeating my statements. You said that Sola Scriptura is all throughout the Bible. Give me one scripture. One verse.
February 22 at 3:04am via mobile · Unlike · 1

Keith Hall I'll answer any question you give me.
February 22 at 3:05am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall Maybe you didn't see the scriptures I posted above Brett Coffrini Do you have trouble seeing. Your assertion that I didn't present any evidence is laughable. And you continue to try to impress by offering "refutations" and attempting to shift responsibility when presented with questions or challenges you can't respond to.
February 22 at 3:09am via mobile · Like

Keith Hall You show no scriptures, no quotes, no nothing. We must trust your word on everything you say. Then you accuse others of things you yourself do. Brett Coffrini
February 22 at 3:11am via mobile · Edited · Like

Brett Coffrini "You have failed to 1) Show where Scripture lists the canon "

The Bible does not list the canon, and you failed to show why this is necessary

"2) Show evidence that the Bible existed before the Catholic Church"

I did. When was the OT written?

"3) Show evidence for Sola Scriptura."

I also did. The Bible repeatedly proclaims its own authority. Where does it teach sola ecclessia or claim to be a lesser authority? I would appreciate my questions answered for a change.
February 22 at 3:14am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini “Maybe you didn't see the scriptures I posted above Brett Coffrini Do you have trouble seeing.”

Which Scriptures? I asked for proof that tradition = what the RC currently believes. Please show me where you posted this and where you proved sola ecclesia.

“ Your assertion that I didn't present any evidence is laughable. And you continue to try to impress by offering "refutations" and attempting to shift responsibility when presented with questions or challenges you can't respond to.”

Ok, show me where you answered those questions.
February 22 at 3:14am · Like

Brett Coffrini Seriously Keith? You guys are the ones saying we should believe in Rome despite the evidence.
February 22 at 3:15am · Like

Keith Hall And you only deal in polemics my friend. You finally resort to insults, like calling others dishonest. I believe you are the one dishonest here. I have given scriptural evidence supporting the fact that the early Church relied on oral tradition. I have challenged you to give me one scripture that supports Sola Scriptura. You can't. All you can do is make up statements of your own in response to what we say. Reasoned, civil debate appears to be something in which you are unable to participate, Brett Coffrini.
February 22 at 3:16am via mobile · Edited · Like

Brett Coffrini Even apart from the fact that you can't support your opinions, Keith, you are a horrible representative of Rome. The hatred you show towards others who ask simple things of you. Don't see anyone converting due to your witness.
February 22 at 3:16am · Like

Keith Hall Brett Coffrini: Your so off base that you said this in response to one my scriptures: “ By the way I've already given you 1 Tim 3:15 that states that the Church is the foundation and pillar of Truth.”

"Yes, great proof of sola Scriptura, the church is to uphold the Truth."
February 22 at 3:20am via mobile · Edited · Like

Sacerdotus Michael //The Bible does not list the canon, and you failed to show why this is necessary
/// This is necessary because how do you know what books really make up the canon if Scripture does not say it? Obviously an external authority decided this. ///I did. When was the OT written?// The OT and the Bible are not the same. //I also did. The Bible repeatedly proclaims its own authority. Where does it teach sola ecclessia or claim to be a lesser authority? I would appreciate my questions answered for a change.// All you have shown is that it is useful, not that it is the sole authority.
February 22 at 3:21am · Edited · Like

Keith Hall How is the church being the foundation of truth proof of sola Scriptura? LOL
February 22 at 3:20am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini Of course, you can't actually show, from Scripture how I am off base. But Mother Church dictates what you must believe, so once again the authority of Scripture gets tossed aside.
February 22 at 3:20am · Like

Brett Coffrini The church is not a church b/c of a pope, but for the truth it upholds. You really think the concept of a church is opposed to sola scriptura, don't you?
February 22 at 3:21am · Like

Brett Coffrini If a church fails to uphold truth, it is not a true church, not matter what it claims
February 22 at 3:22am · Like

Keith Hall Unintelligible. I think all Brett Coffrini wants to do is argue for the sake of arguing. He wants to "win" the argument, attempt to show that he is "astute" and "eloquent," and "show up" the other person. It seems he is less interested in civil, reasoned debate.
February 22 at 3:23am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini Yeah, that's what I thought
February 22 at 3:23am · Like

Brett Coffrini Perhaps if biblical truth is unitelligellible to you, it is evidence of your spiritual condition?
February 22 at 3:24am · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini And for the record, I could care less what you think of me, Keith. My only concern is the gospel.
February 22 at 3:25am · Like

Keith Hall I have no idea what you're talking about. You really didn't study your Catholic faith did you? Scripture, tradition, and the Church are all part of the same thing for Catholics. Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is the Living Word. Sacred Tradition is the oral Word of God passed on. And the Church is the Body of Christ, and his Bride, the authority he established so that believers might remain one in his Word. I have no idea what you even mean by my opposing church to sola Scriptura. All I said was show me a scripture that supports Sola Scriptura. It's okay Brett. Nobody can do it. It's not in there.
February 22 at 3:47am via mobile · Edited · Like · 1

Brett Coffrini Whatever you have to tell yourself, Keith. I won't hold my breath that you can support your above statement.
February 22 at 3:31am · Like

