SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

What is the eucharist and where is it in the bible may be the most Protestant thing I've ever heard.

The last supper? The bread of life discourse in John 6? the passover of the old Testament?

---

All things Protestants acknowledge and celebrate and even re-enact. I guess I am wondering how it is exclusive to catholicism?

---

Do you believe it's the flesh and blood of christ? Or is the teaching hard and who can accept it?

---

Symbolically? Absolutely, what Christian doesn't believe that?

---

Not symbolically, obviously. That's a Protestant invention

---

Huh? You believe you are LITERALLY eating his body and drinking his blood? No way.

---

and yet you believe this "No. Communion is probably THE most important part of our worship."

Read John 6 , pray and ask for Jesus to reveal the truth to you, harden not your heart.

---

Is this scripture you guys are using? How on earth do you get that the bread and fruit of the vine is literally flesh and blood? And why does it matter? Catholics get so hung up on these weird nuances by taking certain things so hyper literal that it misses the point...it's a MEMORIAL SERVICE for the most important man to ever live. A time of deep reflection and thanks. You have never tasted Jesus body...no one has.

Quote:

---

I Corinthians 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

---

---

St Paul also says if you take communion in a state of sin you bring condemnation upon yourself. Who has ever brought condemnation on themselves through a symbol?

The Lord spoke and the whole world and all of creation was made. When the Lord says this is My Body and this is My Blood, it is so.

It's really not...it's pointing out a simple fact that you are wrong. If you need elaboration on the matter, I suggest you do your own research or go to the religion board.

Womackster said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

This thread:

---

My protestant church has none of those heresies or the heresy of a pope.

---

You know how I know you're a heretic?

---

Because you've been brainwashed to obey the orders of the church made of imperfect men, rather than going to God's word itself.

Nowhere in the bible is apostolic succession or a Pope mentioned. Y'all have become sheep who would make excuses for anyone if they became pope. You're blind to the possibility that your church could possibly become corrupt. You think its impossible.

God never set up the giant bureaucracy established by the church at rome. Man created a hybridized religion, designed specifically to bring in pagans and Jews to feel more comfortable with christianity, and to control the masses.

That's why you'll see many traditions of man taught as commandments of God.

Womackster said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

This thread:

---

My protestant church has none of those heresies or the heresy of a pope.

---

You know how I know you're a heretic?

---

I can honestly see how less civilized Protestants and Christians would go to war with each other. We are like sunni's and Shi'ites. Or pharisees and sadducees.

I think a Pope between man and God is clear cut heresy. AT BEST...it is not supported by Jesus, the apostles or scripture. And it clearly violates this...literally and in principal.

Quote:

---

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

---

You end up with two sides truly believing the other group is a bunch of heretics. I do not fault Catholics though. They have been conditioned for centuries by these men in robes. You are also indoctrinated at marriage if not Catholic, and basically disowned by family if you leave the church often times.

Dark_Knight said:

---

It's really not...it's pointing out a simple fact that you are wrong. If you need elaboration on the matter, I suggest you do your own research or go to the religion board.

---

You're wrong.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Womackster said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

This thread:

---

My protestant church has none of those heresies or the heresy of a pope.

---

You know how I know you're a heretic?

---

Because you've been brainwashed to obey the orders of the church made of imperfect men, rather than going to God's word itself.

Nowhere in the bible is apostolic succession or a Pope mentioned. Y'all have become sheep who would make excuses for anyone if they became pope. You're blind to the possibility that your church could possibly become corrupt. You think its impossible.

God never set up the giant bureaucracy established by the church at rome. Man created a hybridized religion, designed specifically to bring in pagans and Jews to feel more comfortable with christianity, and to control the masses.

That's why you'll see many traditions of man taught as commandments of God.

---

Protestantism is a tradition of man. I would rather be a sheep than a goat.

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

EXACTLY.

All that can be done is to point out certain basics of terms that those who really want to dig into it can have at it. And it is really clear that whatever is being taught in school about either side is entirely useless.

jrico2727 said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

What is the eucharist and where is it in the bible may be the most Protestant thing I've ever heard.

