Catholics Should Believe Their First Pope

[heir]

Any other gospel like heir's MAD proposes St. Paul allegedly taught makes St. Paul a heretic and so would have to have been rejected from the start.*

You have it backwards. If any one preach any other gospel "unto you" than that which Paul preached, let him be accursed. And that's exactly what your RCO does.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

You don't have to go down with them! You can be saved!

Since scripture*tells us that NOT even Jesus Christ Himself can be his own witness (John 8:18). It is therefore patently obvious that St. Paul cannot be his own witness to a so called 'secret gospel'. Which begs the question from heir here who supports this new and recent invention of man...

So you don't believe what Paul wrote is scripture. Peter testified that he did!

2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

WHO TESTIFIES FOR A 'SECRET' GOSPEL NOT GIVEN TO ANYBODY ELSE BUT ST.PAUL?*

The scripture testifies it!

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.



Galatians 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I hope that you will trust the Lord for salvation believing Paul's gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV). If there's never been a moment in your life when you have, you are lost and no pope or church membership/affiliation is going to save you. God will judge you by Jesus Christ according to Paul's gospel (Romans 2:16 KJV). You can only be a fellowheir and of the same Body and partaker of God's promise in Christ by the gospel (Ephesians 3:6 KJV). Christ's faith and work is your only hope (Galatians 1:3-5 KJV, Galatians 2:16 KJV, Ephesians 2:4-9 KJV, Titus 1:2 KJV).

 

[heir]

The amount of people Muslim terrorists kill every year is statistically insignificant compared to the number of children killed due to Protestant US and Europe.

The Catholic Church leaders have made mistakes, as do all people. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church saves millions of lives every year.

The amount of people the Catholic church hides the gospel of Christ from tops them all!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV

 

[everready]

The amount of people the Catholic church hides the gospel of Christ from tops them all!

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV

Absolutely correct!


everready

 

[Puppet]

And how about you: What is the gospel of your salvation?

Can you rephrase that repetitive arminian question to a more traditional one? Do you mean what is the source of my salvation? Or what saves me? Or how am I saved? I'm sure I've answered you but your looking for what kind of work I've done to gain God's acceptance.

 

[kayaker]

TO SANCOCHO:

Why is it that some people think if they make multiple quotes of the Bible and attempt to refute sentence for sentence any opinion they disagree with that somehow this imparts validity to their argument?

Ahhh, the Catholic subtlety, San… “soooome people,” “muuuuultipe quotes,” “aaaaany opinion…” And, no rebuttal? Unlike your bilaterally blown pupil Catholic colleagues, I think I just saw an ever so slight reaction in your left pupil. A good thing, btw! Catholics have taken on a massive Scriptural dusting off on this thread… you amaze me you’re still here! There might just be Hope for you after all. In a sense, you make a good point, but your lack of focus (a Catholic phenomenon) precedes you. I beg your patience momentarily until I address your argument that the Catholics have allegedly killed fewer people than Protestants.

This is not Jesus' way, that's for sure.

You guys are far further than being two testimonies (John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV) short of the truth (John 8:32 KJV, John 8:32 KJV). And, suggest you know “Jesus’ way, that’s for sure”? Does John 14:6 KJV ring a bell, San? Do Jesus’ own words in Matthew 23:13 KJV, Matthew 23:14 KJV, Matthew 23:15 KJV, Matthew 23:23 KJV, Matthew 23:25 KJV, Matthew 23:27 KJV, Matthew 23:29 KJV paint a different picture of Jesus? How about Matthew 23:33 KJV as Jesus spoke to your early church fathers? Any further thoughts on Revelation 2:9, 3:9? And, Catholics portray Jesus either as a suckling babe, or a defeated mangled flesh body hanging on the cross?

His comments are powerful in their simplicity because it speaks to our logic and conscience.

Swooning, detached, Catholic generalities, San. Spoken like a good Protestant, btw. Try to focus, San! Those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) who instigated Jesus’ crucifixion (John 8:37 KJV) were “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33 KJV); ‘they’ just weren’t “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39 KJV). Such is intentionally not delineated in your USCCB Catholic Bible. How more simple is this, San? Abraham sired ‘seed’ via Hagar, Sarah, and Keturah (and concubines, Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Moses even said Abraham’s progeny via Keturah were “the children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4 KJV), and not Abraham (John 8:39 KJV; Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; Romans 9:6, 7; Revelation 2:9, 3:9). Simple?

Those non-Israelites (John 8:33 KJV) seeking Jesus’ crucifixion were “Abraham’s seed” (John 8:37 KJV) being descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Jesus (Isaiah 65:9 KJV). That paternal link SHOULD have made ‘them’ Israelites, right?