Keith Hall "Even apart from the fact that you can't support your opinions, Keith, you are a horrible representative of Rome. The hatred you show towards others who ask simple things of you. Don't see anyone converting due to your witness."
Let's examine these statements. This is interesting. Brett Coffrini You have the unmitigated gall to say I show hatred, after your polemics. LOL. I don't support my opinions but you fail to show one scripture or any quote from any source? LOL And I'm the one who can't answer a simple question? You still haven't shown me where Sola Scriptura is in Scripture. You're a riot! I'm a bad representative? Right back at ya Brett. I dont know anyone that you could persuade. I think you need to reexamine your reasons for discussing Christian belief. You come into a debate and you right away begin engaging in less than civil argumentation, and when accused, attempt to turn the accusation around, attempting to shift the focus. Every shortcoming of your own you project onto your opponent. You think that copying and pasting your opponents' statements and then answering them below each one makes your arguments stronger somehow I guess. You've accused me of dishonesty and hatred. Where? If I engaged in some slights to your character it was only in response to yours to my character. This is how you argue Brett. Anyway, with your last statement you have lowered this discussion into ad hominem. I must retire. Don't worry you may have the last word. Sure you don't want to show me in scripture where Sola Scriptura is? LOL
February 22 at 3:51am via mobile · Edited · Like

Keith Hall What's sola Ecclesia got to do with anything? I never claimed there was any such thing as that. YOU MADE THAT UP Brett Coffrini. LOL WHAT THE HELL ARE TOU TALKING ABOUT?! LOL
February 22 at 4:01am via mobile · Edited · Like

Keith Hall You can't seem to understand that for Catholics, there is no Sola Anything. Your Sola Ecclesia is a straw man. Sacerdotus Michael Are you still with us?
February 22 at 4:01am via mobile · Edited · Like

Brett Coffrini Whatever Keith. You, me, God, and anyone else who really cares knows the truth. I already did tell you the Bible repeatedly affirms its own authority and you didn't listen then, why should I think you will now? Do you need a prooftext for where the Bible is authoritative? Or is it you just don't believe the Bible? I guess the latter.

I did find it funny how you said I didn't ever answer you, then criticize me for pasting your words and responding to you! Which is it? Do I respond to you, or do you not want me to?! No, it doesn't make my response stronger, it is called accurately responding (you should try it sometime!), and it helps all parties to follow the conversation and know what I am responding to. It also shows how false it is that someone can say they were not responded to. There's about as much evidence that I have not answered you as there is that I've engaged in ad hominem.

Tell you what Keith, I will gladly give you the last word if you can show me where the Bible teaches sola scriptura and tells us it is of a lesser authority. Because, you know, unlike me, you always answer every question and with absolute civility. BTW, if you think my demanding evidence from you is ad hominem, then you should see the stuff I was originally tempted to write, but erased, for fear I would sink to your level.
February 22 at 4:01am · Like

Brett Coffrini "What's sola Ecclesia got to do with anything? I never claimed there was any such thing as that"

Ok, I'll keep that in mind next time I am told that the RCC is the one true church founded by Christ, that Keith doesn't really believe that. So if you argue that way, I'm going to remind you that you said this. In the meantime, I will chalk this up to more evidence that you have not studied what you believe.
February 22 at 4:03am · Like

Brett Coffrini “This is necessary because how do you know what books really make up the canon if Scripture does not say it? Obviously an external authority decided this.”

An external authority did. His name is God.

“ The OT and the Bible are not the same.”

This misses the point. Did the OT exist before the RCC or any church?

“All you have shown is that it is useful, not that it is the sole authority.”

Since I wasn’t claiming it was the sole authority, I wouldn’t attempt to show this. Once again, Michael, I can’t help but point out that either you (and Keith) never really did the research you claimed you did, or relied on some very poor sources and did not do a thorough job. In any event, let it never be said that I did not answer your questions. Now as for mine…
February 22 at 4:08am · Like

Keith Hall Your full of absurdities. You just proved my point. Take a little prayer time, and meditate. Seek out the reasons you do this. It seems you just want to engage in arguments just to beat your opponent. My Lord, there is something wrong isn't there, bless your heart. Sink to my level. Wow. Dont worry about it. nobody can show a scripture where the Bible is the sole authority. That's not the same thing as saying it's not authoritative. I never said that. Take care Brett. Don't hate and others won't hate back.
February 22 at 4:09am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini You are just proving Jesus' own words that we will be hated for His sake. Actually, I don't particularly enjoy arguments. If you knew anything about me, you would know that. I do this for a much higher reason, I wouldn't expect you to understand, out of obedience to Christ and the love for His truth. You may hate me, but I have been praying for you, Keith. If I hate, what does that mean for you and your comments? Again, don't know where this "sole authority" thing is coming from. And I can't help but note, that that is still not an answer to my questions. Is it, as you say, because you don't have any?
February 22 at 4:13am · Like

Keith Hall What questions.
February 22 at 4:15am via mobile · Edited · Like

Brett Coffrini At this point, I would settle for anyone of them.
February 22 at 4:15am · Like

Keith Hall What question, what do you want to know?
February 22 at 4:16am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini Throughout this whole thing, I have posed a series of questions. I don't think any have even been attempted to be answered. You really haven't been reading anything I post, have you?
February 22 at 4:18am · Like

