I am amazed when RCs put their faith & trust in a system this system cannot save anyone the RCC sacraments are as worthless in salvation as the priest that dispenses them the bible clearly explains how a sinner gets Saved its by grace through faith in the merits of Christ's finished work but RCC being the false religion it is REJECTS Gods revealed truth concerning salvation you need a new nature before you can become part of Christs true church & sacraments cannot give it to you neither can RCC
@BB1 Lev 7:27 Absolutely brother, we need to be cut off from "Adam's family" and be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and brought into the Father's family.
Where's the wine? MK 14:22 and Cor 11:27-29 This doesn't sound "symbolic to me"
The flesh is of no avail - really? You nullify JN 6:51
It is precisely because Jesus' flesh is united with his spirit (something for you to contemplate as we celebrate the incarnation of Christ this Christmas) that his flesh and blood does save us. Rev 5:6
this baptist is the biggest desperate idiot I have seen. HE does not even propose an argument that he defends, he only quotes random books which are probably fabricated. I just want to punch him in the face because of how childish his objections are, he is not even replying to Karl's arguments all this baptist is dancing around the blatant facts which contradict his faith and arguments, something that James white does.
@Zebedex I call that sour grapes ~~ you sound like a good Christian wanting to punch someone in the face ~ You shall know them by their fruits are your are sour grapes I guess
"be obedient to them that RULE for they watch your souls and must give an account" is from Heb13:17
Paul was a Bishop in the Church. All of the apostles, Paul, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Linus (2Tim4:21), Clement (Phil4:3) etc etc were all BISHOPS of the Church. Where do ya find BISHOP? --> 1Tim3; Titus1:7; 1Pt2:25; 1Tim5:17 (Elders ARE Bishops); Heb13:17
Bishop comes from the Greek "episcopoi".. Priests were the "presbyteroi", & deacons were "diakonoi"
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a load of crap you poor simpletons bring in here.
Hey einstein, which GOSPELS did the apostles & Paul preach? Was it Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Give that one your best shot
I use Chick publications as toilet paper. That's all it's good for. Your invented assembly isnt THE CHURCH of the Bible.. Your give mere "private" exegesis. You hold NO authority from God whatsoever.
Who is Linus of 2Tim4:21? Who is Clement of Phil 4:3?
Thanks for your "help", but since you done hold "THE KEYS", I put my trust in the only "CHURCH" there is, not your invented assembly. U people dont even "follow" the Bible. If u did, you'd be IN "THE CHURCH" Jesus began.
Your "assembly" was invented sometime after 1521. Jesus began His Church in c. 33AD. HIs apostles were the 1st BISHOPS of the Church. 1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25, 5:1-5.
The pope is a BISHOP & the successor to Peter. You disagree? Doesnt matter. Ur not THE CHURCH
Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 24:1-8 "Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed." The establishment of Jesus's teachings aside Jewish doctrine came at the confirmation of the His Church to Peter and the prophecy of the fall of the Temple of Solomon to Rome.
@bulyabalive Jesus professes that upon Peter ("Cephas" in Aramaic meaning "Rock") He will build his Church. A rock is a strong object of incredible strength, which is the name given to him from Jesus in John 1:42. In Matthew 16, Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him divine responsibility to protect Christ's teachings. Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, signifying his power as a "foundation rock", a protector, a governor of Christ's principalities.
@KCspur92 Let us read Scripture. Meaning of Cephas: John 1:42 "..And when Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is ba interpretation, A stone. (KJV).
Mat 16:18 "And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;..." I agree that the rock spoken of in this verse is "a strong object of incredible strength (Petra) while Peter in Greek is Petros meaning a pebble or in Aramaic, a stone.
@bulyabalive Jesus did not say "you are Peter & upon you I will build my Church" or using Greek which you people love to appeal to "you are Petros & upon petros I will build my Church.." Rather,Jesus said "you are Petros & upon Petra (which is interpretated a massive strong rock). So the Rock in Mat. 16:18 is not Peter. It just does not add up.
Yes Jesus gave the keys to Peter for the purpose of opening the kingdom of heaven, do you know when Peter used these keys & the results?
@bulyabalive You are a little mixed in your Greek. but "Petros" and "Petra" are synonyms in the Greek language and are frequently interchangeable. They both mean "Rock" or "Stone".
