SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Jesus ask peter to feed His sheep
How do you figure that you are the sheep?
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Jesus ask peter to feed His sheep
Yes, he did feed the Christian church, not as a Papist, as an Apostle Of Jesus Christ.And Peter wasn't up to it
And Peter wasn't up to it
Peter was 'up to' the commission to which he was called.
How do you figure that you are the sheep?
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Why don't you actually READ the scripture?Catholics could be sheep if they obey Jesus and come out of her.
Sheep are those who obey. Catholics have been taught wrongly, and are taught how not to obey.
Anyone can become as a sheep.
Why don't you actually READ the scripture?
Jesus was CLEAR about which sheep He was talking about.
Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Yet, Paul ALSO commands that we submit to apostolic Tradition as well. So much, then, for sola scriptura.If a Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church member wants to appeal to this verse to refute Sola Scriptura, then he is shooting himself in the foot because Paul himself says that his writing, which is Scripture, is what the church is to submit to.
Catholics appeal to the authority of Scripture, too. We do not, however, appeal ONLY to Scripture's authority, and neither did the apostles. Thus, sola scriptura is itself simply unbiblical.Furthermore, he is behaving as a Protestant who holds to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by appealing to the authority of Scripture.
So, reading the Bible is unbiblical, I see? :think: ...........:rotfl:Catholics appeal to the authority of Scripture, too. We do not, however, appeal ONLY to Scripture's authority, and neither did the apostles. Thus, sola scriptura is itself simply unbiblical
Why don't you actually READ the scripture?
Jesus was CLEAR about which sheep He was talking about.
Matt 15:24 (AKJV/PCE)(15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Your subjectively creative---and wholly imaginary---unsubstantiated interpretations are noted. :yawn:Once again, WHO were the apostles and WHO did they minister to? Rome does not fit into what they did, and actually they spoke out about the type of people that Rome exemplified many times. Jesus and the Apostles could care less about haughty Rome and all the blood it had on its hands, and continued to have for centuries. Think about it this way. When God allowed Israel to build the Temple.. he did not allow David to do so because he was a man of war and imbued his hands in the blood of his enemy. God rose up his son, Solomon, who was a man of peace and wisdom, to build the temple. Rome and the Vatican at no time during it's existence has ever been a city of peace... it has ALWAYS been a city of war and imbued itself in the blood of its enemies. Jesus is the prince of peace, not a general of war. A city based on war could never be his capital city.
No thanks, we're good. You may keep your own links. The Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114).Yet, Paul ALSO commands that we submit to apostolic Tradition as well. So much, then, for sola scriptura.
Catholics appeal to the authority of Scripture, too. We do not, however, appeal ONLY to Scripture's authority, and neither did the apostles. Thus, sola scriptura is itself simply unbiblical.
-the church will continue to expose them
Feel free, then, to actually disprove the content of Post #2049 above. No? Didn't think so. Therefore, my statements stand exactly as posted.No thanks, we're good.
Straw Man Fallacy. Yet again, you only put your ignorance on public display.The Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite.
That's correct, and applies to both the Catholic as well as the Protestant.In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture.
No it isn't, since you've confused one form of tradition ("traditions of men") with Apostolic Tradition, which was commanded by the apostles themselves. Please properly educate yourself.This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6.
"...to Scripture" according to whose---what human being's---infallible and authoritative interpretation? Yours? Matt Slick's? Your pastor's? Your favorite TV preacher's?...The issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation, and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture. -matt slick
there are many false teachings
-Jesus is not God
-we have no free will
-we do not have to work
-the church will continue to expose them