Based on my interactions with Catholics online, it seems as though thier entire faith is built upon this one verse.

Based on my interactions with Catholics online, it seems as though thier entire faith is built upon this one verse.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If Christians really believed in the Bible they would treat anyone and everyone according to that book, especially if the bible said such atrocities were permitted. But we all know that even though you call your faith in the bible ‘Judeo-Christian’ it’s really anything but. They love israelites, but they would stone you if you converted to Judaism, they love the Christian’s, but they murder them at will. They love homosexuals, but the bible says homosexuals should be put to death. So what they do in the name of God is not based on what the bible says. I have yet to see a Christian give an actual answer to my question why they call their faith Judeo-Christian when in truth it’s nothing but a joke.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Correct. And ignoring that only few verses later Peter is called Satan.

      Cope

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Hail Satan

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I quoted this the other day on Oyish but in reference to Bible believers, not their church. So yeah, they do use it but so can we.
      And we can remember why Jesus called Peter Satan in that moment later and it was because he didn’t want Jesus to die and therefore to give the free gift of salvation to all that believe making it so easy to enter heaven. Satan wanted to create heaven with his own impossible gate that can’t be opened.

      None of what you say makes any sense. The Judeo part I’m Judeochristian refers to God creating belief on Jesus Christ who died for your sins (as answered just above). Do you want to be saved? Do you know you are a sinner and are going to burn in hell of you don’t confess to my Lord? I know that I am and already confessed. You can too.
      If you rob from the store at gunpoint, the police and bystanders might wind up killing you by accident, and you might kill someone by accident. Then you will be executed under a just system. Back then, they had no running water and clean households with soap. So the law was a lot more involved. That is why I tell you this to your shame.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    for me it's Ezekiel 23:20

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    that israelite book is for israelites who like rocks, israelite jesus said.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's a key verse.

    It's kind of like Protestants focusing on the verse where Paul says we're saved by "faith alone."

    Oops, Paul never says that, now does he?

    Indeed, the only place where the NT uses the phrase "faith alone" is when it points out that "a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone." James 2:24.

    That's another one of those verses Catholics love for some reason.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      OP didn't argue for protestantism. He argues that Christ doesn't appoint the office of the Roman bishop to rule over Christendom.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I simply addressed the OP's observation. He didn't really make an argument one way or the other.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          He did make an implicit argument. That the most important principle of Catholicism as an institution, Papism, has one symbolic verse as its grounding. That's not a lot.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't see an implicit argument, just a slightly snarky observation.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You see it now. Any thoughts?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The papacy rests on more than that one verse, as may be gathered from the infographic posted here:

            It's a key verse.

            It's kind of like Protestants focusing on the verse where Paul says we're saved by "faith alone."

            Oops, Paul never says that, now does he?

            Indeed, the only place where the NT uses the phrase "faith alone" is when it points out that "a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone." James 2:24.

            That's another one of those verses Catholics love for some reason.

            As well, the beliefs of the early Church Fathers: https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

            And: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-papacy-in-the-early-church

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's actually the best argument for Papacy that I've ever seen. But it still makes the leap from Peter to the Roman office. There is no solid historical argument that the only person whose succession should be considered is that.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >But it still makes the leap from Peter to the Roman office.

            But is this not implicit in Christ's designation of Peter as "Rock"? This Rock must last as long as the Church lasts, no? If the office of Peter died with the death of Peter, how can the Rock be considered to have perdured, in any but a highly poetic sense?

            Now, I don't say this argument is conclusive, standing alone. But if we then look at the history of the Church, this argument fits the logic of history and the growth of the Church much like the way the *right* key fits a particular lock.

            That is to say: Church history makes sense if the Peter's role - let's call it 'the Petrine Ministry' - was passed to his successors. And if the Petrine Ministry did *not* pass to his successors at Rome, well, they sure acted like they *thought* it did.

            >There is no solid historical argument that the only person whose succession should be considered is that.

            The Catholic argument - a somewhat complex, circumstantial argument - is set out with greater clarity here than I am capable of doing: https://shamelesspopery.com/power-cords-and-apostolic-succession/

            There is also the matter of the keys that Christ gives to Peter, and the significance that arises from their biblical background as set forth in Isaiah 22 (they relate to being endowed with a specific office, the equivalent of "prime minister"; cf. Acts 1:20: "His office let another man take").

            The significance of the keys is discussed in the context of this article: https://shamelesspopery.com/pope-peter-part-v-upon-this-rock/

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not arguing the Rock died with Peter. I'm arguing selecting the office of the Roman bishop is arbitrary. Peter taught many.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I would refer to the links I've already posted. I believe thy make the Catholic position clear, and that history accords with this position.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >taking James 2 out of context... again
      James 2 is Abraham justified to man, stop being moronic
      18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
      Romans 4
      1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
      2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
      3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        You try to interpret the meaning of James's words out of existence. But they mean what they say: "a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone." James 2:24.