@KCspur92 Petros & Petra don't mean the same thing. Jesus did not apply the two words to mean the same thing in this particular Scripture. The Lord knew exactly what He was saying & because He is God, He also knew people will misinterprete it according to their agendas & ungodly desires! When the Church was seduced into lust for power, because it "Church", they had to find Scriptures to fit their goals. And which was the best? Mat. 16:18-19 totally ignoring the preceding verses.
@bulyabalive Petros and Petra do mean the same thing. You can even look up the terms in Wikipedia. Petra is preferably a basic form of Greek terminology, whereas "Petros" is a more proper noun, like the terms "tu" and "usted" in Spanish, which are interchanged depending on who is addressed.
@KCspur92 In the sense these two words are applied, they don't mean the same thing for the reasons I gave you. You can not approach this subject with an open mind because you already believed what your Church taught you. However Jesus had one thing in mind while your Church interpretation of these verses had another!
@KCspur92 2ndly if Petros & Petra were interchangeable, the rest of the Bible Scriptures would be in hamony with them. However many passages in the Bible simply confirm Christ at the Rock normally refered to as the Chief cornerstone on which the foundation of the Church is built, e.g. 1 Cor. 3:11 "For other foundation can NO MAN lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ:" 3rdly if Peter was the foundation stone on which the Church is built as you claim, then why... Cont/..
@bulyabalive You are right with the interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:11, but I believe your mistaking the "Pope" with Jesus in this verse, who are not in anyway the same. Also, 1 Cor. 3:11 doesn't have a lot in relation to the terminology of "Petros" and "Petra" and the power bestowed to Peter. The power of Christ and the power of Peter and the Pope are completely different in the sense that Jesus is the Son of God and a deity while Peter and the Pope protect and profess Jesus' teachings.
@KCspur92 >>Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, signifying his power as a "foundation rock", a protector, a governor of Christ's principalities.<<
The above words were from you clearly indicating that Peter was the "foundation rock" in form of "power" on which the Church is founded! 1 Cor. 3:11 is in relation with the building of the Church which is the argument here. Paul is careful to mention in v10 that he too, like other apostles has laid a foundation...
@KCspur92 Paul continues to teach that "another" builds thereon. v12 reads "Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble... Paul says "any man", he is not saying deacons, or elders or overseers(bishop) but ANYONE. When the Bible says anyone it means anyone. Every Christian is part of the building & are responsible for upholding the truth.
Paul is ALREADY A BISHOP IN THE CHURCH, THOUGH.. There has always been only ONE CHURCH in the last 2K yrs.. Fundamentalist arent OF THE CHURCH; they are an "offshoot" of The One true Church.. You people dont know any better.. Unreal
@KCspur92 would Scripture tell us in Eph. 2:19-20 especially v20 that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles & prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief corner stone? (The prohets in the OT included & the 12 Apostles & Paul)These men were unique called by Christ Himself are the foundation of the Church, laid by Christ & because of this unique position they held (see Acts 1:21) they made disciples, not successors!
@KCspur92 However in Mat 18:18 Jesus is teaching all His disciples (His disciples were more that 12) & gave them the same power He gave to Peter, not the keys but the power to bind & loose. Why was that?
@bulyabalive The keys to the kingdom of Heaven are a very important aspect of Peter. Though the power to profess and protect Jesus's teachings were given to all the disciples, "whatever the bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven" refers to the "loosing and binding of bands of temporal punishment"(due to sin) in proper English. This is called "indulgence." All priests in the Catholic Church are granted this power, just as the disciples have.
@KCspur92 I know that the keys to the kingdom of heaven were an important aspect, but my question was, when & how did Peter use them? To show off his power? And when & how did Peter loose & bind the bands of temporal purnishement due to sin? Such claims are not biblical. Not even your cherished "priests". Neither Jesus nor the Apostles institute the heirarchy of priesthood.
@bulyabalive The disciples were given this power to pardon the sins of other sinners. Historically speaking, "the laying of hands" was common amongst the disciples before the turn of the 1st century, which is the same action performed by a priest during reconciliation.
@KCspur92 The laying of hands in the NT was for 5 purposes: For an office (1Tim 5:22); for healing (Mat. 21-46); for ordination (Acts 6:6); and for Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17, 18). I don't read anywhere were it is for reconcilaition!
@bulyabalive But this power of indulgence does not mean the disciple/priest forgives the sin. God still forgives the sinner, but God works through these blessed men to forgive the sinful acts. Sort of like a Space Satellite working through a Satellite receiver to connect to your television. Because the priest/disciple has been blessed and ordained by God to profess and protect the teachings of Jesus Christ, so may he be the one that God make work through to forgive the sinner.