Keith Hall Sola Ecclesia? I've never heard this term, and never claimed it. You mentioned it first. But no, I've never seen that in the Bible. I never claimed I did. I'm not sure what it means because I've never heard of it.
February 22 at 4:23am via mobile · Edited · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Your spin on my questions shows that you obviously are stumped. lol The cognitive dissonance is obvious.
February 22 at 4:21am · Like · 2

Keith Hall Amen to that Sacerdotus Michael.
February 22 at 4:22am via mobile · Like

Brett Coffrini I can't be responsible for what you haven't heard Keith.
February 22 at 4:22am · Like

Brett Coffrini Wow, goes from saying I didn't answer questions, to saying I've spun them. This from a guy who claims everyone in church history as a RC!
February 22 at 4:23am · Like

Keith Hall I'm out of here Mike. Talk to you later Sacerdotus Michael.
February 22 at 4:24am via mobile · Like

Joshua Ortman "Pope is just another word for father". Matthew 23:9: And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and He is in heaven.
February 22 at 8:40am via mobile · Like · 1

Joshua Ortman The canon of the OT was decided by the Pharisees at least 200 years before Christ. And since the Catholic Church didn't come about until the 4th century, much of the NT canon was already set. The pope just added some Apocrypha books that don't belong.
February 22 at 9:06am via mobile · Like · 2

Joshua Ortman Psalm 115:17 "The dead do not praise the LORD, nor any who go down into silence." Praying to the saints is not necessary, they cannot hear you. Plus it violates God's strict law of not trying to commune with the dead.
Leviticus 19:31.
February 22 at 9:41am via mobile · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Sacerdotus Michael, what did I not answer? Could have missed it in all of these comments.
February 22 at 1:10pm · Like · 1

Keith Hall "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15). Somebody needs to tell St. Paul he sinned in writing this scripture.
February 22 at 1:17pm via mobile · Edited · Like

Richard Bushey ...? Sorry, I guess I do not see how it follows that we should pray to him and communicate with him after death despite that it is explicitly forbidden as sinful.
February 22 at 1:18pm · Like · 3

Brooke Anglin 1 timothy 5:1. lol All of our elders, we are to treat as fathers. This is not exclusive to a pope. Also, I missed where that verse says "Me as the Pope your father"
February 22 at 1:20pm · Edited · Like

Keith Hall It says what it says.
February 22 at 1:22pm via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin Exactly. So dont add to.
February 22 at 1:23pm · Like

Keith Hall I didn't.
February 22 at 1:24pm via mobile · Like

Keith Hall Paul called himself father. He must've sinned.
February 22 at 1:25pm via mobile · Like

Keith Hall We need to stop calling our Dad's Father too, if it's a sin.
February 22 at 1:26pm via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin Who said calling your dad father is a sin? LOL
February 22 at 1:26pm · Like

Brooke Anglin You are just throwing things around now.
February 22 at 1:27pm · Like

Scott Carson Call no other man father
February 22 at 1:27pm · Like

Keith Hall Joshua Ortman
"Pope is just another word for father". Matthew 23:9: And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and He is in heaven. Jesus did, according to Protestants. (I'm being sarcastic - please forgive me).
February 22 at 1:28pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

Keith Hall Matthew 23:9: And do not call anyone on earth 'father'
February 22 at 1:29pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

Keith Hall No that's what he said. It's in the Bible, really. "Call no man father."
February 22 at 1:32pm via mobile · Like

Keith Hall Ahh it doesn't say "other."
February 22 at 1:34pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael The historical distortion here is beyond me. Joshua OrtmanThe suggestion that the Catholic Church appeared in the 4th century is not accurate at all. The Church existed since the time of the Apostles. This is a known fact. Again, I invite all those who doubt me to go to any history department, or even a high school history teacher and inquire. Do you guys not realize you are bearing false witness??? Why the dishonesty? You don't have to accept the Pope or Catholicism, but please don't distort the facts about both. Keep it real, honest and truthful.
February 22 at 1:40pm · Like · 2

Keith Hall I've got to go. I can't stay on Facebook all day!
February 22 at 1:43pm via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 1

Keith Hall Amen Sacerdotus Michael
February 22 at 1:47pm via mobile · Unlike · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Moreover, the idea that the Bible existed before the Church is not historical at all. ONLY the Hebrew scriptures were around. The entire Bible as Christians have it ( OT and NT) did not come about until Pope Damasus I wrote in his decree the canon. Luther then removed some books which did not agree with his ideas which is why Protestants have 66 and the original Bible has 73. Also, notice that none answered my uniate question nor my other questions for obvious reasons. The Catholic Church is not the "RCC." The original Church of Christ headed by the Pope is simply the Catholic Church. Within this Church are churches, notice the small case c. We have what are called "uniates," or other rites. When you call the Catholic Church Roman, you exclude the other rites, now which include Anglicans. This is unfair to them and shows an extreme distortion of history. The Church is simpy Catholic "Universal," not Roman. The term Roman is only used to distinguish between rites which would be the Latin rite.
February 22 at 1:48pm · Like

Sacerdotus Michael "...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch who was ordained by - you guessed it - The Pope Peter. 1 century.
February 22 at 1:51pm · Like · 1

