"Why do Catholics and Protestants have different books in their Bibles?"
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
No, and no.
I'm trying to be charitable here, but your ignorance and anger is making you dumb.
You follow Talmud jews who didn't like those books, whereas Jesus himself used the Septuagint, which included them. Simple really.
And Jesus put Peter in charge, but nobody "worshiped" him, do you agree or disagree with that?
Peter was not in charge. That's a misreading of the passage. Jesus is the rock. There was no "vicar of Christ" among the apostles.
The Vatican is an anti-Christ institution with the blood of countless Christians on its hands. If you support them and ignore people telling you the truth, you're in grave danger spiritually.
Reformers weren't following Talmudic Jews, least of all Martin Luther who wrote "On the Jews and their lies" calling out the Jews in detail. You don't know what you're talking about and even if I am ignorant of some things (who isn't) that doesn't make my overall thesis wrong.
Peter wasn't the leader of the apostles? LMAO.
Even your heretic protestant buddies admit that. https://www.gotquestions.org/life-Peter.html
Luther wrote his books against the jews at the end of his life, jews helped the "reformation" when it started, and he thought he could convert them. Embittered by them, he saw through their lies but to late, to late.
Let's look at the gotquestions.org you cited. First I have no idea who created that website and if they are truly opposed to Catholicism and all its evils.
Secondly I read every single quotation that supposedly showed Peter was their "spokesman" and they proved no such thing.
You can hover over each quote yourself. They don't prove anything except that Peter spoke to Jesus and sometimes used the term "we".
If you wanted to show leadership after Jesus had that talk with Peter, it would be in the books subsequent to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. Notice no such quote was cited.
So again, you are not acting rationally. This is just a rationalization to support a saint murdering anti-Christ religion.
Thanks for agreeing that Peter was the leader of the apostles, which is all I wanted there to get you to admit, which you did, citing even your heretic source. I'm not arguing for apostolic succession.
I leave you that last word.