@KCspur92 >>But this power of indulgence does not mean the disciple/priest forgives the sin. God still forgives the sinner, but God works through these blessed men to forgive the sinful acts.<<
I rise a red flag here! 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, He is faithful & just to forgive our sins, & to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.. 1 John 2:1 "..And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous." John was an apostle, whe doesn't simply write...
@KCspur92 if you sin come to us & confess your sins & then God will forgive you? That is the problem with your Church! Adding their thoughts to God's word. In fact confession to the priest started in year 1215 wereas the indulgences started selling in 1190! Of course indulgences as history tells, went way beyond bingo games as means of raising funds for "(un)holy mother church, while confessing to the priest was a perfect way of controling troublesome individuals by the Holy See!
@bulyabalive Are you referring to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? The only largely impacting Canons brought to the Council were mounting the defense for the imperialist Seljuq Turks during the Crusades and the term defining the blessing of the Holy Eucharist. There was nothing on record that explained "the invention of confession."
Secondly, indulgence is the exact same thing as confession. How could the same act begin in two different time periods?
@KCspur92 All I wanted to show is when the Confessionals, confessing your sins to the priests started, I am not particularly interested it is on record somewhere in in a council minutes, the fact is this practice is neither biblical or found in the teachings of the pre-apostlic era.
If someone is looking for truth, he/she goes to the author of Truth, not in traditions of men. God is word is the truth (John 17:17) not dates in which particular practices, moreover unscriptural started!
BALONEY!! JESUS said to His apostles in Jn20:23 "Whose SINS YOU FORGIVE WILL BE FORGIVEN, WHOSE SINS YOU 'RETAIN' WILL BE RETAINED" -Jesus (PS, HOW do you "retain" a sin? Have YOU ever done that? I know I havent. Only a Bishop or priest may do that
Also, Paul (a BISHOP) says in 2Cor5:18-20 "the words of RECONCILIATION have been given to 'US'.." Who is "US", here? Dont give me a loosy goosy answer what "YOU" think it is, I want a factual answer.. What's Tit1:7 mean? 2Cor10:8?
@Fallschirmjaeger29 John 20:23 is true, but don't you think Mat 6:12 & 18:35 are equally true? I tell you if your Bishops "retain" sins, then their sins will also be retained! But let us make it simple. Would you qoute from the Scriiptures you boast that your Church gave & tell us where the disciples of the Lord sat in confessionals & people came to them to repent & their sins where they were either forgiven or retained?
I recommend you read 2 Cor. 10:7-18 all in context.
See, though? Your exegesis holds no weight because you're already OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and no, THE CHURCH is not how fundies outside THE CHURCH define The Church to be! There is only ONE CHURCH. Yes, God certainly allows other asemblies to exist because even God knows that there are ignorant people out there. Jesus said that the Chruch would be ONE, not 60K assemblies interpreting "their" version of what "ONE" means. You fundies cherry pick the Bible and give "private" exegesis
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "There is only ONE CHURCH. Yes, God certainly allows other asemblies to exist because even God knows that there are ignorant people out there."
Why are the 7 Churches in the Book of Revelation are all different in character, encounter different problems & do not have a "pope" over them as their leader? Why is it John Jesus instructs & not Peter or Peter's successor? And why are they seven not one?
@bulyabalive Bu just like the decreasing disciples, there are many decreasing priests in the Church as well. Just because Jesus granted the numerous disciples their power does not mean their faithfulness and loyalty will always remain in tact. There will always be breakaway priests and followers who believe that what they hear and represent are not true. Power is meaningless if it is not used for the right and just reasons.
@KCspur92 Your concerns could be true when the Church decided to buid a kingdom which is of the world. But the kindgom Christ builds He trims the herd of thousands to twelve & even to them He asks, do you want to leave too? Many are called, few are chosen. The true disciples of Christ will always recognize like Peter did "..Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." However, I can see that we are talking about two different things here, unfortunately.
@bulyabalive Matthew 16 also reads "and whatsoever you bind upon earth, it shall be bound in heaven. And whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed in heaven." This states that though Peter is given a responsibility of great importance, he is still human and will be held accountable for all sinful acts against him, which is held the same for each Pope. Matthew 16 is the focal point of the passing of Christ's doctrine and the founding of his definitive teachings.
@bulyabalive Second, the reading signifies the split between Judaism and Christ's new teaching. If you read Matthew 24, Jesus is standing at the Temple of Jerusalem with his disciples. He professes "Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed." The temple is destroyed in 70 AD by the surging Roman Empire. Not only does this signify the end of the Temple, but also the end and split of Jewish discipline.
@KCspur92 But Matthew 24 is not talking about the split between Judaism & Christdom. Rather Jesus is talking about the signs of His 2nd coming. His disciples asked Him in v3 "..tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the world?" Jesus answers only the 2nd question. Why don't you simply read the Bible for yourself instead of trying to interprete it?
Jesus began His Church by appointing all of the apostles to the office of Bishop divinely ordained BY Him, giving the KEYS to Peter. All of them had certain authority, but only Peter was given total authority over all the others.. Mt16:17-19; Jn15:16; Mk3:14; 1Tim1:3; Tit1:7, 2:15; 1Pt2:25; 2Cor10:8
You people dont even know when the Bible was compiled and which heresies even took place in the first 200 yrs after Christ. There were a pile of 'em. WHO dispelled them w/ NO BIBLE?
@Fallschirmjaeger29 The answers I have given toKCspur92 are the same answers I give you in regard to Mat. 16:17-19 so I am not here to waste my time. In regard to John 15:16, this verse kicks out the belief in "apostolic succession" which is the pride of your Church. It is God who choses, He is the only One who knows those who worship Him in Spirit & in the truth. The appointment of the 12 was unique to them only & has nothing to do with succession of popes (Acts 1:21)..
If you do not believe in the ONE TRUE CHURCH, you're already wasting your time. Jesus has not given any authority to your "assembly". Not you, not your preacher, and not your preacher's "version of exegesis is even condsidered "valid" unless given approval by THE CHURCH. It's not the Catholic Church that is "prideful", for there is but ONE CHURCH and that is the ONLY Church there is. NO PART of protestantism is considered "THE CHURCH". You people broke away several centuries ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "If you do not believe in the ONE TRUE CHURCH, you're already wasting your time. Jesus has not given any authority to your "assembly". Not you, not your preacher, and not your preacher's "version of exegesis is even condsidered "valid" unless given approval by THE CHURCH."
What was the first message Peter preached in Acts 2 which resulted into 3000 Jews to be converted? Give the key verse.
The answers you give hold no validity unless given approval by "THE CHURCH", not private interpretation of the Bible as "you" might think it is.. Peter even wrote in his epistle 2Pt1:20, 3:16 "there is NO part of scripture that's for PRIVATE interpretation..and the UNlearned distort the scriptures to their own destruction"
"the office of BISHOP" 1Tim3
"younger, SUBMIT yourselves to the ELDER.. I who am also an elder" 1Pt5:1-5. An elder WAS a Bishop. Also, Tit1:7, 1Tim5:17
the "pride of our Church" you wrote? Again, your "assembly" isnt even THE CHURCH of the Bible.. You people are unreal. You dont follow the Bible, nor do you know Christian history. You're certainly well intentioned, and yes, God has a place for assemblies outside His Church, but these assemblies are a dime a dozen with errant exegesis. No 2 of you assemblies out there even "agree" on exegesis, AND you cherry pick the Bible. You pick what verses are "important" & ignore a lot of it
Really? Tell that to Jesus that the appointment of the 12 has "nothing to do with succession of the popes".. Ask Jesus in prayer exactly WHAT His true Church is! This is the ONLY Church that has been in existence since the apostles. You poor fudies think that the apostles & Paul were toting a Bible back then. It wasnt even out! The epistles in fact all came out before the written gospels. HOW can they preach the gospel if it's not written? PAUL says he has no written gospel. Ga1:11-12
@Fallschirmjaeger29 On 1 Tim 1:3, please list the false doctrines I have taught here & confirm them biblically with the right ones. Who are you refering to in Titus 1:7? Do you have to declare "we are the authority" to teach with authority? To whom did God give all authority & power?
All of the apostles & Paul were Bishops of the Church (1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25; 1Tim5:17; Heb13:17; 1Pt5:1-5). All "authority" has been deigned to the Church from God (Mt16:17-19; 2Cor10:8). Not everything will be compiled in scripture to placate you, in fact, most of Christ's LIFE isnt even in the Bible. All of the apostles were martyred except John. FIND this in the Bible for me what happended to them & where their martyrdoms were. Where is Jesus' life from ages 14-27?