1) It just so happens those non-Israelite alleged ‘Jews’ who instigated Jesus crucifixion were descendants of Judah and his CANAANITE wife (Genesis 38:2 KJV, 1Chronicles 2:3, Genesis 38:26 KJV; Numbers 26:20 KJV; 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV [excluding 1Chronicles 4:21, 22]).

2) While Jesus was a descendant of Judah and his ISRAELITE PRIESTESS daughter-in-law, Tamar (Genesis 38:24 KJV; Leviticus 21:9 KJV; Genesis 38:28 KJV; Ruth 4:18 KJV, Ruth 4:19 KJV, Ruth 4:20 KJV, Ruth 4:21 KJV, Ruth 4:22 KJV; Matthew 1:1 KJV, Matthew 1:2 KJV, Matthew 1:3 KJV, Luke 3:31 KJV, Luke 3:32 KJV, Luke 3:33 KJV).

San… until you capture the utter magnitude of this Scriptural “TRUTH,” you’re swooning in the dark! And, Catholics tell me they ‘know’ who Jesus is? You’ve only heard ABOUT Him, Sancocho.

Of course this is going to conflict with those that believe actions have little relevance in this world as sinning is pre-programmed thus for them repeating Scripture is their only connection to Jesus Christ so obviously the more the better.

ACTIONS San? Actions! What was the Great Commission, SAN (Matthew 28:19)? THAT’s where Catholics TOTALLY dropped the ball! Where are Catholic fruits of the Spirit being Jesus’ disciples?

NONE, Sancocho. There’s NOT a single Disciple of Jesus among the whole lot of Catholics (John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV, John 8:31 KJV, John 8:32 KJV).

Yes? Then, send him or her forth offering fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:2, 7, 8, 9; John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV).

And, Catholics jump the gun exalting themselves as the great unsullied because Catholics allegedly killed fewer people than the great unwashed? Do you really think there has never been a single Catholic female on planet earth who had an abortion? The U.S. Council on Catholic Bishops (USCCB) TOTALLY glossed over Catholic participation in abortions, just as you have, San:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...nity/abortion/current-abortion-statistics.cfm

No delineation there, right? Not a whisper… How convenient that you throw the whole lot of abortions upon non-Catholic infidels, SAN!

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?​

• Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% identify as Catholic.[3]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[3]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

3. Jones RK, Finer LB and Singh S, Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2010.​

Do you want to draw a sword and split babies now, San? Catholics exalt themselves being accusers of the brethren, San. Are there any Catholics here on the DFACS adoptive parent list for a crack baby? Where are all those orphanages at the wealthy Vatican? The orphanage in my hometown is Methodist, btw.

kayaker

 

[Right Divider]

Somehow you missed the part that I was a member of a Protestant church even though I was born Catholic. Unlike you apparently I will accept any challenges to my beliefs. However, after doing the research I'm back in the RCC.

"Born Catholic" :jump:
Just like my mother-in-law.

 

[Cruciform]

"Born Catholic." Just like my mother-in-law.

Your point...?

 

[kayaker]

Jesus was born an Adamite/Sethite/Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite-Pharzite Jew. Where exactly was Peter's arrival generation prophesied in Genesis? Or... the Pope's? Speaking of six millennia of antiquity overruling the Catholic man-made version of church since antiquity??? Only some 2 millennia of endless genealogies ago? Seriously? God's church began in Genesis 4:26 KJV when "men began to call upon the name of the Lord." God's Anointed showed up 4,300 years later, "seventy and sevenfold" generations from Almighty God prophesied by Lamech in Genesis 4:24 KJV... and Peter denied Him. Peter even denied the Pentecostal Holy Spirit not standing and speaking the Pentecostal Gospel (Acts 2:13 KJV, Acts 2:14 KJV).

You Catholics have any disciples of Jesus on TOL (John 8:18 KJV, John 8:38 KJV, John 8:40 KJV)? All I'm hearing is a rooster that's been crowing for two millennia...

kayaker

 

[Cruciform]

What you need is the good news that is the power of God to save you.

Catholics were teaching the Christian doctrine of justification by faith for fifteen centuries before a single Protestant ever managed to stumble onto the scene. I've been a Christian for most of my life. Thanks for the tip, though.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

The amount of people the Catholic Church hides the gospel of Christ from tops them all!