Keith Hall Oh, I forgot to say, may you have grace and peace from the Lord Jesus Christ today.Have a blessed day everybody!
February 22 at 2:03pm via mobile · Like · 3

Joshua Ortman Sacerdotus Michael, I an not bearing false witness, nor am I being dishonest. One thing I have studied more than the bible, is history. As far as your claims as Peter being the first pope and the Catholic church being established in the apostolic age, all academics will point out that this is an assertion of the Church itself, with no real history to back it up. Before the 4th century, there were many churches, all believing in different doctrines. The Gnostics, the Coptics, the Ethiopian Orthodoxy, to name a few. It wasn't until 380 AD, when Catholicism was instituted as a state religion, that a universal Church was born. Even then, the pope wasn't the head of the church, the Holy Roman Emperor in Constantinople was supreme authority over the Church. Even after the schism that divided the Empire into East and West, the pope gained control of the Roman Empire. Even then, he had no control over Catholics in the Eastern Empire. After the fall of Constantinople, and the Eastern Empire, the pope gained supreme control, but it was still only over the West, since the East had become Orthodox by this time.
February 22 at 3:31pm via mobile · Like · 5

Keith Hall The Holy Roman Empire didn't begin, it's mostly agreed, until 962AD, under Otto I, and covered lands in Central Europe - mostly in present day Germany. The Emperor in the East, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in about 476, was simply the Emperor, who did exercise power and influence over the Church in the East. Most historians agree that this Empire later became the Byzantine Empire. The schism between East and West didn't happen until 1054ad, so there is no way the Pope could've gained control over the Roman Empire (this never happened) at that time, since it fell in 476. He did come to exercise power over the Church in lands once controlled by the fallen Empire in the West, which fell as I said, most historians agree, in 476-500 ad. There has been for centuries, Eastern Rite Catholics in communion with Rome, such as Maronites and others, which most likely because of their faith saw the Roman Pontiff as their spiritual head. I'm not sure how the Pope would gain control, or "supreme control,"unless you mean over the Church in the West, in which case the schism nor the fall of Constantinople, 1453, had nothing to do with it, since the Pope had controlled the Church in the West for centuries, as well as the Church's patrimony - the Papal States throughout what is now Italy. He certainly, by 1453, did not control Western Europe, since states had fully formed, for the most part, by that time. This is all really undisputed stuff. I'm not at all arguing in these statements when the Catholic Church emerged.
February 22 at 5:14pm via mobile · Edited · Unlike · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman no academic holds your beliefs in regards to the Church beginning in the 4th century. These ideas stem from the post protestant reformation and early American anti Catholicism. Again, I invite you - I dare you all to invite a historian here, or get written confirmation from a history department at any university. The word "church" as you apply it means community. Yes, there are different churches or communities, but they were united with Rome which had primacy over them. This is what I meant by the uniates which you guys ignored. We Catholics do not only have the Latin/Roman rite, we have other rites. This has been the case since the 1st century. As a matter of fact, not even the latin rite had a uniform liturgy until after the 12th century. The term RCC is not accurate and leaves out those other rites that are loyal to Rome, but have liturgy and laws that are different. The only thing that happened in the 4th century was that Constantine converted and made Catholicism legal. He then handed over the pagan temples to the Church. Prior to this, the Catholic Church was present in a simple form without temples and external things. We had the liturgy of the Word at synagogues and then broke the bread at local homes. We did not have our own buildings. Pope Benedict XVI even stated recently that the Church will return to that simplicity once again due to the persecution going on. Look at what the encyclopedia states: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism It clearly states that we can trace our origins to Christ and the Apostles. If you were a student in a history class and had to write about Catholicism, you would have to cite a valid source such as an encyclopedia. You cannot post your own opinion or prejudice on when you believe the Church began. This is academic fraud or intellectual dishonesty. Your instructor would give you an F. "Cherry picking" is frowned upon in academia. Did you see the quote from Ignatius who was ordained by Peter? The term Catholic Church has existed way before the 19th, 12th, 4th centuries. Constantine never was in charge of the Church. He set Catholicism as the official religion and wanted everyone to join it. He was a bit overzealous and used this temporal power to enforce the faith. This does not mean that he was a Pope like figure. Kings and Queens after him did the same until disputes came and they tried to get rid of the Pope but failed.

Roman Catholicism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
www.britannica.com
Christian church that has been the decisive spiritual force in the history of Western civilization. Along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, it is one of the three major branches of Christianity....
February 22 at 11:25pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Brett Coffrini The RCC was the one true church, Luther removed books from the Bible, nothing but historical revisionism. How I pray you will someday study these issues.

"The Catholic Church is not the "RCC.""

