Pope backs civil unions

verses please to support your point. i suggest reading the verses in isaiah22 and see the parallel in matt16 for the meaning of the 'keys'.
There is no parallel between Isa 22 and Matt 16. There is a parallel with Isa 22, its just not in Matt its Rev 3.

Isa 22:22 22 "Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder, When he opens no one will shut, When he shuts no one will open.

NASB Matt 16:19 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." NASB

Okay, now that we see both passages wheres the parallel?

A. One has key, singular the other has keys, plural. Hows that a parallel?

B. One says he opens no one will shut, he shuts no one will open. The other says, whatever you bind shall be bound, whatever you loose shall be loosed...

I'm at a loss to see where the parallel is?

So where is the parallel?

Rev 3:7

7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens, says this: NASB

A. Isa 22 says key of David. Rev 3 says key of David.

B. Isa 22 says opens and no one will shut. Rev 3 says opens and no one will shut.

C. Isa 22 says he shuts no one will open. Rev 3 says who shuts and no one opens.

So youre premise that Peter is some prime minister has zero foundation. What the kingdom of David had doesn't not mean the kingdom of God has the same thing. And it doesn't.

Eph 2 talks about the foundation of the church;

Eph 2:20 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, NASB ...

foundation of the apostles (plural). Peter is not singled out here but one of many with Jesus being the cornerstone.
 
we have the original bible (73 books) while you took out 7 books which you think is not in line with your theology.
The Catholic Church has the OT Canon wrong:

The Catholic Church has added Greek writings to the OT that neither Jesus, the Apostles, or the NT authors considered God-breathed.

Prove me wrong!!
Show us anywhere where Jesus, the Apostles, or the NT authors referenced your deuterocanonical books as Theopnuestros
 
The Catholic Church has the OT Canon wrong:

The Catholic Church has added Greek writings to the OT that neither Jesus, the Apostles, or the NT authors considered God-breathed.

Prove me wrong!!
Show us anywhere where Jesus, the Apostles, or the NT authors referenced your deuterocanonical books as Theopnuestros
You're asking for proof from the wrong person. You'll never get it. They make claims, they never back them up.
 
Who cares. No need for a book of the writings at all. The scrolls will do. We know the books Jesus and the apostles referred to. I am surprised you do. Your institution couldn't give us anything at all. It is a false church.
fyi, the originals were long gone that even the scrolls are just copies of the original writings and the dead sea scrolls include copies of the deuterocanonicals like sirach, tobit, and baruch.
 
You have the original nothing. You don't own the word of God. Your book includes non scriptural writing.s.
even martin luther have the deuterocanonicals in his first german translation of the bible. it is also in the first bible to be printed, the gutenburg bible. it was the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society that excluded the deuterocanonicals in 1825.
 
(And if you don't believe them, just ask them!)
Implicitly and explicitly? If all catholic doctrine is found explicitly in the bible why do you RCs have so much trouble pointing it out?
not really. if you go to the catechism footnotes, you will find the bible verses that explain the doctrine/teaching.
 
then you should be able to post the verses, so go ahead and do that here.

all the catholic's 'we can assumes', perhaps, might be, could be, possibly, blah, blah, blah do not count. no verbal mutilations of the RCC count either.
because you already assume that your interpretaions are always correct and ours are always wrong.
 
it's only infallible if it is God's word. the RCC does not believe or teach God's word. No man anywhere at any time is or was infallible.
as mentioned several times, only god is infallible but it does not mean he cannot give the gift of infallibility to men. an example are the writers of the bible. if they were not given the gift of infallibility, for sure the bible will have errors on faith and morals.
 
it was still scripture before it was put together in book form.

or do you think it wasn't scripture prior to that?

the RCC had nothing to do with what is written in scripture.
it was scripture always but not the bible old and new testament books in one volume) as we have it today.
 
fyi, the originals were long gone that even the scrolls are just copies of the original writings and the dead sea scrolls include copies of the deuterocanonicals like sirach, tobit, and baruch.
the Dead Sea Scrolls also include marriage records, land ownerships , and recipes.
 
the dogma of the assumption of mary is implicitly found in john’s description of the woman in revelation 12.
we have been through this:
the woman in revelation 12 is commonly interpreted as the Church
or Israel
or it MAY be a POSSIBLE ALLUSION to Mary.

the possibly that it may be an allusion to Mary does not make it implicitly stated.
 
the Dead Sea Scrolls also include marriage records, land ownerships , and recipes.
yes, 25% are jewish biblical texts; 27% are general jewish texts; 38% are sectarian texts; 11% are unclassified. we owe jewish and catholic scholars for the publication of the dead sea scrolls.
 
Last edited:
My home office library also includes the books of sirach, tobit, and baruch along with marriage records, land ownerships , and recipes.

If you were dig it up 1000 years from now ; you would be wrong to assume I considered those important writings as God-breathed
 
Back
Top