The Accused is going to Hell (For Rejecting Catholic Dogma)

Boy you sure make me labor like Paul don't you. __________________________________ "1) I"m not lying, John 21:16 doesn"t used the word " Poimonate" but " Poimaine". Poimaine means two things: 1) to shepherd 2) to rule. According to context, Poimaine must mean "to shepherd" because of the context: sheep of Christ." Fact is, the same word is used in Revelation to mean "Rule", and John wrote both John 21:16 and Revelation. The connotation is that Peter will "Rule the sheep." Your position here is just dishonest. ----------------------- "2) I Agree that when Peter spoke, all were silent. However, when Paul and James spoke, all were silent as well (v 12)." You need to visualize the situation at the Council of Jerusalem: It was very noisy with everyone speaking over each other, then Peter spoke and everyone shut up; then to break silence Paul started telling unrelated stories. The matter was resolved on Peter's speech, no more arguments; then James reminded everyone to get to work on what Peter said. ______________________________ "3) From your own words you said that Petrine authority was FIRST exercised in the 2nd century. I TOTALLY AGREE! " Victor was the one to first excommunicate in the late 2nd century, but acknowledgement of the Submission to Rome went all the way back to Ignatius in the 1st century. ______________________ "4) Pro said: "again in Acts 15 we see that Paul and Barnabas, though guided by The Holy Spirit; could not authoritatively decree if circumcision was necessary" I AGREE AGAIN. It"s because the decision was left to James NOT to Peter at the Council of Jerusalem:" That's just a completely dishonest reading of the events. ______________________________________ "5) I completely concur with Christian unity. The Scriptures said: " There is actually more to it than just that, if there were no Papacy we'd all be Jehovah's Witnesses today; also doctrines regarding the monophysites and Nestorius which took hundreds of years to determine. There is also the biblical basis for Apostolic Succession which shows that no one can just upstart a church. I'll get to that in Point 7. Also there are core dogmas regarding Mary and Communion of Saints that are covered in the bible, and in some cases censored in Protestant Bibles; but only pointed out and preserved by the Catholic Faith. I'm sure we'll get into these in the next debate. ______________________________________ "6) PATRISTIC EVIDENCE AGAINST PAPAL AUTHORITY" I'm glad your reading Ante-Nicene Fathers, I'll quote from there too: (Irenaeus Declares Rome is the authority and all Churches must agree with it) Irenaeus 175-185 A.D. Against Heresies, Book III Chapter III 2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, ...assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church (Rome), on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere... (Cyprian Demonstrates Papal Infallibility, Rome is the Chief Church and Throne of Peter) St. Cyprian Epistle LIV Letter to Cornelius: "a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics"to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence sacerdotal unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." [From The Rebaptism Controversy]: (Firmillian Acknowledges that Stephen took the Throne of Peter, disagrees with his policy about re-baptism.) Firmilian, Bishop of C"sarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen Epistle LXXIV "I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics." (Cyprian acknowledged the eminent authority of Stephen as the Successor of Peter and his right to appoint bishops, even though he disagreed with him on the Re-Baptism Issue) Letter From Cyprian to Pope Stephen [Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5 page 368-369] "Let letters be directed by you into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place. Intimate plainly to us who has been substituted at Arles in the place of Marcion." _______________________ "7) APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION ARGUMENT REFUTED" It is clear that apostolic authority is passed through the "Laying of Hands". (I'm sure you can find the relevant passages) Protestant Bibles have censored Exodus 29:9 that the Priests Hands are consecrated for this very purpose. (but you won't find this one [Too Catholic For Your Bible]) Then of course we all know Acts 1 Matthias is chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle. _________________________________ WHEW!