Now that is the most honest thing that has been said! Rome is not a part of the universal church, since she rejects the authority of Scripture (as the RCs here make all too clear) and the rejects the historic, biblical Gospel.
February 23 at 3:57am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Are you even reading what I comment? I invite you to back up your erroneous claims using academic resources. Chick tracts are not valid. By claiming that the Catholic Church "was" the one true Church, you are basically calling Christ a liar. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail, but to you, they apparently did since the Church ceased being the true Church and hence, failed. Set aside the filter of anti-Catholicism and accept historical facts and truth. Rome is the center of the Universal Church. She gave us Scripture via Pope Damasus I.
February 23 at 4:42am · Like

Brett Coffrini I'm sorry, Michael. I demand facts and evidence and I wish I could just believe these things on blind faith like you do. It's a real problem I have. Everyone should believe the RCC is the original church because the RCC says it is. To question that can only mean you are anti-Catholic.
February 23 at 4:52am · Like · 2

Joshua Ortman Keith, to say the Roman Empire fell in 476 is kind of a misnomer. For about 2 centuries prior, there was 2 emperors of Rome. One in Constantinople and one in Italy. The emperor of Rome being mostly a puppet, with no real power answering to Constantinople. When Odoacer deposed the emperor of Rome it was no big deal. Even though he was a "barbarian" he was a Roman General, and as such, a citizen of Rome. So quiet was the coup, that for years the people of the Roman Empire still considered themselves Roman.

When I said the pope gained power in my previous comment, I wasn't implying that his power was of a political nature ( although you would be hard pressed to find a monarch who went against the wishes of the pope, with the exception of Charlemagne and Henry VIII). I was merely pointing out that as the oppressive stranglehold of Rome's politics was waning, the oppressive stranglehold of religion under the rule of the popes was quickly growing.
February 23 at 11:24am via mobile · Like

Joshua Ortman Michael, did you even read the article you posted from Britannica? Here are a few excerpts.

"According to Roman Catholic TEACHING, this is the charter of the Church."

"The identification of this obvious primacy of Peter in the New Testament and the primacy of the church in Rome is NOT self-evident."

So historians agree, what you say is not based on any real facts, but is what the church teaches.
February 23 at 11:36am via mobile · Like · 3

Richard Bushey He is just going to reply that you are being "intellectually dishonest" and "denying history" and all of the other insults and one-liners that we have seen in the place of facts.
February 23 at 12:14pm · Like · 3

Sacerdotus Michael Brett Coffrini cherry picking the article does not help your position. Did you not read the rest? The encyclopedia must take a neutral stance when presenting information. This is why it states, "according to..." The following sentence states, "For one thing, the New Testament is almost silent.." there is a difference between almost silent and silent. I'm sure you can figure it out. The article then goes on to account for the witness of the early Christians. You obviously ignored that part and understandably so. I have already stated that certain concepts or doctrines are not named in the Scriptures such as the Trinity. This does not mean they are not there. You also ignored this: "The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Over the course of centuries it developed a highly sophisticated theology and an elaborate organizational structure headed by the papacy, the oldest continuing absolute monarchy in the world." Richard Bushey I joined this group thinking it would be about sound rational discussions on God; however, lately, I have seen anti-Catholic fundamentalism rearing its ugly head. I feel like I'm sitting among Islamist fundamentalists and hearing them tell me that Abraham was Muslim when I know better that Islam came after 600AD. None of you has offered evidence, only Protestant eisegisis which was promoted by the Finneyites in America. I am not a fundamentalist, I need facts and evidence. Notice how none of you answered my simple questions. This is why I say you guys are being intellectually dishonest. and denying history. I have provided scripture verses and quotes from the early Christians. You guys have only provided polemics to the dialog. IF you believe Peter was not the Pope, not in Rome, and that the Catholic Church is not the original Church, then show evidence. Your speculative analysis is not enough and has been debunked for centuries. Do you guys deny Pope Damasus I gave us the canon of Scripture or do you believe the book fell from heaven already with the canon?
February 23 at 11:37pm · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Show evidence that he was not? My evidence is the bible. No where does it mention anything of the sort. Lol
February 23 at 11:41pm via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin Did you seriously compare us to Muslims because we don't believe the RCC was started when you do?
February 23 at 11:43pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael 1 Pet. 5:13
February 23 at 11:43pm · Like

Sacerdotus Michael YES! lol. You are not entitled to your own facts! I dare you take a semester of history and do a paper claiming what you claim, you will see red ink all over it. lol
February 23 at 11:45pm · Edited · Like

Brooke Anglin Haha, it's not an opinion it's a fact. Here's the passage you said to look at. I see no pope here.
Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him ), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark. Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be to you all who are in Christ. (1 Peter 5:12-14 NASB)
February 23 at 11:46pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Babylon = Rome
February 23 at 11:47pm · Like

Brooke Anglin So? Lol
February 23 at 11:47pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael So??? lol How can Peter write from Babylon and not be in Babylon?? That is impossible.
February 23 at 11:48pm · Like

Brooke Anglin Just because he was in Babylon doesn't mean he was the pope! He had been all over the place.
February 23 at 11:49pm via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin He did not tell the Romans to pray to people after they died either. I'm sure he wouldn't have left that out of all of his instructions.
February 23 at 11:50pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael My mistake, I was addressing Brett's not in Rome claim. I thought it was you who wrote that. Matt. 16v18 and Is 22.v22 show the authority Peter was given.
February 23 at 11:50pm · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Have you been to the Vatican? Did you know his bones are buried there and he was crucified upsidedown outside where the plaza is now?
February 23 at 11:51pm · Like