        Typically it's claimed that faith alone is a key teaching in St. Paul's letters, Yet Paul used the word faith and similar words over 200 times in his letters, but never once with a qualifier alone or only. Clearly, St. Paul did not make sola fide a central part of his teaching on justification, because neither he nor anyone else ever heard of the idea until Luther invented it in the 16th century. Paul does reject "works of law," (Rom 3:28) which refers to the Mosaic Law and circumcision.

        In contrast to the idea of faith alone, St. Paul teaches that faith without love amounts to nothing (1 Cor 13:2) but "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6) is vital. The faith that St. Paul preached is no mere intellectual assent, but the obedience of faith (Rom 15; 16:26), which includes the total response of the believer to Jesus in love.

        There is only one sentence in the entire bible that has the words "faith" and "alone" in the context of justification. It is explicitly rejected (Jas 2:24).

        The words of Jesus are decisive on this subject. A young man came to Jesus and asked "What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" (Mt 19:16). Jesus didn't say , "You don't do anything. The only thing necessary to gain eternal life is to accept me as your Lord and savior." Jesus' reply was specific and right to the point: "If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >But they mean what they say: "a person is justified by works and NOT by faith alone." James 2:24.
          And you're completely ripping it out of conext of the chapter and the rest of the Bible. Romans 4 literally says "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." That means he was justified to man

          >but never once with a qualifier alone or only.
          okay, and? The word Trinity is never in the Bible once but the doctrine is
          Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
          Ephesians 2
          8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
          9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
          That's as faith alone as you can get. He even says not of works
          >"If you would enter life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).
          That's because the rich young ruler thought he was a good goy and never sinned (he obviously has) and Jesus proves to him that he doesn't follow all the commandments

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >For if Abraham were justified by works

            This is in reference to works of the law, i.e., ceremonial works, such as the washing of cups, and circumcision.

            >became the standard for the priests and bishops of the Church. This is in the nature of a discipline,
            Bishops must be married according to scripture

            You're misreading it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >This is in reference to works of the law
            quit coping idiot. It never says that
            And it says David was saved without works and that God will not (future tense) impute sin on him
            6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
            7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
            8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

            >You're misreading it.
            How? It literally says a bishop must be married and have children

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >quit coping idiot.

            Why do you use this kind of language. It's bad form. Realize that there are many non-Christians reading your posts. You set a bad example of Christian charity. An atheist shaking his head at a Christian calling someone "idiot" may have more impact than the all the scriptural arguments you've ever made or ever will make, combined.

            Now, with that said, the passage in Romans must be reconciled with James:

            >Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works.
            James 2

            How can the two be reconciled? Pic related.

            Wrt to bishops, the text "is placing a limitation on the number of marriages a bishop could have in his lifetime. He could only have been married once. This is the position of the Catholic Church today. If a man has been married more than once, even if licitly, he cannot be admitted to the episcopacy."
            Source: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/must-bishops-be-the-husband-of-one-wife

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Why do you use this kind of language. I
            Because Jesus mocked the Pharisees

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You are not Jesus Christ.

            It is bad form. It sets a bad example.

            Reconsider. Pray about it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >This is in reference to works of the law
            quit coping idiot. It never says that
            And it says David was saved without works and that God will not (future tense) impute sin on him
            6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
            7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
            8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

            >You're misreading it.
            How? It literally says a bishop must be married and have children

            also actually read James 2, it doesn't say "to get eternal life you must work and not just believe" or anything like that. The chapter is about proving your faith to man, not to God
            also
            25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
            Do you really want to say that being a harlot is how we get into heaven? She proved her faith in God by hiding the spies, even though her literal job was being a fornicator

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >That's as faith alone as you can get.

            You can have faith sufficient to MOVE MOUNTAINS. But guess what, if that faith is without love it's USELESS.

            1 Corinthians 13:2.

            The ONLY thing that matters, anon, is "faith working through love"

            >“For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
            Galatians 5:6 (KJV)

            But faith ALONE - even if it can MOVE MOUNTAINS - is USELESS.

            "Even the demons believe, and tremble."
            James 2:19

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Romans 3:23–25
          >23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement[a] by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed;
          Paul makes it clear that the weight of ours sins could not be removed simply by balancing them out with good works, like some celestial ledger. We are saved by the gift of Christ's grace.

          >Romans 3:28
          >28 For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
          Sure, if you want to be a pedant it says 'apart from works' rather than 'alone', but the meaning is clear: faith, rather than works, is the key to salvation.

          James merely clarifies this by pointing out that faith without works is not true faith.
          >James 2:17–20
          >So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

          Protestant doctrine doesn't advocate faith *without* works. It simply says that faith is the foundation (as explained by Peter) and that works come from true faith (as clarified by James). Protestant doctrine makes a point of emphasising this specifically to refute Catholic practice, i.e. being a shitty person all your life then buying your way into heaven by donating to the church.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry, your interpretation of Romans fails for the same reason Luther's interpretation failed. James stands as an immovable roadblock.