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "All of the apostles & Paul were Bishops of the Church (1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25; 1Tim5:17; Heb13:17; 1Pt5:1-5)."
Which of the above verses say the apostles & Paul were bishops? I am picking 1 passage as exegesis (1 Tim 3:1-7). Does Biblical bishop fit a Catholic bishop? Let's find out:
"..If anyone set his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, cont/..
@Fallschirmjaeger29 ..self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gent, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, He must manage his own family well & see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's Church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited & fall under the same judgment as the devil..etc.
Yes, that correct about 1Tim3. Your point? Also, u have to remember that all authority has been given to THE CHURCH. You forget that Jesus told Peter "What you BIND on earth is BOUND in heaven", therefore, when marriage for the Bishops & priests was changed in the 11th century that the ordained with Holy Orders to hold the office of Bishop or priest, that they must be now single based on Matt 19:12 and 1Cor7:32. But this was after prayer to the HS, and also AUTHORITY from GOD
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Oh, so Paul bound Bishops from marrying & getting families as the Church went along and the word of God had to be changed because of this power & authority? Honestly whom are believing your are fooling apart from yourselves? In any case the Bible specifically warns that forbidding marriage is a teaching of demons coming right from hell! I am not in least interested in your tales about (un)holy orders who twist God's word.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 I wonder, do you read the bible or you just pick verses from Apologies notes?
"All "authority" has been deigned to the Church from God (Mt16:17-19; 2Cor10:8)."
What exactly do you understand by "authority"? What do you understand in this Scripture: "[Jesus] All authority in heaven & on earth has been given to Me, therefore go & make disciples of all nations".(Mat. 28:18). Is this the same authority in 2 Cor. 10:8?
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Not everything will be compiled in scripture to placate you, in fact, most of Christ's LIFE isnt even in the Bible. "
Oh, I guess you use John 20:30 as a basis for this argument. This is not the first time I hear this excuses for Romanists to use their claimed authorities & traditions, a magician's hat where they pull any new theological rabbit & call it God's truth without accountability what so ever. After all John 20:30 said it!
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "FIND JESUS' ENTIRE LIFE IN THE BIBLE FOR ME, EINSTEIN!! YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETICALLY STUPID (AS EVEN PAUL CALLED THE GALATIANS "STUPID")"
No honey, you bring the argument, go ahead & complete it. Since you are wiser than God who gave Scriptures as they are, just give the life of Jesus which is NOT in Scriptures since you seen to believe your tradtion has the records! It is your argument not mine.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "All of the apostles were martyred except John. FIND this in the Bible for me what happended to them & where their martyrdoms were. Where is Jesus' life from ages 14-27?"
Very clever, aren't you? But without God's wisdom or knowledge of why such were not recorded in the bible. Why do you think Jesus took on humanity? What was the reason(s)?
Titus 1:7? Paul writes that a BISHOP is a STEWARD OF GOD, or, God's representative on earth. They hold His authority to carry out what He has left behind. This has always been from the very start. Look, there was NO BIBLE when the apostles & Paul, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus etc were around. They were all BISHOPS of the Church. The Bible in fact wasnt "compiled" until 397 AD! What was going on for the 1st 400 yrs with NO BIBLE? The Bible was ratified in 419 by Bishop pope Boniface I
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Titus 1:7? Paul writes that a BISHOP is a STEWARD OF GOD, or, God's representative on earth. "
What position was that of Titus? Was he an elder, overseer(bishop), a pastor, a priest or a pope? Read Titus 1:5-9.
You may be representing a different "bishop" other than what the Bible represents. Incidentally, Catholic bishops & priests are not in the Bible. Their (Catholic Bishops) main role is wage "authority" over others.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Look, there was NO BIBLE when the apostles & Paul, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus etc were around. "
Scriptures were there. Otherwise the Apostels would not have preached the gospel of Jesus Christ ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES. (1 Cor. 15:3-4) Acts 2:14----. The Lord Himself refered to written Scripture endlessly! 42 times Jesus said "It is written...in reference to written Scriptures!
