Yakuda Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 1 minute ago, blackbird said: I think we are just going in circles. You would be better off to read both sides interpretation. How else can you learn who is telling the truth? I have to admit I could find all kinds of arguments but you don't seem to be listening. So I have to leave it for now and take a break. Check out Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner on the archive.org website. It is free to read. The book would probably cost a lot. But this is totally free unless you want to donate to archive.org Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Section V. Peter has nine chapters on it dealing with various parts of the subject. Why do you keep referring to non biblical sources? In all out discussions I've only ever referenced the Bible. Boettner is the Protestants anti Catholic textbook. Not only is it non biblical is filled with errors. You called Peter a sinful man but there you are expecting me to take the word of the sinful Boettner over Jesus. I pray you escape the biblical abuses you've been exposed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 Just now, Yakuda said: Why do you keep referring to non biblical sources? In all out discussions I've only ever referenced the Bible. Boettner is the Protestants anti Catholic textbook. Not only is it non biblical is filled with errors. You called Peter a sinful man but there you are expecting me to take the word of the sinful Boettner over Jesus. I pray you escape the biblical abuses you've been exposed to. Oh really. I think you are again trying to use the same argument as before. This is Boettner's intrepretation which makes sense. If you read the New Testament you will find nothing to back up the claim that the church is built on Peter. I gave you a couple verses which you couldn't deny although you tried to claim something about a cornerstone on sand. That is totally contrary to the intent of the verse in Eph ch2 about the cornerstone. Why would such a verse be undermining Jesus as the foundation. That doesn't make sense. Nowhere in the N.T. does Peter claim to be a Pope or superior to the other Apostles. There is no evidence Peter was even ever in Rome. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he travelled to Rome. Even in Peter's two epistles there is no mention of him being a Pope or in Rome. That claim is purely an invention of men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 1 minute ago, blackbird said: "Using Peter’s name and making, as it were, a play upon words, Jesus said to Peter, “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church. He meant that Peter had seen the basic, essential truth concerning His person, the essential truth upon which the church would be founded, and that nothing would be able to overthrow that truth, not even all the forces of evil that might be arrayed against it. Peter was the first among the disciples to see our Lord as the Christ of God. Christ commended him for that spiritual insight, and said that His church would be founded upon that fact. And that, of course, was a far different thing from founding the church on Peter."-- part of Loraine Boettner's book Roman Catholicism chap.5 Jesus often makes plays on words, just as he did in John ch.6 There is no play in words Jesus is direct and clear. In John 6:60 Jesus disciples say, "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" They know Jesus is speaking literally. Then V61 Aware of the complaints of his disciples, Jesus said to them, "Does this shock you?" Why would they be shocked if he was speaking figuratively? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 Just now, blackbird said: Oh really. I think you are again trying to use the same argument as before. This is Boettner's intrepretation which makes sense. If you read the New Testament you will find nothing to back up the claim that the church is built on Peter. I gave you a couple verses which you couldn't deny although you tried to claim something about a cornerstone on sand. That is totally contrary to the intent of the verse in Eph ch2 about the cornerstone. Why would such a verse be undermining Jesus as the foundation. That doesn't make sense. Nowhere in the N.T. does Peter claim to be a Pope or superior to the other Apostles. There is no evidence Peter was even ever in Rome. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he travelled to Rome. Even in Peter's two epistles there is no mention of him being a Pope or in Rome. That claim is purely an invention of men. Boettner is a sinful man just like you claim Peter is but you proclaim his contradictory interpretation. I'll take Jesus at his word thank you. Peter is the rock you which Jesus built his church. You follow luther and boettner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Yakuda said: There is no play in words Jesus is direct and clear. In John 6:60 Jesus disciples say, "This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?" They know Jesus is speaking literally. Then V61 Aware of the complaints of his disciples, Jesus said to them, "Does this shock you?" Why would they be shocked if he was speaking figuratively? Why would the writer of the gospel use the word petros in the first part when speaking to Peter and then use the word Petra, a different word. Petros means a small rock or stone and Petra means a large rock or foundation. Obviously the word Petra was not referring to Peter, but was referring to Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God which he had just made. The church is built on that confession that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God. Peter was the first to confess that and Jesus recognized him for that. The confession is the Petra, not Peter. Edited January 17 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Boettner is a sinful man just like you claim Peter is but you proclaim his contradictory interpretation. I'll take Jesus at his