Brooke Anglin It doesn't matter because he was everywhere. They were all equally travelers proclaiming the gospel. And if I remember in and out of jail in various places because of it. Yeah I know that. But where does he tell us to pray to anyone but God? Missed that.
February 23 at 11:52pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Set aside the terminology for a second, "pope," "papacy," "trinity" etc... let's focus on the concepts.
February 23 at 11:52pm · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Actually, only Paul is specifically mentioned in particular areas. The others we know by reading into the texts and studying outside accounts.
February 23 at 11:53pm · Like

Brooke Anglin He did start MANY churches but that doesn't mean the churches couldnt have gone sideways after he died.
February 23 at 11:53pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Huh? I don't recall us talking about Peter and him saying to pray to others.
February 23 at 11:53pm · Like

Brooke Anglin And he's not the only one who planted churches
February 23 at 11:53pm via mobile · Like

Joshua Ortman Michael, you appeal to Richard, saying this forum will be about discussions on God. It is. It's just your history, secularly, is flawed.
February 23 at 11:53pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Yes many churches, but the one in Rome had precedence over the others.
February 23 at 11:53pm · Like

Brooke Anglin Well I see no proof of any rank
February 23 at 11:54pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Yes Joshua Ortman I thought this forum was about God, but lately it has become a Chick tract lol
February 23 at 11:54pm · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Let me be clear. It's ok to question anything. I have issue with claiming that the history did not happen like academia accepts it did.
February 23 at 11:56pm · Like

Brooke Anglin If you think this is bad you must not have been around during the Calvinist arminian discussions lol. But just because people disagree doesn't mean we can't discuss theology without being cordial
February 23 at 11:56pm via mobile · Like

Richard Bushey "It is okay to question anything."

Can we question THAT? ;]
February 23 at 11:57pm · Like

Brooke Anglin Well roman catholic academia may accept it, but I've never heard of it before this.
February 23 at 11:57pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael For example, if a Mormon comes to me telling me Jesus preaching to the Native Americans, then I will have issue with that and ask for proof. The Natives did not even know of Christ when the Europeans came.
February 23 at 11:57pm · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Yes, Richard Bushey lol you can question that, but its unfair claim the history did not happen. Like I said before, a scholar would give you a lifted brow lol
February 23 at 11:58pm · Like

Joshua Ortman I showed you what your own academics said. If you're willing to forego the history, then so am I. I would rather talk Scripture anyway.
February 23 at 11:59pm via mobile · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin John MacArthur is a scholar and he would give you a lifted brow lol
February 23 at 11:59pm via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael No all of academia accepts it. You do know scholars flood the Vatican to do research right?
February 24 at 12:00am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael John MacArthur is a theologian, theology is not an exact science ( no offense). When I say scholars, I mean history wise, not theological.
February 24 at 12:00am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael John MacArthur can only make claims that the papacy is bunk based on his ideas and how he applies them to scripture, but he cannot deny the papacy is what is is historically speaking.
February 24 at 12:02am · Like

Brooke Anglin Well I'm sure if that claim was reliable they would research it. But obviously it isn't.
February 24 at 12:02am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin And I'm sure they've heard it before.
February 24 at 12:02am via mobile · Like

Joshua Ortman All academia does not accept it! I showed you from YOUR own link to the Britannica that they don't accept your history! They accept the fact that you say its history. You want to talk theology, lets talk. The history is skewed, and I've shown it.
February 24 at 12:03am via mobile · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin There are tons of scholars that don't believe those claims.
February 24 at 12:04am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman the first paragraph states it clearly, it then goes into detail while keeping a neutral tone.
February 24 at 12:04am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Like who? I did ask for anyone to bring a historian here. Brett mentioned one and then was silent.
February 24 at 12:05am · Like

Brooke Anglin Why don't you private message them lol. We can't force people to join. Don't forget that the link to britannica says that is the claim RCC makes.
February 24 at 12:06am via mobile · Like

Joshua Ortman And then you get to the part where it says these things are NOT self-evident. At least as far as Peter and his connection with Roman Papacy. With that break down, all else follows.
February 24 at 12:07am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael A doctrinal claim, however, in the first paragraph it clearly states that the Church can be traced to Christ and the Apostles.
February 24 at 12:07am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman I replied to Brett earlier: The following sentence states, "For one thing, the New Testament is almost silent.." there is a difference between almost silent and silent. I'm sure you can figure it out. The article then goes on to account for the witness of the early Christians.
February 24 at 12:08am · Like

Joshua Ortman As according to your doctrine, further down. Did you read this in it's entirety?
February 24 at 12:08am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Let me ask you guys this: Who did the Orthodox and Protestantism split from?
February 24 at 12:08am · Like

Joshua Ortman A false church
February 24 at 12:09am via mobile · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Evidence?
February 24 at 12:09am · Like

Brooke Anglin We gave evidence
February 24 at 12:10am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael No, you gave opinion.
February 24 at 12:11am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael You're basically saying that for 1500 years Christianity did not exist.
February 24 at 12:11am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Then Luther who belonged to the "false Church" started the real one 1500 after Christ ascended?? Lol
February 24 at 12:11am · Like · 1

Joshua Ortman Exactly, Michael. Let's talk Scripture. What would you like to talk about? We can start a new thread.
February 24 at 12:11am via mobile · Like · 2