            >Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works.
            James 2

            Moreover, the division you posit wrt faith vs. works in Paul doesn't really hold up.

            "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love."
            Galatians 5:6

            You likewise err in supposing that justification is a one-time event. It is a process, as demonstrated by the life of Abraham.

            Thus we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.

            As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life.

            See: https://jimmyakin.com/library/the-justifications-of-abraham

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          This verse is a precursor to “I will show you my works by my faith”
          I hate James 2:24 works based quoters when ever I see them. Jesus would say, get behind me, James 2:24 quoter. Same as he told Peter. It is by our faith in Jesus and confession of our sins that God makes us righteous and we will have works. James was meaning this when it was written. Satan just likes to latch onto things that sounds like what he wanted it to say (to become slaves). And the slaves do latch onto those words, too. You can if you want to.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >This verse is a precursor to “I will show you my works by my faith”

            Indeed James 2:21 ("Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS"), precedes James 2:24, and it clarifies how to interpret James 2 as a whole. It's not about "proving your faith to man, not to God," as you claim (

            [...]
            also actually read James 2, it doesn't say "to get eternal life you must work and not just believe" or anything like that. The chapter is about proving your faith to man, not to God
            also
            25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
            Do you really want to say that being a harlot is how we get into heaven? She proved her faith in God by hiding the spies, even though her literal job was being a fornicator

            ).

            Rather, what James is doing is comparing his opponent's faith to his own:
            >Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
            James 2:18

            Abraham (James 2:21-24) and Rahab (James 2:25-26) are examples of those who have faith and who are saved. And what’s the difference between Abraham and Rahab, on the one hand, and the demons, on the other? It’s not that the demons are just pretending to believe in God, or anything of the sort. It’s how each side reacts to this belief. As James explains, Abraham and Rahab (yes, Rahab!) by the works they perform in response to faith. To wit:

            “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?” (James 2:21)

            “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” (James 2:25)

            James isn’t saying that works, apart from faith, save. But he is saying that faith is “completed by works” (James 2:22), and insufficient in itself.

            This argument is developed at greater length here:
            http://shamelesspopery.com/what-does-the-book-of-james-say-about-justification/

            And here (see the part titled: "Hypothesis #1: The 'False Faith' Interpretation"; it absolutely destroys this interpretation):

            http://jimmyakin.com/justification-in-james-2

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny because they say Peter was the first pope, but Peter was married
    Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

    Mark 1:30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

    Luke 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The discipline of celibacy as discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 became the standard for the priests and bishops of the Church. This is in the nature of a discipline, however, not a dogmatic requirement.

      See: https://www.catholic.com/tract/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >became the standard for the priests and bishops of the Church. This is in the nature of a discipline,
        Bishops must be married according to scripture

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Bishops must be married according to scripture

          The remark was made by Paul, who was unmarried and a bishop. If your interpretation was right, then Paul would literally be declaring himself unfit to be a bishop.

          What Paul’s actually saying is that bishops can’t have more than one wife. This includes divorce and remarriage as Mark 10:11–12 and other passages make clear. Divorce was a problem in Christian communities from the start, and Paul was demanding men of the highest caliber.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >and a bishop
            No he wasn't
            >would literally be declaring himself unfit to be a bishop.
            Yes he was unqualified to be a bishop, so he wasn;t
            >bishops can’t have more than one wife.
            It literally says one wife. That means not zero and not two or more. And it says he must have faithful children

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            He was an apostle; ipso facto he was a bishop also, and indeed a priest.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >ipso facto he was a bishop also,
            no
            >and indeed a priest.
            Yes, it's priesthood of the believer. Every saved person in the NT is a priest. And bishop =/= priest

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >>ipso facto he was a bishop also,
            >no

            He ordained Timothy. 2 Timothy 1:6. Only a Bishop can do that.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous
  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many
    >wonderful works?
    23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Basing your entire religion on a play on words doesn't seem prudent.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Basing your entire religion on a play on words doesn't seem prudent.

      Seems to have worked out pretty well.

      As explained by the Protestant historian Thomas Macaulay:

      >There is not and there never was on earth a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing, which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when cameleopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian Amphitheater.

      >The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared to the line of Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back to an unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extended till it is lost in the twilight of fable.

      >The church saw the commencement of all governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all.

      >She was great and respected before the Saxon set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshiped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor when some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's.

      In short, the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. The thing speaks for itself.

      The Catholic claim in brief: https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah if you gloss over Luke 22:32, John 21:15, that when the Apostles are mentioned Peter is always mentioned first and Judas Iscariot last, Peter call to authority in Acts 15, Peter correcting people who misinterpret the Pauline epistles 2 Peter 3:15, Peter even though hes called the apostle to the circumcised also is the first to bring the Gospel to the gentiles (Cornelius), and many more

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *