Catholic Church says Bible not completely accurate???

[Guest stray bullet]

But is the Pope considered an apostle to the Jews?

The Pope is the successor of Peter, retaining his position as Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. Peter was a jew and in the early days of Christianity, served to convert Jews.

[EricH]

What it suggests is apostolic succession. There is no indication that Matthias would not be replaced himself. Thus, there is NO evidence for no apostolic succession, yet there is some evidence for apostolic succession within the bible itself. Of course, Holy Tradition and history certainly prove apostolic succession, though you reject the legitimacy of it.

Actually brother it does not. As I indicated in my previous post, Peter himself gave the reason for selecting Matthias. It was fulfilment of prophecy. The text itself gives the reason. For you to insist it implies something just cannot be supported from the text. Your argument is from silence.

Supports what, "Peter established the See of Antioch, Rome"? There is nothing in scripture that could say that, because See is a derived term from Sedes, meaing chair. "See of..." was an developed term, it was not used at the time of the New Testament, although Bishop and heads of Churches certainly was.

But you are attempting to use the idea to support the fact that the current Roman Catholic clergy gets their legitimacy from descending from these positions. I see nothing in the text that can support that

No, that's not the logic I was using. What logic doesn't follow is why on Earth it would "instruct" such a matter. The people did not elect leaders. Is Paul going to instruct the Romans on how to replace an apostle? No, there's no reason to, because that wasn't the business of the people. As we see in the case of Judas, Matthias was selected by the leadership of the Church. There's no point for such an instruction.

Actually, my friend, that is what you said. You said the reason that apostolic succession was not discussed is because only one apostle died. You then said, what was Paul supposed to do, predict the deaths of the apostles. Maybe I misunderstood you. My point is that for something as important as replacing the head of the church, I would think instructions would have been left for how to do it. Especially since large portions of epistles were devoted on how to choose, discipline, and replace elders. Paul did not wait for an elder to die. He laid out instructions beforehand. And even if instructions were not given, you would think the concept would be discussed and affirmed. Also, in terms of Matthias, the reason given was to fulfill prophecy, not apostolic succession. The text does not support your conclusions.

It's called Matthew 16. It's called "Peter". The guy's name was Simon, not Peter. Jesus changed his name to Peter.

What instructions are there for choosing apostles? NONE. Yet, we had apostles added and Judas replaced. Why no instructions? Because it is a matter for the leadership of the Church.

OK, lets look at Matthew 16:17-20 NASB

And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 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." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ.

We could argue about what rock means, and if it was Peter, or his statement that was being discussed. But lets assume for a minute that you are right. That Jesus was giving a special position to Peter. Where in the text does it say that this position will be handed down to someone else? You yourself said it. "There were absolutely no instructions. None.

Of course, you don't notice the irony in that it can be interpreted as supporting apostolic succession, "His office let another man take". Again, even this shows no evidence it would be stopped.

Actually there was no evidence it was ever started. As I said, the text itself gives the reason for Matthias. So why would there be evidence for something to stop, that was never commanded or intended to continue. I am not sure what you mean that there is an irony here. In literature typically irony is the use of words to express the opposite of the literal meaning. You are right that it would be ironic to interpret Peters words the way you are suggesting. The problem is that I see nothing in the text to indicate Peter intended that they be interpreted the way you are suggesting. His meaning seems clear to me.

There is nothing in the bible that says the scripture are "suffiecient for all areas of faith and practice". That's completely garbage- because how else do you even decide what text is scripture? Scripture isn't entirely self-authorizing. You don't read one text and see it authorizing all other texts.

The type of authority I speak of is quite evident from the bible, especially illuminated in Acts.

There is nothing that says "just follow scripture and the Holy Spirit will lead you". This is nonsense because obviously that doesn't work. If it did, all Christians would be in agreement.

You say that the idea that scripture is sufficient for faith and practice is "garbage"

Take a look at this:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB

Notice it does not say scripture equips men for some good works. It equips them for all good works. Scripture is sufficent to equip people to do all the things God has declared good for them to do

Well, unless they are infallible, they will exceed and detract from it. So thank you for verifying that protestantism has no authority.

They are the successors of apostoles who canonized the bible. What other basis do you call the bible inspired? Who was the infallible man that declared the Gospel of Mark true and the Gospel of Thomas false?

