Catholicism is not Biblical (2)

1) The Papacy1A) Peter as RockPro comments that, “we do not have an Aramaic text of the New Testament.” We do, however, have instances where Aramaic is translated in the New Testament. For example, in John 1:42 we again see the renaming of Simon. In this passage John translates Cephas (the Greek rendering of the Aramaic, Kepha-Rock) into Peter (Petros). Pro is correct when he mentions that “petra” means a “solid mass of rock”. What Pro does not acknowledge is the fact that “petra” is feminine in gender. It order for the word to make sense as a male’s name, it is only appropriate in the Greek to add the masculine ending (“os” instead of “a”). What essentially occurs in Greek is naming Peter as Mr. Rock instead of Miss Rock.Contrary to Pro’s position, there is a considerable amount of biblical scholarship to support the meaning of Peter as “Rock”. In the below referenced source [3] there are 13 prominent non-Catholic Christian scholars who agree that Peter’s name means "Rock". Even Alfred Barnes, who Pro uses as a biblical authority regarding the “keys”, acknowledges that fact that the obvious meaning of the “Rock” passage is, "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it.” [4]1B) The Keys to the KingdomCatholics agree that Jesus is head and cornerstone of the Church. As discussed in the previous round, however, it is Peter who is the one Jesus singled out as Prime Minister. I do not deny that Peter is only a man and that Christ is the head of the Church, so the sited scriptures are not relevant. However, there is a plethora of examples where Peter is clearly first among the apostles. For the sake of brevity (as my word count is getting low). I will only include four: John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas and no one questions him Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. Pro has completely ignored the fact that Jesus was referencing Old Testament scripture from Isaiah where God presents the “keys” to one individual and connotes the appointment to an office.Finally, using the same source as previously submitted, there are numerous examples non-Catholic Christians who agree that the “keys” of the kingdom were presented to Peter apart from the other apostles. They may not agree with Papal succession, but their interpretation of the Matthew is clear. [3]2) Mary’s HolinessIt seems that Pro has committed the informal logical fallacy of “moving the goal posts”. I have adequately addressed resolution 2 “Mary, the physical mother of Jesus, is not holy”.By his own admission, Pro states that Mary was “endowed with grace” and “favored by God”. I thank Pro for acknowledging these very holy attributes. Pro has not offered any support for his resolution “Mary, the physical mother of Jesus, is not holy”. Either he concedes the resolution or needs to argue how Mary is unholy.If Pro wants to debate other aspects of Marion doctrine, I suggest he begin a separate debate.3) The DeuterocanonicalsMy apologies, I thought this resolution dealt with the Christian Canon, not the Hebrew Canon. Pro is simply wrong when he states that deuterocanonicals were “not officially established as canon until 1546, in the Council of Trent.” The Council of Trent infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pro is correct in saying that Pope Damasus published the full Catholic canon. This was done at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382. The Church again defined the same list of books at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). [5]The reiteration of the cannon at the Council of Trent was in response to Protestants removing the seven deuterocanonical books plus portions of Daniel and Esther.4) Salvation - Infant BaptismI’d like to thank Pro for addressing my question. I shall do the same before continuing. The fate of an unbaptized infant is entrusted to the mercy of God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church best describes the Catholic Position .1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. [6] Because the Sacrament of Baptism has salvific value in and of itself, Catholics see no problem with infant baptism. Nowhere in the bible does it say that infants cannot be baptized. Pro seems to argue that it is not the act of baptism that saves, but rather ones decision to be baptized that has value. I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think there is a biblical verse that states, “decide to be baptized and then be baptized.” Like Pro, we Catholics believe that one must repent (the Sacrament of Reconciliation) and one must (after a period of discernment) profess their faith in Christ (the Sacrament of Confirmation). God’s salvific grace is imparted in each of these sacraments. ConclusionI have again provided evidence that Catholic teaching is indeed biblical. Furthermore I have exemplified that either 1) Pro’s biblical interpretation is flawed, or 2) Pro’s understanding of Catholic teaching is flawed.[3] http://www.philvaz.com... [4] http://www.sacred-texts.com... [5] http://marysaggies.blogspot.com...; Note: I don't normally reference a "blog" as a source, but for the benefit of the reader, it best encapsulates the issue and also provides a source from which it is based.[6] http://www.usccb.org...#