"Peter not Pope" Post Responses
Peter not Pope (cont'd)

Friend, greetings in Christ from sunny Kansas, That was not ill tempered at all. It was to prove a point-- a specific point.

YOu cannot prove your case by scripture alone so you cheat...

You try to use our scholars{using only in this case a bout a sentence and a half verses a couple of paragraphs.

It is "cheating" and it is deceitful--when anyone does it..But you did it and it was not an accident.

And, if you thought we were going to debate that is an error..I simply point out the facts--and, your cheating is one of them--If you do it here..where else will you cheat.

That is one point about the Catholic church and quite frankly when honesty is absent--you don't have anything.

I do not engage in those activities..and quite frankly, those who do knowing that most folks will never know the differnce--doesn't rate very highly with me.

In fact, I have noticed in some of the responses--Catholics use little bible but use a lot of outside sources.

I had concluded my time in this arena until your last note. Now--I have more things to share about the Catholic church and its apostasy.

I don't suggest you read them because you are not going to like historical truths. I am not going to pad or take away from the truth.

Oh--from the biblical perspective--I am a Jew by faith.

Richard


Dear Richard,

> Friend, greetings in Christ from sunny
> Kansas, That was not ill tempered at
> all. It was to prove a point-- a
> specific point.

> YOu cannot prove your case by scripture
> alone so you cheat...

> You try to use our scholars{using only
> in this case a bout a sentence and a
> half verses a couple of paragraphs.

> It is "cheating" and it is
> deceitful--when anyone does it..But you
> did it and it was not an accident.

First you call me a "fraud," and now a "cheat"? Tell me, did I misrepresent those authors' views regarding the question of whether Peter himself is the rock? No, I did not. Those authors agree with the Catholic Church's exegesis of that passage and they disagree with the traditional Protestant interpretation that the "rock" refers to Jesus himself, or Peter's faith, or Peter's Messianic confession.

That was the context in which I used those quotations. I used them to establish the linguistic exegesis of the text, not its ecclesiological implications. And I clearly identified those authors as "Protestant," from which it should have been obvious that they don't agree with us on what it *means* that Peter himself is the rock. If they did, they would be Catholic, now wouldn't they?

By the way, if you want to talk about cheating, what do you call it when someone copies someone else's writing and presents it as their own, like you did with Dr. Lorainne Boettner's "List of Catholic Inventions"? I call it plagiarism.

> And, if you thought we were going to
> debate that is an error..

Fine. I'll take that as a concession that your position is so weak it can't even be defended.

Apparently, you just want to hurl page after page of slanderous accusations against the Catholic Church, and then run away when a knowledgeable Catholic challenges you.

>I simply point
> out the facts--and, your cheating is
> one of them--If you do it here..where
> else will you cheat.

Well, at least when I quote from someone else's work, I don't try to pass it off as my own. But just for future reference, how much do I have to quote from a source in order to be "honest" by your standards? A paragraph? A page? A chapter? The whole thing?

> That is one point about the Catholic
> church and quite frankly when honesty
> is absent--you don't have anything.

I have one word for you: "Plagiarism." Oh, and "hypocrisy." That's two words.

> I do not engage in those
> activities..and quite frankly, those
> who do knowing that most folks will
> never know the differnce--doesn't rate
> very highly with me.

Making false accusations against the Catholic Church, knowing that most folks will never know the difference, doesn't rate very highly with me, either.

> In fact, I have noticed in some of the
> responses--Catholics use little bible
> but use a lot of outside sources.

> I had concluded my time in this arena
> until your last note. Now--I have more
> things to share about the Catholic
> church and its apostasy.

I'm sure you do. I only hope they're more credible than the accusations you've made so far. At any rate, I'll be watching. So if you don't want to be embarrased, you'd better have your facts straight.

> I don't suggest you read them because
> you are not going to like historical
> truths. I am not going to pad or take
> away from the truth.

I haven't seen any historical truths from you yet, and I really don't expect to see any now. But go ahead, by all means, spew your anti-Catholic venom, then run away. It will only give me and others a chance to demonstrate how bankrupt the anti-Catholic position really is.

Oh, and if you're planning to trot out Boettner, Hunt, Hyslop, or McCarthy, do give them credit this time, won't you?

> Oh--from the biblical perspective--I am
> a Jew by faith.

Shalom,

Gary


Richard,

To Gary you wrote:
> You try to use our scholars{using only
> in this case a bout a sentence and a
> half verses a couple of paragraphs.

> It is "cheating" and it is
> deceitful--when anyone does it..But you
> did it and it was not an accident.

Isn't that exactly what you did when you quoted St. Augustine and attempted to show that he didn't hold the Rome or the Papacy was true?