The last supper? The bread of life discourse in John 6? the passover of the old Testament?

---

All things Protestants acknowledge and celebrate and even re-enact. I guess I am wondering how it is exclusive to catholicism?

---

Do you believe it's the flesh and blood of christ? Or is the teaching hard and who can accept it?

---

Symbolically? Absolutely, what Christian doesn't believe that?

---

Not symbolically, obviously. That's a Protestant invention

---

Huh? You believe you are LITERALLY eating his body and drinking his blood? No way.

---

and yet you believe this "No. Communion is probably THE most important part of our worship."

Read John 6 , pray and ask for Jesus to reveal the truth to you, harden not your heart.

---

Is this scripture you guys are using? How on earth do you get that the bread and fruit of the vine is literally flesh and blood? And why does it matter? Catholics get so hung up on these weird nuances by taking certain things so hyper literal that it misses the point...it's a MEMORIAL SERVICE for the most important man to ever live. A time of deep reflection and thanks. You have never tasted Jesus body...no one has.

Quote:

---

I Corinthians 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

---

---

St Paul also says if you take communion in a state of sin you bring condemnation upon yourself. Who has ever brought condemnation on themselves through a symbol?

The Lord spoke and the whole world and all of creation was made. When the Lord says this is My Body and this is My Blood, it is so.

---

Jesus could have given them his flesh and blood originally...the guy could perform miracles you know. But he gave them bread and fruit of the vine.

Quote:

---

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

---

Boom, problem solved...it is bread and wine.

Quote:

---

Makes me really glad my family no longer attends Mass.

---

This is the saddest thing I have read in this thread. Tragic really. Willfully removing oneself from life-giving sacraments.

jrico2727 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Womackster said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

This thread:

---

My protestant church has none of those heresies or the heresy of a pope.

---

You know how I know you're a heretic?

---

Because you've been brainwashed to obey the orders of the church made of imperfect men, rather than going to God's word itself.

Nowhere in the bible is apostolic succession or a Pope mentioned. Y'all have become sheep who would make excuses for anyone if they became pope. You're blind to the possibility that your church could possibly become corrupt. You think its impossible.

God never set up the giant bureaucracy established by the church at rome. Man created a hybridized religion, designed specifically to bring in pagans and Jews to feel more comfortable with christianity, and to control the masses.

That's why you'll see many traditions of man taught as commandments of God.

---

Protestantism is a tradition of man. I would rather be a sheep than a goat.

---

Genuinely a good one liner.

I follow the new testament church established on the day of pentecost.

Some protestant churches are in error. As well as catholic, orthodox, or any other.

Denominations are wrong.

True restoration to the bible is not.

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

Once staff moves it to F15...

Quote:

---

I think a Pope between man and God is clear cut heresy. AT BEST...it is not supported by Jesus, the apostles or scripture. And it clearly violates this...literally and in principal.

---

Forget focusing on Pope --- what about a Priest? Look at that.

The Bible is the product of the Apostolic Church that conserved and assembled the scriptures. It had not yet separated when canon was set. Are you aware of the 1st C - 4th C way of the church?

Quote:

---

Huh? You believe you are LITERALLY eating his body and drinking his blood? No way.

---

This is the heart of the divide right there. I can accept that you do not believe in the True Presence. I wish you did, but I understand it. Belief in the Eucharist for me is the PRIMARY challenge of my faith as a Catholic.

Every single time I go up for Communion I get to make the conscientious act of faith to believe I am receiving the literal flesh of Christ despite what my physical sense are telling me. It is a marvelous experience and there is NOTHING that focuses and bolsters my faith more than this. Denying my physicality, denying what this world wants me to believe, is fundamental for me to accept my spiritual position as a child of God.

I firmly believe this is what Jesus intended and did not ever back off his teaching about His flesh and blood. Being Catholic is supposed to be difficult. This is what strengthens the spirit.

titan said:

---

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

EXACTLY.

All that can be done is to point out certain basics of terms that those who really want to dig into it can have at it. And it is really clear that whatever is being taught in school about either side is entirely useless.

---

I cannot even get specific scripture provided that calls for a Pope lol. Gonna be a long debate.

The issue today is especially acute because if you have a Pope somewhat leading things astray by speaking of secular `faiths' and beliefs, especially this globalist left brand of climate and others, that is creating a real weakening and political divide along with it.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

EXACTLY.

All that can be done is to point out certain basics of terms that those who really want to dig into it can have at it. And it is really clear that whatever is being taught in school about either side is entirely useless.

---

I cannot even get specific scripture provided that calls for a Pope lol. Gonna be a long debate.

---

The position pre-dates the assembling of the scripture. Just look at that. The first Council of Jerusalem is in the 40's AD (or if you prefer CE).

Quote:

---

I think a Pope between man and God is clear cut heresy. AT BEST...it is not supported by Jesus, the apostles or scripture. And it clearly violates this...literally and in principal.

---

It is a good thing that Catholics don't believe the Pope is between man and God either.

American Hardwood said:

---

Quote:

---

Huh? You believe you are LITERALLY eating his body and drinking his blood? No way.

---

This is the heart of the divide right there. I can accept that you do not believe in the True Presence. I wish you did, but I understand it. Belief in the Eucharist for me is the PRIMARY challenge of my faith as a Catholic.

Every single time I go up for Communion I get to make the conscientious act of faith to believe I am receiving the literal flesh of Christ despite what my physical sense are telling me. It is a marvelous experience and there is NOTHING that focuses and bolsters my faith more than this. Denying my physicality, denying what this world wants me to believe, is fundamental for me to accept my spiritual position as a child of God.

I firmly believe this is what Jesus intended and did not ever back off his teaching about His flesh and blood. Being Catholic is supposed to be difficult. This is what strengthens the spirit.

---

Oh, I do it pretty much exactly how the guys who were with him did.

To be honest, what you and I do sounds very similar. Except I know that it is not literally his body. It came out of a package and was purchased by the Church.

Why get so hung up on whether it is literally his body? THAT WAS NOT THE POINT AT ALL.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Joe Boudain said:

---

What is the eucharist and where is it in the bible may be the most Protestant thing I've ever heard.

The last supper? The bread of life discourse in John 6? the passover of the old Testament?

---

All things Protestants acknowledge and celebrate and even re-enact. I guess I am wondering how it is exclusive to catholicism?

---

Do you believe it's the flesh and blood of christ? Or is the teaching hard and who can accept it?

---

Symbolically? Absolutely, what Christian doesn't believe that?

---

Not symbolically, obviously. That's a Protestant invention

---

Huh? You believe you are LITERALLY eating his body and drinking his blood? No way.

---

and yet you believe this "No. Communion is probably THE most important part of our worship."

Read John 6 , pray and ask for Jesus to reveal the truth to you, harden not your heart.

---

Is this scripture you guys are using? How on earth do you get that the bread and fruit of the vine is literally flesh and blood? And why does it matter? Catholics get so hung up on these weird nuances by taking certain things so hyper literal that it misses the point...it's a MEMORIAL SERVICE for the most important man to ever live. A time of deep reflection and thanks. You have never tasted Jesus body...no one has.

Quote:

---

I Corinthians 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

---

---

St Paul also says if you take communion in a state of sin you bring condemnation upon yourself. Who has ever brought condemnation on themselves through a symbol?

The Lord spoke and the whole world and all of creation was made. When the Lord says this is My Body and this is My Blood, it is so.

---

Jesus could have given them his flesh and blood originally...the guy could perform miracles you know. But he gave them bread and fruit of the vine.

Quote:

---

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

---

Boom, problem solved...it is bread and wine.

---

How would mere bread and wine proclaim the death of the Lord lest it be his Body and and Blood. We also quote the scripture after receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ almost every Mass.

Why don't we just all, Catholics and Protestants alike, get off this age old argument that nobody is going to solve today and look for some common ground.

From the sound of the last 5 pages I think we can all agree, Catholics and Protestants alike, that Pope Francis at the very best is a huge disappointment and not a good head of the Church. Anyone want to challenge that?

titan said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

EXACTLY.

All that can be done is to point out certain basics of terms that those who really want to dig into it can have at it. And it is really clear that whatever is being taught in school about either side is entirely useless.

---

I cannot even get specific scripture provided that calls for a Pope lol. Gonna be a long debate.

---

The position pre-dates the assembling of the scripture. Just look at that. The first Council of Jerusalem is in the 40's AD (or if you prefer CE).

---

This doesn't help me at all. I need to see scriptural basis for a Pope. Was a Pope declared during the council of Jerusalem? The point of that was to establish to the gentiles how to be a Christian without Mosaic law, was it not?

American Hardwood said:

---

Why don't we just all, Catholics and Protestants alike, get off this age old argument that nobody is going to solve today and look for some common ground.

From the sound of the last 5 pages I think we can all agree, Catholics and Protestants alike, that Pope Francis at the very best is a huge disappointment and not a good head of the Church. Anyone want to challenge that?

---

I agree with that fully. This is way too extensive. But the relation of the Scripture to the church assembling it and setting the canon under the Holy Spirit --- it seems the basic chronology and what came first is not realized.

Pedo-in-chief of the catholic church.....

TxAgPreacher said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Womackster said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

This thread:

---

My protestant church has none of those heresies or the heresy of a pope.

---

You know how I know you're a heretic?

---

Because you've been brainwashed to obey the orders of the church made of imperfect men, rather than going to God's word itself.

Nowhere in the bible is apostolic succession or a Pope mentioned. Y'all have become sheep who would make excuses for anyone if they became pope. You're blind to the possibility that your church could possibly become corrupt. You think its impossible.

God never set up the giant bureaucracy established by the church at rome. Man created a hybridized religion, designed specifically to bring in pagans and Jews to feel more comfortable with christianity, and to control the masses.

That's why you'll see many traditions of man taught as commandments of God.

---

Protestantism is a tradition of man. I would rather be a sheep than a goat.

---

Genuinely a good one liner.

I follow the new testament church established on the day of pentecost.

Some protestant churches are in error. As well as catholic, orthodox, or any other.

Denominations are wrong.

True restoration to the bible is not.

---

Do you really follow the Church of Pentecost? How was this handed down to you? By whose authority? I agree denominations are wrong. That is why I stick to the first Church, the one that started on Pentecost, the one that was handed down, by Christ, to the Apostles, to the Bishops in an unbroken chain of succession down to this day.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

EXACTLY.

All that can be done is to point out certain basics of terms that those who really want to dig into it can have at it. And it is really clear that whatever is being taught in school about either side is entirely useless.

---

I cannot even get specific scripture provided that calls for a Pope lol. Gonna be a long debate.

---

The position pre-dates the assembling of the scripture. Just look at that. The first Council of Jerusalem is in the 40's AD (or if you prefer CE).

---

This doesn't help me at all. I need to see scriptural basis for a Pope. Was a Pope declared during the council of Jerusalem? The point of that was to establish to the gentiles how to be a Christian without Mosaic law, was it not?

---

Think. You can't see a basis for something that is before the documents you are seeking it in. And it is actually there if you stay away from the more complex arguments about papal power, and focus on St.Peter in the First Council. The laying of hands established the secession of the Apostolate -- that in turn, sets up the Sees in the various cities. As a bishop of Rome, that position exists even in the 1st C. You are focusing on some of the "accretions" which rightly can be debated. But not the apostolic Sees.

On the council itself -yet, that was a large part of it. And sets the precedent about how in council doctrinal matters are to be put to the Holy Spirit.

A Pope is not `declared' --- but a dispute in the 90's AD is referred to the third Bishop of Rome, Clement. The Pope nomen for that comes later.

jrico2727 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Womackster said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

RebelE Infantry said:

---

This thread:

---

My protestant church has none of those heresies or the heresy of a pope.