That would be quite a neat trick, since the entire Catholic liturgy is designed to communicate and enact---to reveal---the Gospel of Jesus Christ. :doh:

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV

Hmm... Reminds one of the myriad competing and contradictory recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic denominations and sects in existence today, with more being concocted every week. Tragic.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Ben Masada]

Catholics Should Believe their first Pope.

Catholics Should Believe their first Pope.

I thought all Catholics already believed their first Pope who was Paul the founder of Christianity. That's the conclusion I have come to from reading Acts 11:26 where it says that Christians started being called Christians for the first time with Paul in Antioch. Otherwise, who could have been the first Pope? Peter couldn't have been because he never ceased being a Jew. So, how could Peter have been the first Pope? It would make no sense. Don't you agree?

 

[Puppet]

I thought all Catholics already believed their first Pope who was Paul the founder of Christianity. That's the conclusion I have come to from reading Acts 11:26 where it says that Christians started being called Christians for the first time with Paul in Antioch. Otherwise, who could have been the first Pope? Peter couldn't have been because he never ceased being a Jew. So, how could Peter have been the first Pope? It would make no sense. Don't you agree?

Absolutely. RCC got it wrong from the very start but that's how they like it it. There are profits in their lies. Everyone can share the gospel

 

[kayaker]

I thought all Catholics already believed their first Pope who was Paul the founder of Christianity. That's the conclusion I have come to from reading Acts 11:26 where it says that Christians started being called Christians for the first time with Paul in Antioch. Otherwise, who could have been the first Pope? Peter couldn't have been because he never ceased being a Jew. So, how could Peter have been the first Pope? It would make no sense. Don't you agree?

I’m not a ’pope’ kinda dude, Ben. I’m more of a Jesus/Holy Spirit kinda guy (Matthew 13:15 KJV; John 14:16 KJV, John 14:17 KJV, John 14:24 KJV, John 14:26 KJV). If anyone were to be a pope, it would most certainly have been Paul. Early in his ministry, Peter didn’t know a sheep from shinola, respectfully. Jesus instructed Peter to ‘feed HIS sheep’, three times (John 21:16, 17, 18). That was OT ancestral truth corroborating the ‘name’, the ancestry of Jesus.

Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:24 KJV), to whom He sent His disciples both before His crucifixion (Matthew 10:6 KJV), and after His resurrection (John 20:21 KJV, John 20:22 KJV). So, who explicitly were the lost sheep of the house of Israel, then?

The lost sheep were predominately the descendants of Judah via his Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law, Tamar (Leviticus 21:9 KJV, Genesis 38:24 KJV). Their eldest twin son Pharez (Genesis 38:29 KJV, Genesis 38:30 KJV) is found in the lineage of King David and Jesus (Ruth 4:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Matthew 1:1, 2, 3; Luke 3:31, 32, 33). Do note: The descendants of Benjamin were called Benjamites, of Levi came the Levites… but, the descendants of Judah via Tamar were essentially fatherless, and without a patriarchal title (Genesis 38:26 KJV). There are no ‘Judahites’ specifically mentioned in the Books of Moshe. Hence: lost sheep of the house of Israel. Paul was fully aware of Judah’s Canaanite wife v. Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law, Tamar: Romans 9:6 KJV, Romans 9:7 KJV, Romans 9:8 KJV. Only ONE maternal ancestress could fulfill Isaiah 65:9 KJV, and that’s what the rift was all about.

On the contrary, Peter was not keen on this maternal ancestral distinction early in his ministry considering Peter’s address to those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13 KJV, Acts 2:14 KJV) in Acts 2:22 KJV, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words…” Those mockers Peter addressed included the instigators of Jesus’ crucifixion who were not ethnic Israelite Jews (John 8:33 KJV, John 8:41 KJV). Therefore, those mockers, Peter’s audience at Pentecost, were definitely not all lost sheep of the house of Israel via Judah and his Israelite Priestess daughter-in-law Tamar!

Those mockers Peter addressed included Judah’s circumcised descendants via his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3) who was the daughter of the Canaanite Shuah (Genesis 38:2 KJV). They’re called Shelanites (Numbers 26:20 KJV), they are not ethnic Jews, and those Shelanites were not included in the tribe of Judah illuminated by Ezra in 1Chronicles 4:1 KJV. The tribe of Judah only included descendants of Judah and Tamar, and Ezra explicitly excluded those Shelanite descendants of Judah and his Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 4:21, 22).

