Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
I understood the “conjecture” comment to simply mean that you were trying to maintain the position that Jesus called him “rock” as an indication that Peter was the Rock the church was built on. He maintains that that position is conjecture, not that Jesus called Peter Kephas/Cephas. There was no error in his post.
Of course, it was all about changing the subject.
They can’t handle hearing how it’s satan on the ‘throne of the vatican’ playing the ‘infallible one’ and they/children of the dark are bowing to him.
They then continue being puppets and ask the same thing over and over again. Their game is so old - it’s boring. They are hard wired to go around in circles.
Enjoy your evening, Elsie.
That is not what he said.
However, your example with indulgences is not an example of error in teaching/veering from the Truth. What happened there was an abuse. It was never Church teaching to SELL indulgences. So the practice of indulgences is church teaching, but the sale of same is not. Again, the men of the Church can "abuse" teachings and they can sin, but that doesn't make the teaching itself in error....if that makes sense. Although Luther was correct to be speak up against the corrupt practice of selling indulgences, he also threw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.
As for the Church having to "correct" herself many times, I question what those times are because I'm willing to bet that those things are probably not doctrine per se. Or what you think was a correction really wasn't. Yes, doctrine can develop with further understanding, but developments should NEVER contradict earlier understanding. I would argue that this further development is much like what many Protestants here talk about when they assert that they receive further understanding of Scripture as time goes on.
I also suspect that the "additions" you refer to are not truly "additions". You are probably referring to pronouncements that are made hundreds of years later in response to misunderstandings of Church teaching (for clarification) or in response to heresies. The teachings that were clarified/pronounced were not new. They were always believed. For example, the teaching on the Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854 to clarify but it was always believed. It was not a new teaching in 1854.
Words and assertions are PROOF?
I think the reason MIGHT be in the website's name: FreeRepublic.
So; does this mean you don't care what any lurkers might be wanting to see or read?
It's not so much that the RCC veers AWAY from it; it's just that the RCC seems to ADD a whole lot of extra stuff that may or may not be verifiable.
Did he ever ANSWER your question?
It is impossible that the apocrypha was inspired writing by God...Even your early church fathers agree with that statement...
And by supporting that false list, your religion proves that it is NOT the church Jesus Christ founded...
I wonder why?
Could you tell this non-catholic just what is the earliest year on record we have for this belief?
Can you find something more trivial to try to get me to continue with you?
Not that I saw. He did seem to say Jesus was divine if I recall correctly. And he did say Jesus became flesh, but I want to know if he believes Jesus is man right now.
And by supporting that false list, your religion proves that it is NOT the church Jesus Christ founded...
ooops....
So you learned something again...Rejoice...
Jesus and Christians in heaven have no blood...Their bodies can walk thru walls...They can consume food and do physical things as well...
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
You get that??? We are buried with a corrupted body...We are raised with an uncorrupted body...
We are buried as a physical body...We are raised as a spiritual body...
You might want to read the rest of that chapter as well...
Read the whole Bible.
Like you do??? You must have a pritty leetle bible...We constantly post mounds of scripture to you guys and you aren't familiar with any of it...
And you not even embarrassed by asking those questions...Don't you feel a little out of place on a Christian forum???
Stilll waiting for you to admit your error in post #258.
No...It was your error because you mistakenly accused me of posting post #251...It was a post that you posted and I told you so...
However, in post #258, I responded to a statement that you made claiming that Jesus called Peter Kephas in Aramaic and that they all spoke Aramaic...
And I correctly said that was conjecture on your part since the only evidence we have is that Jesus called Simon Cephas in Greek, not Kephas in Aramaic as you insisted...And none of us has any idea that they all spoke Aramaic...Again conjecture...
;o)
I know of no Protestant church that rejects the catholic New Testament, although Luther tried.
And yes, early church fathers had many disagreements about what was scripture, but they were settled around 400AD by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The fathers then accepted the ruling of the church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.