word thank you. Peter is the rock you which Jesus built his church. You follow luther and boettner I follow Jesus Christ, the Rock. Luther was once a Roman Catholic monk who God revealed the truth to through the Holy Scripture. Boettner was a renowned theologian who studied these subjects in great depth and knew far more than most people about it. I have limited knowledge and don't claim to be an expert but I can read the Bible like most people. I found Boettner's explanation strongly supported by the Bible. You really need to come out of your shell and study all sides to this with the Bible as the final authority. Edited January 17 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 43 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Peter is the rock you which Jesus built his church. No, I follow the Jesus who inspired men to write the Bible. "Later we read that Peter slept in Gethsemane, during Christ’s agony. His rash act in cutting off the servant’s ear drew Christ’s rebuke. He boasted that he was ready to die for his Master, but shortly afterward shamefully denied with oaths and curses that he even knew Him. And even after Pentecost Peter still was subject to such serious error that his hypocrisy had to be rebuked by Paul, who says: “But when Cephas came to Antioch [at which time he was in full possession of his papal powers, according to Romanist doctrine], I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11). And yet Romanists allege that their pope, as Peter’s successor, is infallible in matters of faith and morals!" This is history of Peter that Boettner wrote but you can verify it is Biblical. Surely, a fallible sinful man like Peter could not have been appointed Pope, the head of the church on earth, since shortly after Peter was allegedly appointed as Pope, he committed such sinful acts. He denied Christ and after Penticost was sill in serious error and had to be rebuked by Paul. How could that be? How could Peter, the Pope, be rebuked by Paul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 2 hours ago, blackbird said: Most people are not Christians and we must vote for the least evil… Glad to see you can set aside your disdain for women and ignore bible passages at certain times. Getting back to the topic of this thread, maybe you can set aside your disdain for trans youth to not oppose helping them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 40 minutes ago, blackbird said: No, I follow the Jesus who inspired men to write the Bible. "Later we read that Peter slept in Gethsemane, during Christ’s agony. His rash act in cutting off the servant’s ear drew Christ’s rebuke. He boasted that he was ready to die for his Master, but shortly afterward shamefully denied with oaths and curses that he even knew Him. And even after Pentecost Peter still was subject to such serious error that his hypocrisy had to be rebuked by Paul, who says: “But when Cephas came to Antioch [at which time he was in full possession of his papal powers, according to Romanist doctrine], I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11). And yet Romanists allege that their pope, as Peter’s successor, is infallible in matters of faith and morals!" This is history of Peter that Boettner wrote but you can verify it is Biblical. Surely, a fallible sinful man like Peter could not have been appointed Pope, the head of the church on earth, since shortly after Peter was allegedly appointed as Pope, he committed such sinful acts. He denied Christ and after Penticost was sill in serious error and had to be rebuked by Paul. How could that be? How could Peter, the Pope, be rebuked by Paul? I dont think you do. Jesus said peter is the rock upon which he will build his church. You REFUSE to accept it. Just like the people in John 6:66. I'll pray for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 59 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: Glad to see you can set aside your disdain for women and ignore bible passages at certain times. Getting back to the topic of this thread, maybe you can set aside your disdain for trans youth to not oppose helping them as well. You are lying. I have no disdain for women or trans youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, TreeBeard said: Glad to see you can set aside your disdain for women and ignore bible passages at certain times. Getting back to the topic of this thread, maybe you can set aside your disdain for trans youth to not oppose helping them as well. What constitutes "helping" a trans youth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TreeBeard Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 20 minutes ago, Yakuda said: What constitutes "helping" a trans youth? You know what you could do? You could ask them…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 35 minutes ago, TreeBeard said: You know what you could do? You could ask them…. They didn't make the statement you did. So you thinking asking them is "helping"? "Helping" like helping a kid with anorexia create a diet plan to lose weight because they identify as fat? That kind of "helping"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 3 hours ago, blackbird said: No, I follow the Jesus who inspired men to write the Bible. "Later we read that Peter slept in Gethsemane, during Christ’s agony. His rash act in cutting off the servant’s ear drew Christ’s rebuke. He boasted that he was ready to die for his Master, but shortly afterward shamefully denied with oaths and curses that he even knew Him. And even after Pentecost Peter still was subject to such serious error that his hypocrisy had to be rebuked by Paul, who says: “But when Cephas came to Antioch [at which time he was in full possession of his papal powers, according to Romanist doctrine], I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11). And yet Romanists allege that their pope, as Peter’s successor, is infallible in matters of faith and morals!" This is history of Peter that