Judah’s Canaanite father-in-law Shuah (in v. 2) was a ‘son’ of Keturah (not Abraham), wife of Abraham after Sarah died (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4). Moses neither included Judah’s father-in-law Shuah among the sons of Abraham in v. 4, nor was Judah’s father-in-law Shuah considered a ‘son’ of Abraham according to Moses in Genesis 25:9 KJV. Jesus didn’t seem to think so either in John 8:39 KJV. Paul was astutely aware of this ‘seed’ v. ‘son’ distinction in Galatians 4:22 KJV among other places. Peter evidently didn’t perceive this authentic Jewish ancestral distinction (Revelation 2:9, 3:9) when Peter spoke to those Pentecostal mockers, “Ye men of Israel…” Judah’s father-in-law Shuah was a Canaanite contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, that Ezra confirmed 1,400 years later in Ezra 9:1, 2 as being a “great trespass” (Ezra 9:7 KJV). DEFINITELY not lost sheep of the house of Israel!

Those non-Israelite mockers Peter addressed were descendants of Abraham both via Judah, AND via Judah’s Canaanitess wife (1Chronicles 2:3 KJV). Therefore, those mockers Peter addressed were not all “men of Israel,” but they were all ‘men of Abraham.’ Those mockers Peter addressed at Pentecost included those who WERE NOT Jesus’ lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Catholics don’t know this, btw… They don't know their early church was infiltrated by circumcised non-Israelites proclaiming authority in the Books of Moshe. Otherwise, they might take a closer look at who Peter’s alleged one historic early church’s fathers were. A proverbial house of cards…

kayaker

 

[Sancocho]

Absolutely. RCC got it wrong from the very start but that's how they like it it. There are profits in their lies. Everyone can share the gospel

Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

 

[Puppet]

Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

Apostlic succession got broken so you guys fixed by making up a pope and started over. we found out you've been lying along and became protestants . The Holy Spitit got our church to where it is now. Forget about the lost records of inaccurate popes

 

[kayaker]

Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

I've suggested Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church (as in members/people) began specifically in Acts 2 incorporating those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13, 14). I hear the Catholic notion all the time about Peter being "the head of His church," as you suggest. If Peter's first church (as in members/people) wasn't in Acts 2... I'm curious where in Scripture Catholics think Peter's first church was (as in members/people)? Doesn't it stand to reason said church would be explicitly illustrated in Scripture?

kayaker

 

[Sancocho]

I've suggested Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church (as in members/people) began specifically in Acts 2 incorporating those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13, 14). I hear the Catholic notion all the time about Peter being "the head of His church," as you suggest. If Peter's first church (as in members/people) wasn't in Acts 2... I'm curious where in Scripture Catholics think Peter's first church was (as in members/people)? Doesn't it stand to reason said church would be explicitly illustrated in Scripture?

kayaker

If you are claiming that apostolic succession ended with Peter then you also cannot claim sola scriptura nor can you use the New Testament to defend any claims you make because:

A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. ... A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit

thus the bible you reference would be invalid as it was written by Catholics centuries after the disciples and was not even available to the public for many more centuries after that.

 

[Sancocho]

Apostlic succession got broken so you guys fixed by making up a pope and started over. we found out you've been lying along and became protestants . The Holy Spitit got our church to where it is now. Forget about the lost records of inaccurate popes

You are confused my friend. You agreed Peter was not the head of Christ's church which means all protestant religions from Luther and on are false as is the bible La Reina Valera. Maybe you want to clarify when you believe Apostolic succession was broken.

 

[everready]

Jesus chose Peter to be the head of His church so agreeing to a claim he is not disagrees with your Bible.

BTW, what is the relationship of your church to that of Peter or Paul's?

Is this how you see Peter?

everready

 

[kayaker]

TO: Sancocho

KAYAKER: I've suggested Peter's alleged one historic Catholic Church (as in members/people) began specifically in Acts 2 incorporating those Pentecostal mockers (Acts 2:13, 14). I hear the Catholic notion all the time about Peter being "the head of His church," as you suggest. If Peter's first church (as in members/people) wasn't in Acts 2... I'm curious where in Scripture Catholics think Peter's first church was (as in members/people)? Doesn't it stand to reason said church would be explicitly illustrated in Scripture?

SANCOCHO: If you are claiming that apostolic succession ended with Peter then you also cannot claim sola scriptura nor can you use the New Testament to defend any claims you make because:

A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. ... A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit

thus the bible you reference would be invalid as it was written by Catholics centuries after the disciples and was not even available to the public for many more centuries after that.

Huh? I didn’t say anything about aspostolic succession, sola scriptura, or any particular Bible. I simply asked who Peter’s first church members were if they were not those mockers in Acts 2. Does your Bible have the Books of Acts? The USCCB Bible has the Book of Acts. Well, who were Peter’s first church members, then?

kayaker