> In fact, I have noticed in some of the
> responses--Catholics use little bible
> but use a lot of outside sources.

Even though I have used the Bible exclusively, you've not answered all the points I've made. Besides that, I would venture to say that, were we to investigate the source of those comments made by Catholics who you say "use little Bible", we would find them to be VERY Biblical (barring under-educated Catholics; which, percentage-wise, there are as many non-Catholics who are under-educated, as there are Catholics.)

> I had concluded my time in this arena
> until your last note. Now--I have more
> things to share about the Catholic
> church and its apostasy.

Guess I win the sola Scriptura discussion, particualarly since you've left more Biblical points unanswered than you have answered. Know that I'll be there to "share" my own views on what you post about the Catholic Church and it's "alleged" apostasy.

> Oh--from the biblical perspective--I am
> a Jew by faith.

Congrats!! I have *my* roots in the Jewish faith - when it was "a shadow of things to come", however with the coming of Christ about 2,000 years ago, I am now a part of His Church - which is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

Matt


Matt, greetings in Christ from sunny Kansas,

you said Richard,

> To Gary you wrote:

> Isn't that exactly what you did when
> you quoted St. Augustine and attempted
> to show that he didn't hold the Rome or
> the Papacy was true?

My response--Nope --Unlike Gary--I have very little information on Augustine..That is until a couple of days ago..I now have his complete works or pretty close to it.

You see Gary had all the information. my quote was only a few lines down from where he stopped. Now, tell me he didn't read it and I will sell you this oceanfront property in Montana.

you said

> Even though I have used the Bible
> exclusively, you've not answered all
> the points I've made.

Mt response--see lying comes easy to you guys do you think we are stupid and cannot read what you write? You must..Thanks a lot but no thanks..

you said Besides that, I
> would venture to say that, were we to
> investigate the source of those
> comments made by Catholics who you say
> "use little Bible", we would
> find them to be VERY Biblical (barring
> under-educated Catholics; which,
> percentage-wise, there are as many
> non-Catholics who are under-educated,
> as there are Catholics.)

My response--this can be resolved from a non relgious discipline. In college I had to take some classes in socialology and one of the first things we learn is how Prodestest and Catholic countries fair on the training, educational, and etc.

It was not hard to see why Catholics are behind..they are deliberately kept so by their leaders..

This is why Nations today--just look around you if you don't believe me--look at their economics.. The difference is obvious when you begin to explore the underlying reasons for each nation.. you said
> Guess I win the sola Scriptura
> discussion, particualarly since you've
> left more Biblical points unanswered
> than you have answered.

My response--such ignorance, it is hard to believe..Matt--there are no "winners" in bible study--It is not a debate of who does the best job--Bible Study is by its very nature and discription--a Study of God's Word

Our goal is to be more Christ like--and, that only comes from a study of God's Word.

As long as you Catholics consider this a stupid game..you are the flat out losers.

Matt- Please do what ever you feel you have to do--just don't expect us to jump through your hoops--because none of us will..

Richard Seeking finding victory in Christ and in His word..

OH-- You said
> Congrats!! I have *my* roots in the
> Jewish faith - when it was "a
> shadow of things to come", however
> with the coming of Christ about 2,000
> years ago, I am now a part of His
> Church - which is one, holy, catholic
> and apostolic.

My response---such foolishness--Any one who studies knows that the promise came over 400 years before the law.. The church you claim membership is apostate not apostalic. You are none of Christ until you remove from your doctrine and practise those man made doctrines that separate and keep you out of Christ.

This foolishness on my part is over..


You've still ignored my numerous Biblical quotes that drown your points about 10 fathoms down.

God bless, Matt


> This foolishness on my part is over..

Glad to hear that...perhaps we can get to some real Biblical scholarship then.

Matt


Dear Richard,

You wrote,

> My response--Nope --Unlike Gary--I have
> very little information on
> Augustine..That is until a couple of
> days ago..I now have his complete works
> or pretty close to it.

> You see Gary had all the information.
> my quote was only a few lines down from
> where he stopped. Now, tell me he
> didn't read it and I will sell you this
> oceanfront property in Montana.

You shouldn't assume things, Richard, it only gets you into trouble. As a matter of fact, I did NOT have all the information. I do not have Cullman's book, nor have I ever even seen it. I got that quote from another source, which quoted it from Cullman. (This is apparently how you got your Augustine quotes until recently.) When you quoted the subsequent part of the book, it was the first time I had seen it.

So next time don't be so quick to judge my motives, okay?

Gary


Switch back to the responses following Matt's original...


Go back to the Church Apologetics Page.