---

You know how I know you're a heretic?

---

Because you've been brainwashed to obey the orders of the church made of imperfect men, rather than going to God's word itself.

Nowhere in the bible is apostolic succession or a Pope mentioned. Y'all have become sheep who would make excuses for anyone if they became pope. You're blind to the possibility that your church could possibly become corrupt. You think its impossible.

God never set up the giant bureaucracy established by the church at rome. Man created a hybridized religion, designed specifically to bring in pagans and Jews to feel more comfortable with christianity, and to control the masses.

That's why you'll see many traditions of man taught as commandments of God.

---

Protestantism is a tradition of man. I would rather be a sheep than a goat.

---

Genuinely a good one liner.

I follow the new testament church established on the day of pentecost.

Some protestant churches are in error. As well as catholic, orthodox, or any other.

Denominations are wrong.

True restoration to the bible is not.

---

Do you really follow the Church of Pentecost? How was this handed down to you? By whose authority? I agree denominations are wrong. That is why I stick to the first Church, the one that started on Pentecost, the one that was handed down, by Christ, to the Apostles, to the Bishops in an unbroken chain of succession down to this day.

---

The bible's authority. So God's himself. The incorruptible. The unchanging. The words that have been preserved, and say the same thing thet always have. Not by corruptible traditon of man.

Succession is a lie. You wont find it in the perfect word of God. They will tell you about it in the corrupt church, by men clinging to power like pharisees that teach as doctrine the commandments of men. These teachings are nowhere to be found in the bible.

Go ahead. Believe everything this marxist pope says. Listen to the cardinals, priests, and archbishops who's position's are also not found in the holy scriptures.

titan said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

EXACTLY.

All that can be done is to point out certain basics of terms that those who really want to dig into it can have at it. And it is really clear that whatever is being taught in school about either side is entirely useless.

---

I cannot even get specific scripture provided that calls for a Pope lol. Gonna be a long debate.

---

The position pre-dates the assembling of the scripture. Just look at that. The first Council of Jerusalem is in the 40's AD (or if you prefer CE).

---

This doesn't help me at all. I need to see scriptural basis for a Pope. Was a Pope declared during the council of Jerusalem? The point of that was to establish to the gentiles how to be a Christian without Mosaic law, was it not?

---

Think. You can't see a basis for something that is before the documents you are seeking it in. And it is actually there if you stay away from the more complex arguments about papal power, and focus on St.Peter in the First Council. The laying of hands established the secession of the Apostolate -- that in turn, sets up the Sees in the various cities. As a bishop of Rome, that position exists even in the 1st C. You are focusing on some of the "accretions" which rightly can be debated. But not the apostolic Sees.

On the council itself -yet, that was a large part of it. And sets the precedent about how in council doctrinal matters are to be put to the Holy Spirit.

---

Impossible to debate with Catholics, I shouldn't have even tried. There is zero biblical basis for a Pope, got it.

I am glad that my church does not elevate men (ALL men can be corrupted) between us and God and call them "Father"...a BIG no-no per scripture that ZERO weird men in robes will tell you about.

Good luck with your magical non-biblical Popes. And all of the homosexual perverted clergy that prey on children and each other. I do not say that in jest...that has been a very real problem, along with elaborate cover ups, and I hope it gets rooted out for the sake of the children.

MUCH respect for the original church, who I feel is what my church honestly tries to mimic. Prayers to all modern Catholics that they start following the bible moreso than men in robes.

jrico2727 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Because you've been brainwashed to obey the orders of the church made of imperfect men, rather than going to God's word itself.

Nowhere in the bible is apostolic succession or a Pope mentioned. Y'all have become sheep who would make excuses for anyone if they became pope. You're blind to the possibility that your church could possibly become corrupt. You think its impossible.

God never set up the giant bureaucracy established by the church at rome. Man created a hybridized religion, designed specifically to bring in pagans and Jews to feel more comfortable with christianity, and to control the masses.