No they werent there, einstein!! LOL. The Hebrew Canon had been compiled from the OLD Test and the 7 add'l books of the Septuagint were all there. The NT hadnt been written yet! Again, this is WHY you fundiesw get it wrong all the time b/c you all dont know any better. The epistles all came out before the written gospels did. How could they preach the gospel then, Newton? Come on man! You can do better than this
@Fallschirmjaeger29 You know I am always amazed how far you Romanists are set to argue, just for sake of it. I even gave you Scriptural evidence where the Apostles presented the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures but you cannot accept them simply because of your mind-set based on arrogancy "what-good-could-come-out-of-"fundies" camp!" Just study Peter's first message, how many verse does he qoute from Scriptures in the OT about the Lord?
"THE GOSPEL I PREACH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY ANY MAN, RATHER, A REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST" -Gal1:11-12
This is SACRED TRADITION.. The "SPOKEN WORD"
Also, einstein, the NT could NOT have been written without Sacred Tradition. You poor simpletons in assemblies OUTSIDE the Church of the Bible dont know this because you lack sound exegesis of the scriptures, Christian history, & knowledge in general. You all mean well, but you simply dont know any better
@Fallschirmjaeger29 >>"THE GOSPEL I PREACH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY ANY MAN, RATHER, A REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST" -Gal1:11-12<<
I guess by this you want to assert that Paul's revelation is not recorded in the NT but rather it comes from "tradition". Let us pretend that your assertion is true, where do I read this revelation in the achieves of tradition? Did you ever stop to consider that Roman Catholic Church is the major enemy of God is Word as recored in Scriptures?
@bulyabalive In fact I am amazed at the length a 'group of men' could go to brainwash & mind control their followers into damping God's Word in favour of men's. Then assign themselves authority even over God's Word by pretending to have infallible power supposedly given by "Jesus" to define the extent of Scripture (the canon). RCC believes they ONLY interpret the meaning of the text of Scripture because, they believe "Jesus gave them authority", and
@Fallschirmjaeger29 then they go ahead & define the extent of tradition & its meaning.. They then claim Scripture is the written tradition which is God is portion of Scripture & theirs is the "ORAL tradition" portion of Scripture supposedly passed on orally by Apostles - therefore nobody can read this "sacred tradition"!
In the end, God is written word in Scriptures does not really matter, what matters in SOLA ECCLESIA. Church is the authority, who cares what God has to say?
Tradition comes fro, the Latin, "Trado, tradere" to BEQUEATH OR PASS ON".. In the scriptural sense, the Bible couldnt have been written WITHOUT Sacred Tradition. God's word is SPOKEN FIRST to His hagiographers, then in turn THEY wrote it down, BUT, not ALL of God's word got recorded on parchment. In fact, when the apostles & Paul etc all went out & preached the gospel, they didnt HAVE any of the written gospels! THEY WERENT OUT YET! The epistles came out FIRST. 2Cor3:3; Gal1:11-12
NO, that's NOT what they claim. That's what "YOU" claim that they claim.. That holds no water..
"The TRADITION I RECEIVED FROM THE LORD" -1Cor11:23
"THAT WHICH I RECEIVED I ALSO PASSED ON TO YOU" 1Cor15:3
"Be OBEDIENT TO ALL THE DOCTRINES & TRADITIONS WE TELL YOU WHETHER ORALLY OR BY LETTER" 2Thes2:15 --> The written gospels werent OUT YET, that's WHY he states "orally or by letter", not "WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE GOSPEL" BECAUSE THEY HADNT BEEN WRITTEN YET!! MAN, YOU PEOPLE!!
@Fallschirmjaeger29 On yes the famouse favorate verse totally misintepreted! So you do assume that what Paul received from the Lord is not recorded in the NT? You affirm that Paul was nurtured by other Apostles not even Barnabars but recieved from the Lord Orally which was supposed passed on to your Bishops? Can you even see that by tradition RCC means its Bishops, that they are the tradition? Therefore whatever they say like false dogmas supposed to have passed orally?
@Fallschirmjaeger29 THE GOSPEL I PREACH HASNT BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY ANY MAN, RATHER A REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST --GAL1:11-12
THE WORD OF GOD NOT WRITTEN WITH INK BUT ON THE STONES TABLETS OF THE HEART --> 2COR3:3
The "NEXT" is that you have no I idea of who the Holy Spirit is, because you do not think things of God but of men. The Holy Spirit is God, my dear, He cannot be commanded around by sons of men. 1 Cor. 3:1-3 (context) The work of HS in the lives of Corinthians!
This is what I mean by you people dont know any better. People in your fundy seminaries dont know any better. EVEN THEY MISQUOTE scripture, yet, they claim to preach the word of God.
