Catholicism is not Biblical (2)

1A) Con says I do not acknowledge the fact that “petra” is a feminine form of “petros.” In fact I have been aware of this, and originally was going to note it in my previous argument but I was forced to remove it in the interests of saving space. Con, however, ignores the fact that the two words do in fact have a different meaning. Thus they denote two different things. This is the only sufficient explanation for the use of two different words, unless Con would have us believe that Jesus is saying “You are Mr. Rock, and upon Mrs. Rock I will build my church.” And again, though his name is translated from Cephas, we cannot have a solid argument from the Aramaic language unless we have an Aramaic text of the New Testament. I am not arguing that Peter’s name doesn’t mean Rock. I agree this is the name that Christ gave to him; however, I am arguing it is a mistake to say that Christ established him as the rock of the church. I would accept that he would be a rock, but he is not by any means the rock. On Alfred Barnes, it is true that he agrees that the verse refers to Peter as the rock on which Jesus will build His church. It seems, however, that Con left out what Barnes said in the cited article. Even if Peter is the rock being referred to in this verse, it does not mean that he was elevated to a supreme authoritative status. Barnes, in fact, explicitly disagrees with the adherents of the Catholic Church in his article. He even says that the Church of Rome “abused” the passage! I encourage Con and the readers of this debate to read through the article Con cited; at least the paragraphs where he explains the meaning of the verse. 1B) The verses I cited are certainly relevant. We see from them that Peter is only a man and rejects worship (this was in fact a main point I neglected to mention) and that Christ is head of the church, without any reference to Peter. Con still has not explained these verses. Instead he cited a few other verses which he claims establish Peter’s superiority to the other apostles. None of these, however, can be interpreted as such. John 21:15-17- The objective reader can clearly see that Peter’s role here is that of servitude. Jesus is asking Peter if he loves Him. Are these roles and question not asked of all of us by Jesus? How can one interpret this as an establishment of superiority? Acts 1:15- I still do not see how this denotes supremacy among the apostles. It proves that Peter could speak authoritatively (an ability that all of the apostles obviously had), not that he was supreme among the apostles. I would ask Con to elaborate here. Acts 5:15- Not the same power, but equal or perhaps greater powers. In Acts 19, we see that the people were using Paul’s handkerchiefs to heal the sick and demon-possessed. Acts 15:7-12 Once again, this only proves Peter’s ability to speak authoritatively. Our friend Paul settled many such disputes in his letters, and was not questioned. Con accuses me of completely ignoring the Isaiah reference that Jesus uses when he give Peter the keys to the kingdom. I have not ignored it. I argued that the obtainment of the keys does not denote superiority among the apostles, even if the privilege was unique to Peter. And I have trouble accepting this, because if the keys denote a specific office like Con says, and all the apostles are give the authority to bind and loose, what are they binding and loosing with? If only Peter has the keys, then what are the other apostles using to bind and loose? 2) I have committed no such fallacy. I simply clarified my meaning in the last round. As of yet, Con has not attempted any argument against my stance that Mary is not deserving of the exaltation she receives in the Catholic Church, aside from brief points in the first round. Even if my meaning wasn’t clear, then Con still should have tried to disprove my arguments. If you thought I made a mistake in wording and needed clarification, all you had to do was ask. Con is putting words in my mouth when he says that I acknowledge that Mary is “full of grace.” I did not acknowledge that Mary had this attribute. I in fact argued that she is never said to have such a quality in the Bible. I did, however, acknowledge that she was very blessed, having been given the privilege of being Christ’s earthly mother. This does not, however, indicate that she was deserving of an exalted status. I do not concede the resolution nor do I have any need to. My resolution, that Mary is not holy, is acceptable under the definition of the word holy: “Exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness.” I am arguing that Mary does not meet this definition. My resolution and subsequent clarification still stand. 3) Sarcasm will not help your case here. The Hebrew canon was the list that the Jews used up until the time of Christ, and it never included the apocryphal books. Simple as that. Going forward to the time after Christ, Con argues that the Catholics established the Apocrypha as canon as early as the 4th century. Regardless of when the books were officially established by the Catholics, Con must explain why they were not accepted as canon earlier than the dates he provided. Sources close to the time of Christ and the apostles indicate that the books were rejected. Josephus, who more or less lived during the time of Christ, rejected them. The Muratorian fragment, dated to a 170 A.D. text, lists the books of the Bible and does not include the Apocrypha. Philo, who lived during the time of Christ, quoted from canonical texts but not once did he quote from the Apocrypha. Of course, this is just a rehash of what I said in the previous round and even in the previous debate. Con must address these arguments if he wishes to prove that the Apocrypha is canonical. 4) I do understand the Catholic position on baptism, and the text that Con cited in fact helps me in the course of my study. I would have con know that I am appreciative of this. Here I will restate my views on baptism and why I do not believe infant baptism is valid. With the clarification of the Catholic view, I believe this will be clearer to both my opponent and the followers of this debate. In the example we have of the Ethiopian eunuch, we see the eunuch wanting badly to be baptized. He says “Look, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” Philip tells the eunuch, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” So we see that there is a prerequisite for baptism, which is a confession that Jesus is the Son of God. Are infants capable of such a confession? Con says I seem to be arguing that the decision to be baptized has the real value in baptism. That’s not quite what I meant. I believe that if a situation such as the one described occurs, then God has mercy on him and understands that he had every intention to go through the act of baptism. It is the act the saves, not simply the decision; yet one does not know fully God’s merciful nature. If one has the means to be baptized, then he is obligated to access those means. Of course, the fate of the person’s soul is left to God’s holy judgment, not our own, so we can never know for sure. I feel that I have successfully proven that Catholicism is not based on the teachings of the Bible in this debate. I also feel that evidence Con has provided has not been sufficient in disproving my arguments or proving that Catholicism is Biblical. My Biblical interpretations come directly from what the Bible says in plain language, not simply my own judgment. I conclude my arguments by thanking Sojourner for agreeing to this discussion. I pray that the Lord has revealed His truth in this discussion and that those following the debate have increased in their knowledge. Sources: http://lavistachurchofchrist.org...http://www.apologeticspress.org...http://www.gospelway.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...