That's why you'll see many traditions of man taught as commandments of God.

---

Protestantism is a tradition of man. I would rather be a sheep than a goat.

---

Which are the practices of Catholicism that are not traditions of man?

Quote:

---

Succession is a lie.

---

Incorrect. The lie would be to ignore the laying on of hands and how successors were determined and sent forth. That part at least should be almost rote common knowledge.

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Succession is a lie.

---

Incorrect. The lie would be to ignore the laying on of hands and how successors were determined and sent forth. That part at least should be almost rote common knowledge.

---

5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" 6And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

"'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."

That's not how laying on hands worked. Those spiritual gifts passed away when the apostles did. As foretold in scripture.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

titan said:

---

Pookers said:

---

I'm banking on this thread resolving a 500 year old debate.

---

EXACTLY.

All that can be done is to point out certain basics of terms that those who really want to dig into it can have at it. And it is really clear that whatever is being taught in school about either side is entirely useless.

---

I cannot even get specific scripture provided that calls for a Pope lol. Gonna be a long debate.

---

The position pre-dates the assembling of the scripture. Just look at that. The first Council of Jerusalem is in the 40's AD (or if you prefer CE).

---

This doesn't help me at all. I need to see scriptural basis for a Pope. Was a Pope declared during the council of Jerusalem? The point of that was to establish to the gentiles how to be a Christian without Mosaic law, was it not?

---

Think. You can't see a basis for something that is before the documents you are seeking it in. And it is actually there if you stay away from the more complex arguments about papal power, and focus on St.Peter in the First Council. The laying of hands established the secession of the Apostolate -- that in turn, sets up the Sees in the various cities. As a bishop of Rome, that position exists even in the 1st C. You are focusing on some of the "accretions" which rightly can be debated. But not the apostolic Sees.

On the council itself -yet, that was a large part of it. And sets the precedent about how in council doctrinal matters are to be put to the Holy Spirit.

---

Impossible to debate with Catholics, I shouldn't have even tried. There is zero biblical basis for a Pope, got it.

I am glad that my church does not elevate men (ALL men can be corrupted) between us and God and call them "Father"...a BIG no-no per scripture that ZERO weird men in robes will tell you about.

Good luck with your magical non-biblical Popes. And all of the homosexual perverted clergy that prey on children and each other. I do not say that in jest...that has been a very real problem, along with elaborate cover ups, and I hope it gets rooted out for the sake of the children.

MUCH respect for the original church, who I feel is what my church honestly tries to mimic. Prayers to all modern Catholics that they start following the bible moreso than men in robes.

---

You are not debating. You are sticking with a particular `gottcha' term --- "Pope" - and not looking at what is being attempted to explain. Yes, there is room for debate about the POPE' s position in relation to the other Bishops. But the establishment of the Sees and the `one holy catholic and apostolic church' is in the creed as soon as 100 AD. Bishop of Rome is from the 1st C in the lifetime of more than one Apostle.

I ask you just to look at that. Not trying to win any argument.

Why get hung up? That literally IS the point. That is the difference. I am glad that you find your service to be fulfilling I really do, but believing in the True Presence and not believing in it IS the difference between our faiths. Most of the rest of the arguments about Church hierarchy and whatnot is a sideshow by comparison.

I love my Protestant brothers as much as any Catholic. We all believe in God and Christ. While I wish that Protestants would accept the full beliefs I do, I think it is far more important to focus on our shared beliefs. There are enemies way bigger and far more deadly than fighting about our small but significant difference.

I don't always get the feeling that a lot of Protestants feel the same way unfortunately. It sure seems like Protestants believe a lot of things about the Catholic church that aren't true for whatever reason and that we actually agree for more often than not.

The thing you need to realize is the church that set the canon and assembled the Bible DID believe in that secession. With little dissent.

Forget the Pope, or even the Bishop of Rome. You are straying into denying the creed of 100 and the Sees. That is not a position can entertain, and we will have to agree to disagree.