Brooke Anglin No Christians existed during the RCC. They stayed quiet. These ideas were around since the apostles.
February 24 at 12:13am via mobile · Like

Richard Bushey What it ultimately comes down to is scripture. History, philosophy, science, and so forth are interesting, but scripture is what matters.
February 24 at 12:13am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael ok Joshua Ortman let's start with my first question: If the Bible is your guide and answers all, it must have the list of the canon in it otherwise how did it come together from Gen - Rev?
February 24 at 12:13am · Like

Richard Bushey What it ultimately comes down to is scripture. History, philosophy, science, and so forth are interesting, but scripture is what matters.
February 24 at 12:14am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey to a seeker of truth, history, philosophy and science does matter. Even Macarthur would acknowledge him because in order to get a theology degree, you need to study liberal arts.
February 24 at 12:15am · Like · 1

Joshua Ortman What does this have to do with anything? God has used Godless people before to achieve His purposes.
February 24 at 12:16am via mobile · Like

Joshua Ortman Does the Catholic Church use the Book of Enoch in it's canon?
February 24 at 12:16am via mobile · Like

Richard Bushey They matter, of course they matter. But we want to discuss SCRIPTURE. Although I guess if scripture did not align with Catholicism, it would make sense that you would not want to discuss it.
February 24 at 12:16am · Like · 1

Brooke Anglin Yeah, those are helpful but the bible is the final authority
February 24 at 12:16am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael For example Richard Bushey I want you to prove using Scripture that it did not borrow the creation story from Enuma Elish. good luck!
February 24 at 12:17am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin if Scripture is the final authority, where did the light come from if the sun was created later on in Genesis?
February 24 at 12:18am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman still waiting for an answer...
February 24 at 12:18am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman if God "uses" godless people for His purposes, then what happened to free will?
February 24 at 12:19am · Like

Richard Bushey Neither Joshua Ortman nor myself are claiming that the ONLY truth comes from scripture. We is saying, let's discuss the scripture to see what it says. I do not know why you are avoiding this. Is it embarrassing that your stance is not supported by scripture?

You are throwing up a million red herrings to avoid that. You are embarrassed that the scripture cannot and does not support Catholicism, so instead you are posing pointless questions to evade this truth.
February 24 at 12:20am · Edited · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey why the dishonesty? This thread has over 300 posts. I'm sure you have seem my Scripture quotations.
February 24 at 12:21am · Like

Brooke Anglin I said scripture is the final authority not the only thing that saying anything true. FINAL AUTHORITY does not equal ONLY authority
February 24 at 12:21am via mobile · Like

Brooke Anglin God gave us science and history as gifts, none of those are above His word, an His word says nothing of Catholicism
February 24 at 12:22am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin if scripture is the "final authority" then it would present the truth from which everything else must be measured against.
February 24 at 12:22am · Like

Richard Bushey What? I am talking about NOW. Right now, we are saying that we should discuss scripture and you are throwing up red herrings. YOU are being dishonest. Talking to you is identical to talking to Rosa Rubicondior.
February 24 at 12:22am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Brooke Anglin again, set aside the words and focus on the concepts. Show me Trinity in the Bible. Go ahead. You won't find it. Does that mean it is invalid just because the word is not there?
February 24 at 12:23am · Like

Joshua Ortman Why do you say Richard is dishonest? While I do not agree with my friends here all the time, I will say that they are 100% honest, all the time.
February 24 at 12:23am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey I am discussing Scripture. You are resorting to ad hominem know in order to save face.
February 24 at 12:24am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Notice that none of you answers my question. You know that if you do, you will be crediting the Catholic Church for the canon of Scripture.
February 24 at 12:24am · Like

Richard Bushey No you are not. YOU are doing that. I say, let's discuss a doctrine. You reply, no, we don't need to, we have history.
February 24 at 12:24am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Now for the 5th time: If the Bible is your guide and answers all, it must have the list of the canon in it otherwise how did it come together from Gen - Rev?
February 24 at 12:24am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey I brought up history only when the claims were made that the Catholic Church came about in the 4th century and the canon appeared mysteriously constructed out of nowhere.
February 24 at 12:25am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Right now I'm asking something about Scripture and none of you answer. If the Bible is your guide and answers all, it must have the list of the canon in it otherwise how did it come together from Gen - Rev? Where in Scripture does it list itself in canon order.?
February 24 at 12:26am · Like · 1

Joshua Ortman Not necessarily, Michael. The Catholic church didn't get the canon right. Even our Hebrew brothers refuse to accept the Maccabes
February 24 at 12:26am via mobile · Like · 1

Richard Bushey Not at all. The early church fathers, long before the formation of the Catholic church, adding so much commentary that it could basically have been rewritten just based on the words that they wrote. All of your questions have intertwined within them the false presupposition that the Catholic church was established by the apostles.