You are right, men are fallible. But scripture is not. That is why all men (Popes included) only have authority as what they say and do measures up to the word of God. So what I have affirmed is that there are no men or women (Catholic or Protestant) that have any authority apart from the word of God. It is true that God appoints leaders to local congregations. He does this using the methods outlined in scripture for selecting elders. These elders are given the authority to lead their congregations. Their authority comes from the word and is limited to the word. If an elder teaches something contrary to the word, or behaves in a way that is contradictory to the word, instructions are given in the word for disciplining, removing, and replacing that elder. So, I have not verified protestantism has no authority. I have explained where the leaders in our local congregations get their authority to lead, and how they can lose it. The leaders of Catholic congregations should be chosen using the same instructions from scripture.

if you call the bible inspired and infallible, then you must believe that all the texts in there are infallible. What basis do you have for that belief? How do you know that the letter to the Romans was actually written by Paul and is not a fraud?

Where does true scripture say to believe the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and to reject the Gospel of Thomas, Peter, Mary, Marcion, Philip, etc?

There are hundreds of texts out there. What makes the bible special is that men, lead by the Holy Spirit, were able to go through them and decide, through the inspiration of God, which were true and which weren't.

Was King James infallible? Then who is he to decide what scripture was true and which wasn't?

Yes, I believe that all of the texts we have in our current canon are infallible, inerrant, and inspired. What makes the bible special is the fact that it contains the texts that were inspired by God. Not the men who made the decision. God simply chose to use sinful vessels to accomplish his means. It was not by vitue of any position they held. It was because of God's grace and his commitment to communicate His word to people.

That is where it seems we disagree. You hold it is the church that makes scripture special. I hold that it was God that made scripture special. He chose to use the men He did to discover it. But there was nothing special about them. If he had not used them, He could have used others to the same result.

[RustyAngeL]

I think there is a lot of things in the Catholic faith you cannot back up with scripture.

[nebula]

I'm going to state it again.

Judas was not the only apostle in Scripture to die.

Acts 12:1-2

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.

2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

So, who was James' successor?

**********

The Pope is the successor of Peter, retaining his position as Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. Peter was a jew and in the early days of Christianity, served to convert Jews.

If he was Peter's successor, he should continue Peter's mission to the Jews (or as they are termed in Scripture, "the circumcised." That is what successor does.

[EricH]

I'm going to state it again.

Judas was not the only apostle in Scripture to die.

Acts 12:1-2

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.

2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

So, who was James' successor?

**********

The Pope is the successor of Peter, retaining his position as Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. Peter was a jew and in the early days of Christianity, served to convert Jews.

If he was Peter's successor, he should continue Peter's mission to the Jews (or as they are termed in Scripture, "the circumcised." That is what successor does.

Very good question

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm going to state it again.

Judas was not the only apostle in Scripture to die.

Acts 12:1-2

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.

2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

So, who was James' successor?

**********

The Pope is the successor of Peter, retaining his position as Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. Peter was a jew and in the early days of Christianity, served to convert Jews.

If he was Peter's successor, he should continue Peter's mission to the Jews (or as they are termed in Scripture, "the circumcised." That is what successor does.

Well said, Nebula.

[Fiosh]

I'm going to state it again.

Judas was not the only apostle in Scripture to die.

Acts 12:1-2

1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church.

2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

So, who was James' successor?

**********

The Pope is the successor of Peter, retaining his position as Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. Peter was a jew and in the early days of Christianity, served to convert Jews.

If he was Peter's successor, he should continue Peter's mission to the Jews (or as they are termed in Scripture, "the circumcised." That is what successor does.

Well said, Nebula.

I may be showing my ignorance but wasn't Peter sent to the Gentiles also (Acts 10) ?

The mission of the Pope is to evangelize all peoples...Jews and Gentiles...just as Peter did.

[Guest shiloh357]

I may be showing my ignorance but wasn't Peter sent to the Gentiles also (Acts 10) ?

The mission of the Pope is to evangelize all peoples...Jews and Gentiles...just as Peter did.

No, Peter ministered primarily to the Jews. Paul was sent to the Gentiles. Peter did reach some Gentiles, but the lion's share of his ministry was to the Jews.

[rollinTHUNDER]

Who cares what the Catholic Church says. When were we commanded to follow them?

Last time I checked, Jesus said to not let anyone deceive you. Now, Catholics are taught that Peter was the first pope, but when did Jesus say that we are under the headship of the pope? Fact is, He never did. And there are many other strange teachings in that religion?

Could it be that the Church of Rome high-jacked christianity? Maybe this is the worlds largest cult? Hmmmmmm? The ones who don't know are the same ones who don't read God's word?

Question: Did Jesus promise to send the Holy Spirit, or a Pope?