GOD's word is NOT ONLY that which is "written". The apostles, Paul, Mark & Luke had NO written NT-- > THEY WROTE THE NT FROM SACRED TRADITION FROM GOD!! GET IT YET, EINSTEIN? SACRED TRADITION IS THE "SPOKEN WORD OF GOD"
LOOK UP 2THES2:15 --> IT'S ALL THERE! ALSO 1COR11:2, 23, 15:3
your definition is nothing more than "private interpretation".. You hold no authority from God, therefore, you hold no argument. It's merely opinion. Look, you mean well, but in no way do you hold any authority from God
When Christ was around, the chief priests always asked, "FROM WHERE does Jesus get his AUTHORITY?" Authority was a big deal back then. God made His covenant w/ the jews so they were authoritative in the OT. JESUS came along & passed His authority to His BISHOPS
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "your definition is nothing more than "private interpretation".. You hold no authority from God, therefore, you hold no argument. It's merely opinion. Look, you mean well, but in no way do you hold any authority from God"
And how do you know & believe that your interpretation is NOT private? As far as I am concerned Jesus is the only one who holds AUTHORITY. Your Church dumped Him long ago & assigned themselves His authority. He must be amazed up there!
God gave His full authority to Peter by the Keys. (Mt16:17-19) You fundies say no. It doesnt matter if you do or not! What? Are ya gonna tell God what He can & cant DO?! This has always been from the onset. In fact, when Matthew wrote his gospel, he wrote it in Greek. When he wrote, "Peter, I give YOU the Keys to the Kingdom, what YOU bind on earth is bound in heaven" etc, he wrote this in the 2nd person SINGULAR of "you" in Greek, not PLURAL, and it's spelled differently
Yes, and I sure the keys where not to be locked up somewhere in the safe!
My question was simple, when did Peter use the keys to open the kingdom of heaven? Please answer this. I am not in the least interested in Greek plural/singular stuff here.
You're not interested in the Greek because you dont know any better. This is what makes scripture important and the vernacular, syntax, meaning, and exegesis. This is WHY you fundies hold NO authority because it's easy to pick up scriptures and misinterpret them if you have no foundation. Matthew used the SINGULAR of "you" in his verse when Jesus addressed Peter with the Keys. Not PLURAL. Had Jesus meant "all of them" to have the Keys, Matthew no doubt woulve used the plural
@Fallschirmjaeger29 I don't speak Greek. And if you are here to defend your arguments in Greek, then first denounce the translators of the Bible in English false. O.K? Then give me the right translations as you correct the false in the English Bibles. In any case, I don't see your problem in Matthew Peter & the keys business! I said the power to bind & loosing was given to all the disciples of Jesus in Mat. 18:18. I haven't argued about the keys, have I? Read properly.
The Keys entrusted to him were always understood by the apostles. In fact, in Acts when there was some bickering going on among the Gentiles, Peter stood up and said, "brethren, we all know who has been CHOSEN BY GOD to speak among us", referring to HIMSELF as the chief apostle.
When Peter was martyred in 67 AD under Nero, LINUS of 2Tim4:21 succeeded him. Then came Anacletus. Then Clement (Phil4:3) as #4.. Benedikt XVI is the 265th successor to Peter. Google list of popes.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "In fact, in Acts when there was some bickering going on among the Gentiles, Peter stood up and said, "brethren, we all know who has been CHOSEN BY GOD to speak among us", referring to HIMSELF as the chief apostle."
The knowledge of knowing when Peter was martyred or his supposed successor does not interest me in the least, do you know why?
However I advise you to read Acts 15 again. It is not good to misrepresent the word of God.
I "misinterpret" the word of God? Buly, you're not even OF "THE CHURCH" of the Bible!! All authority has been deigned from GOD to His CHURCH! and no, the Church is not how fundies (whose assemblies were invented in the last few hundred yrs) interpret "THE CHURCH" to be! Fundies divorced themselves from the Body of Christ, "The Church". You people broke away and started you own "assemblies" after 1521 AD.. These are NOT "THE CHURCH", rather inventions with NO authority from GOD
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "I "misinterpret" the word of God? Buly, you're not even OF "THE CHURCH" of the Bible!!"
You are right, I am not. And you know what, with all the nonsense your write here, I am very happy I will never be. Jesus did not die for actors in Roman Catholic Church to hijack His Church. In case if you do not know, the saints of God are scattered all over the globe, & God's Church is NOT an institution of idol woshippers.
