even the first pope was a sinful man and yet you admit his inspired works (1 and 2 peter). this is proof that even sinful man with the help of the grace of god can teach infallibly.
Circular Reasoning
- Thread starter RayneBeau
- Start date
It is 73 books originally until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, these seven books had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.
leonard03782
Well-known member
First of all, while Peter may have been credited with the authorship of his two epistles, the Holy Spirit was the true author.
1 Peter 1:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Secondly, you nor any other rc can prove that any of it's teachings came directly from the Holy Spirit other than by your say so.
Finally, true Christians can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the true source of rc doctrine actually originated in the pit of hell.
Well it certainly isn't a man who bless pagan goddess and goes to pagan services but hey you can have him as your authority if you like. The apostles would have kicked him out. God does not give us evil leaders, RCs chose to sit under evil authority..
God told me I can understand for myself His word, as a real believer I have the HS who is not with the bad tree which your institution is.
Try another tune your false authority is nothing to be proud of.
Peter was never a pope and he was never associated with your evil institution. So please show me when Peter committed the disgusting sins of your leaders, when did he hold an orgy, commit incense, rape a nun, molest children. That is what you are saying. So according to you Peter must be hell.
No those words were inspired and the closing of the NT closed infallible writings and your leaders are the complete opposite of Peter and do not teach infallibly. It is sad that you compare those evil men to Peter.
bluedog1us
Well-known member
I don't care if mad magazine was in there. Those books were not considered canon until 1546 at the council of the hissy fit at Trent. So why have books that are not canon in the canon of scripture.
why don't you show us a bible before the protestant reformation that has 66 books if what you say is true?
thanks
bluedog1us
Well-known member
Try reading just a little bit of history and what I actually posted!
what i am trying to say is that the sinfulness of a man does not matter if god wants to grant grace/gift of infallibility.
are you saying the original bible is 66 books?
that is true.
and even if peter is also a sinful man like each one of us, it does not hinder god to grant the grace/gift of infallibility. of course, this is the promise of the guidance of the holy spirit. peter wrote his letters under the guidance of the holy spirit. the same goes true with the other men who wrote the words in the bible.
bluedog1us
Well-known member
Read what I posted. No wonder you and other rominists keep posting out of context verses on here. Those books were there but not considered canon UNTIL the council of Trent. That's when the romanist religion threw its hissy fit and decided to make them canoncal books. Why keep them in our bible when they were ruled not inspired and not canonical 100s of years earlier?
Last edited:
bluedog1us
Well-known member
Still does not prove he was ever the pope and leader of the church. And when Peter wrote his letters he referred to himself as an ELDER and fellow worker with the other apostles. Not as the leader.
Not even as an "overseer" (episkopēs – bishop) which is what Peter's "successor" titles himself. 😕
But when you've sold out for "all the glories of the world", you can probably justify yourself taking any title you feel like taking.
--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
It is hard for them when they read our posts, they seem to develop a vision problem.
I just love the way RCs compare Peter to their evil leaders and now to themselves. I personally never ever considered harming a child, would never commit a rape, never been to an orgie. I praise God for that. You might consider yourself and Peter in the same league as your evil leaders but we are not all the same.
The sins your leaders commit especially those who ignored all the sin the others were doing is evidence of how far your leaders are from God. It shows how rebellious they are. They are not guided by the HS and no matter how often RCs claim it, their leaders actions reveal the truth. The other apostles did not commit the sins of your leaders either.
Isn't it a joke that RCs claim their are different levels of sin, put Peter, the apostles and all of us on the same level as Judas and their leaders who rape, who teach false doctrines, who defraud governments, who organise and particape in orgies, who condone murder, torture and persecution, who have children outside marriage, who harm, molest and abuse children. These are just some of the sins of their leaders throughout the centuries. They do not meet the scriptural requirements for the leaders of the real church.
RCs need to stop covering up the evil of their leaders throughout the centuries, they need to read the signs of what their leaders really are.
Not what you said. God can grant grace but if a man continues to molest children he will not have God's grace at all. There is no gift of infallibility and if there was it would be affected by those who are rapists of nuns, abuse/molest children, those who are sexualy immoral, those who do not expose sin etc. If your leaders do not follow Jesus then they are following satan. We can follow one master or the other. If your leaders have chosen Satan and their actions prove they have, then they are not following Jesus and they can never be trusted. I mean who would trust anything that comes from or is said by Satan. There is no middle ground.
My post did not evade anything at all, I did not deny anything, I am used to your false ad hominem. Thanks,
At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546). As a matter of fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society removed them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. This historically demonstrate that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.