Boettner wrote but you can verify it is Biblical. Surely, a fallible sinful man like Peter could not have been appointed Pope, the head of the church on earth, since shortly after Peter was allegedly appointed as Pope, he committed such sinful acts. He denied Christ and after Penticost was sill in serious error and had to be rebuked by Paul. How could that be? How could Peter, the Pope, be rebuked by Paul? All people God uses are sinful. You don't think think you too pastor is sinless do you???? Please tell me you don't believe something that silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 17 Report Share Posted January 17 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Yakuda said: All people God uses are sinful. You don't think think you too pastor is sinless do you???? Please tell me you don't believe something that silly. " 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23 "1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1 " 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. " Hebrews 10:11-14 You can see clearly from this that was referring to the Old Testament priesthood which could never take away sins. the O.T. priesthood was a picture of the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Once Christ was crucified, there was no more earthly priesthood. It was complete. But Jesus by his once for all sacrifice paid for all sin. This can never be repeated which means the Mass is redundant. It serves no purpose. Read Hebrews ch9, 10, and 11. "11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. " Hebrews 9:11, 12 Edited January 17 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 6 hours ago, blackbird said: " 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23 "1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" Romans 5:1 " 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. " Hebrews 10:11-14 You can see clearly from this that was referring to the Old Testament priesthood which could never take away sins. the O.T. priesthood was a picture of the once for all sacrifice of Christ. Once Christ was crucified, there was no more earthly priesthood. It was complete. But Jesus by his once for all sacrifice paid for all sin. This can never be repeated which means the Mass is redundant. It serves no purpose. Read Hebrews ch9, 10, and 11. "11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. " Hebrews 9:11, 12 You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. Why do you refuse to listen? I'll pray for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 14 hours ago, Yakuda said: All people God uses are sinful. You don't think think you too pastor is sinless do you???? Please tell me you don't believe something that silly. No I don't believe a pastor or anyone is sinless. Please tell me how you can be saved in the RCC? What do you believe about salvation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 16 minutes ago, blackbird said: No I don't believe a pastor or anyone is sinless. Please tell me how you can be saved in the RCC? What do you believe about salvation? Yet you got to a church led by a sinful man but Peter can't lead the church that Jesus CLEARLY said he would build on the rock of Peter. See this is another example of protestant abuses of Scripture AND logic. The same way you can be saved through one of the 20-30,000 denominations Christian denominations that Luther infected the real church with. What do I believe about salvation? That I am saved by grace through the death of Jesus on the cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Yakuda said: What do I believe about salvation? That I am saved by grace through the death of Jesus on the cross. I thought you said before that salvation by faith through grace was heresy. The Council of Trent condemned the belief that salvation is by grace through faith. That was Luther's and the Reformation central claim which you constantly rejected as heresy. Now you are claiming you are saved by grace? You are contradicting yourself. The Catholic church opposed and rejects as heresy salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. They have their own long list of things one must follow to obtain salvation. What do you believe about how to obtain forgiveness for sin? Edited January 18 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 3 minutes ago, blackbird said: I thought you said before that salvation by faith throug heresy. The Council of Trent condemned the belief that salvation is by grace through faith. That was Luther's and the Reformation central claim which you constantly rejected as heresy. Now you are claiming you are saved by grace? You are contradicting yourself. The Catholic church opposed and rejects as heresy salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. They have their own long list of things one must follow to obtain salvation. What do you believe about how to obtain forgiveness for sin? Copy and paste where is made that claim. The Luther heresy and yours sola fide. Cite the relevant text from that council You're ranting, ...salvation by grace through faith......I never said that. Again copy and paste my words. There are only 2 things as Jesus told us but we already know you don't listen to Jesus you listen to your sinful pastor We'll get to forgiveness of sin later. You're already too confused and as I said Protestants cover lack of accuracy with volume of words. Protestants love to jump from topic to topic because they haven't repeat what's been programmed into them. If you want to engage me fine but I don't play protestant games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 47 minutes ago, Yakuda said: Copy and paste where is made that claim. The Luther heresy and yours sola fide. Cite the relevant text from that council You're ranting, ...salvation by grace through faith......I never said that. Again copy and paste my words. There are only 2 things as Jesus told us but we already know you don't listen to Jesus you listen to