Yes, I know. Then we said, we want to discuss scripture. That is what this forum is about. Then you replied that we do not need to, and brought up all of these red herrings to show that scripture is not the final authority and blah blah. This group is primarily interested in scripture and doctrine.
February 24 at 12:27am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman Jesus quoted Maccabees.
February 24 at 12:27am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey can you provide evidence that the church fathers WERE NOT Catholic?
February 24 at 12:28am · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael I do recall this: "...wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." St. Ignatius of Antioch
February 24 at 12:28am · Like

Joshua Ortman And Jude quoted the book of Enoch. Do Catholics use the book of Enoch in their canon?
February 24 at 12:29am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael He was ordained by Peter
February 24 at 12:29am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman are you going to give equality to Jude and Jesus? Who has more authority?
February 24 at 12:29am · Like

Richard Bushey The point was that it was PRIOR to the canonization, so Christianity is not contingent upon the canonization (Also I am not saying that Catholicism did not influence contemporary Christianity. So did the Crusades).
February 24 at 12:30am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Once again Richard Bushey can you provide evidence that the church fathers WERE NOT Catholic?
February 24 at 12:31am · Like

Joshua Ortman Weren't ALL scripture inspired of God?
February 24 at 12:31am via mobile · Like

Sacerdotus Michael once again Joshua Ortman Where in Scripture does it list itself in canon order.?
February 24 at 12:31am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey Rubicondior would eat you alive if you engaged "him" like this.
February 24 at 12:32am · Like

Richard Bushey I'll tell you as I tell Rubicondior. Thanks for the depthless one-liner.
February 24 at 12:32am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman where in the Bible does it list "all scripture?"
February 24 at 12:32am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Guys, remember atheists know the Bible well despite not believing. They will grill you to the ground if you give the performance you're giving now.
February 24 at 12:33am · Like

Richard Bushey In my experience they do not know the Bible well at all. They just have a series of one-liners but no actual substance... Sort of like you!

Looking at the tactics you have engaged in makes me wonder if you are secretly an atheist, just sort of trolling.
February 24 at 12:34am · Like

Joshua Ortman Not one of us claims Scripture lists the canon. We concede that point to you. Why beat a dead horse? Is it because you can't answer our other questions?
February 24 at 12:35am via mobile · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Richard Bushey I gave substance and was met with fundamentalist and historical distortion lol. Now you're spewing ad hominem. What's up with that?
February 24 at 12:35am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Ok Joshua Ortman so how the heck did the canon come about if Scripture is the final authority? It is like having DNA without parents. How is that possible?
February 24 at 12:36am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman you are being dishonest now. I have answered your questions, scroll up this long thread. If you missed it, I wrote some here: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/02/the-chair-of-peter.html?showComment=1361675863909#c6753232340774166517

Sacerdotus: The Chair of Peter
www.sacerdotus.com
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.
February 24 at 12:37am · Like · Remove Preview

Frank Anthony Della Torre Sacerdotus Michael to you mind putting into a short paragraph what it is that you are arguing for? This thread is way too long.
February 24 at 12:51am · Like

Sacerdotus Michael Frank Anthony Della Torre lol I wish I knew. The discussion went all over the place. It basically started with the simple question about if the Apostles were Catholic. I answered briefly "Well to keep it short and simple, Peter was the first pope." Then it blew up from there with claims that the Catholic Church is false, or that it originated in the 4th century. Then it moved to Scripture, with some denying the Catholic Church put together the official canon. It's a mess. It's all in good fun ( I hope). I'm not here to offend anyone, but I cannot lie in order to make others comfortable either.
February 24 at 1:04am · Like · 1

Joshua Ortman Ok Michael, I am not being dishonest. You are using an ad hominem and it is becoming offensive. I never said your canon wasn't picked by the pope. I DID say some questionable books were amongst them such as the book of Maccabees. You said Jesus quoted it. I asked if Catholics accepted the book of Enoch. Jude quotes from it. You asked where does it say all Scripture is inspired. 2 Timothy 3:16. The question now is , how did the pope get some scripture wrong?
February 24 at 1:29am via mobile · Like · 1

Sacerdotus Michael Joshua Ortman all I'm asking is for you guys to acknowledge that it was the Catholic Church that gave us the canon. We can argue about doctrines, but we cannot argue over the historical fact of the origin of the canon as we use it today. There is dispute regarding the use of Enoch in Jude. You would have to give us a bit more for me to address it better. Some claim Jesus borrowed from Buddha; however, proof is not given most of the time. I never asked where does it say Scripture is inspired. Please show me where I did. What I did ask was: "where in the Bible does it list "all scripture?"
February 24 at 1:43am · Like

Joshua Ortman Michael, sorry, I must have misunderstood your question. No, the bible does not "list all Scripture. Yes, the canon we have have today is attributed to the Catholic Church, but only the NT. The canon of the Tanakh was established centuries earlier. The Protestants removed the Apocryphal books from the canon.
February 24 at 12:13pm via mobile · Like

Joshua Ortman Michael, as far as the Jude/Enoch dispute:

Jude 14,15:
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these [men], saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints, to execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and all of their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Enoch 1:9
And Behold! He cometh with ten thousand of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly, and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

And when Jude attributes "Enoch the seventh from Adam", it is apparently a heading taken from 1Enoch 60:8 and not taken from Genesis.

Even early church fathers like Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria considered Enoch as Scripture, saying the only reason it was excluded from the canon of the OT was because it contained prophecy of the coming Christ. Apparently Enoch was considered Scripture until around the 4th century, when later church fathers considered it Apocryphal.
February 24 at 1:56pm via mobile · Like