your sinful pastor We'll get to forgiveness of sin later. You're already too confused and as I said Protestants cover lack of accuracy with volume of words. Protestants love to jump from topic to topic because they haven't repeat what's been programmed into them. If you want to engage me fine but I don't play protestant games. I think we are up against a wall. You constantly accuse and reject everything I say and reject any sources of information that refer to Scripture. You constantly claim I am playing protestant games, which is false. I only want to help you find salvation. If you see that as a threat, you are in serious trouble with God. The video of the priest put on one of the forum subjects a week ago said clearly the Council of Trent condemned the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. Maybe you have a different understanding of what grace is. Grace is unmerited favour by God. It is not a magical thing a priest gives a baby by baptizing him. A priest cannot forgive sins in the confessional. A priest cannot offer a Mass to make atonement for sins. Christ already atoned for sins once for all 2,000 year ago. What do you say about that? Do you believe a person can receive complete forgiveness for sins by coming to Christ and believing in him as Lord and Savior? Do you believe a Christian has been forgiven for all his sins once and for all? If you're not sure read the Epistle to the Hebrews. And remember instead of being hostile and thinking I am out to deceive you, read the Epistle to the Hebrews (especially chapters 9, 10, and 11) and consider what the Catholicism teaches on salvation and what the Bible teaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 (edited) 12 minutes ago, blackbird said: Cite the relevant text from that council Ok, here is the relevant Canons from the Council of Trent. You can Google any of this and see for yourself. The Council of Trent was a response to the Reformation, particularly a response to Luther and his followers. quote CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20). “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24). “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Rom. 3:28). “For what does the Scripture say? ‘ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” (Rom. 4:3). “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1). “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,” (Eph. 2:8). “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5). CANON 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified…let him be accursed.” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,” (John 1:12). “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Rom. 3:28). “For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,'” (Rom. 4:3). “Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself,” (Heb. 7:25–27). “For this reason, I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day,” (2 Tim. 1:12). Council of Trent: Canons on Justification | carm.org Edited January 18 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yakuda Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 15 minutes ago, blackbird said: Ok, here is the relevant Canons from the Council of Trent. You can Google any of this and see for yourself. The Council of Trent was a response to the Reformation, particularly a response to Luther and his followers. quote CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3:20). “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24). “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Rom. 3:28). “For what does the Scripture say? ‘ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” (Rom. 4:3). “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1). “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,” (Eph. 2:8). “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5). CANON 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified…let him be accursed.” https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,” (John 1:12). “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” (Rom. 3:28). “For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,'” (Rom. 4:3). “Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself,” (Heb. 7:25–27). “For this reason, I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day,” (2 Tim. 1:12). Council of Trent: Canons on Justification | carm.org That's about faith "alone" which was the word the heretic Luther added to Scripture. Jesus is clear we arent daved by faith alone but you don't like it when Jesus says things that oppose your interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 3 minutes ago, Yakuda said: That's about faith "alone" which was the word the heretic Luther added to Scripture. Jesus is clear we arent daved by faith alone but you don't like it when Jesus says things that oppose your interpretation. Did you read all the scripture verses on my post answering the council of Trent? All the verses say salvation is by faith alone. Are you willing to consider those verses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 18 Report Share Posted January 18 1 hour ago, blackbird said: heretic Luther added to Scripture. THE BIG LIE. Luther added nothing to Scripture. Where did you get that one? There are over 5,000 manuscripts or part of manuscripts going back centuries before Luther. These manuscripts were used for the Received Text which the King James Bible is based on in 1611. Do you seriously believe anyone thinks Luther added all the verses on salvation by faith to Luther's bible or any other Bible? This is the first I've ever heard that claim. Who told you that? I think if you cross check in between the KJV and Catholic Bibles you will even find most of the verses are in the Catholic Bibles. I will check right now. I happen to have a Catholic Bible on a bookshelf. I will compare the verses I quoted above earlier this morning which refute the Council of Trent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.