But see? U skip over parts of the BIble! I mean, Ive answered ur questions!!
"A BISHOP IS GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE" Tit1:7
"OFFICE OF BISHOP" 1Tim3
"I SHOULD BOAST MORE OF OUR ;AUTHORITY' GIVEN TO 'US' BY JESUS CHRIST" -Paul, a BISHOP. 2Cor10:8 (The ;US" here is Paul & the other apostles who are BISHOPS)
"Peter I give YOU THE KEYS to the KINGDOM. What YOU BIND ON EARTH IS BOUND IN HEAVEN" -Mt16:17-19
Because the verse does not say that. I have three Bibles in front of me. They all do not say or even assert what you claim. It is your private interpretation meant to push God from His position as God & set men on the throne.
You are even ignorant of the work of the Apostles. Apostles, like Evangelists do not do the work of overseers. Oversees should stay a Church as administoring to people. Apotles do not.
It DOES say, a BISHOP is God's representative.. Some have A STEWARD OF GOD
Theyre one and the same thing. The pope is a BISHOP & successor to the apostle Peter with Christ's authoity to TEND His Flock per Jesus's words to Peter in Jn21. It always has been. You say no. It doesnt matter. Say no then. You hold absolutlely NO authority from God in any way, shape, matter or form. Neither do I, and neither does your preacher. ONLY Peter's successor and Bishops of the Magisterium
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "what is you point, buly? Your assembly isnt even THE CHURCH. Ive slammed dunked you all day and you have no defense"
My point is according to the God's word neither you nor your almighty church is in position to judge other Churches who loves the Lord & believes in Him as their only Saviour. Like athiests, you're defending a position which can only be determined by God. So you can slam & dunk all you like. It is only God who know those who are His.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 And where does 2 Time 4:21 crowns Linus as Peter's successor? He was just a christian in the church in Rome, just like others Paul mentions. In fact Paul is careful to show that he does not "load over anyone" in Phil. 4:3 "...who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement & the rest of my fellow workers.." They did NOT work 'under' him but 'side by side' with him. Peter had the same mentality, very different form popery.
Where is MOST OF JESUS' LIFE? Where are the martyrdoms of the apostles? If they're not written about in the Bible but indeed existed, what's your point?
Paul was a Bishop. He writes in his letters "I will send so and so".. What authority does he have to SEND someone? This is clerical obedience to the office of Bishop. Also, 2Thes2:15, 1Pt5:1-5
"Be OBEDIENT to them that 'RULE' for they watch your souls and must give an account" -Heb13:17
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Where is MOST OF JESUS' LIFE? Where are the martyrdoms of the apostles? If they're not written about in the Bible but indeed existed, what's your point?"
Don't you think, in the light of the argument, I should be the one asking that question? My understanding is, whatever is not recorded in the Scriptures is not inspired by God to be written for simple reason, it is NOT NEEDED FOR THE SALVATION OF MAN'S SOUL. The Bible is never meant to be exhaustive.
Wrong. Paul was an Apostel. Almost every epistle Paul wrote, he wrote he was a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle. Nowhere does he write that he is a bishop of any Church. Writing to the the Philippians he writes to christians, bishops & deacons but does not call himself a bishop. The work of an Apostle is not the same as that of an overseer. Better study your Bible to know the difference
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "He writes in his letters "I will send so and so".. What authority does he have to SEND someone? This is clerical obedience to the office of Bishop. Also, 2Thes2:15, 1Pt5:1-5"
This is the closed-mind thinking of Roman Catholicism! Paul was not working alone. Jesus never intended that His people work alone. He Himself did not work alone. Writing to the Colossians, Paul indicates he is with Timonthy his brother!
@Fallschirmjaeger29 The way Apostles related to each other & fellow christians is not the way Catholicism relates to its followers. In fact for RCC the Church does not contain in the laity. When your Church says Church it means that small curia of archbishops, bishops & priests (believed to be 'set apart'). Yet if one studies the letters of Paul he rarely address his epistles to individuals or leaders! He mostly addresses the saints (believers) of God of the local Church.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Be OBEDIENT to them that 'RULE' for they watch your souls and must give an account" -Heb13:17
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labor in the word (preaching) and doctrine (teaching)" 1 Tim 5:17
You short quotation of this verse was very deliberate, I think!
Now I ask, do you mean Evangelicals do not obey their leaders?
2ndly, Are Christians obliged to obey their leaders blindly, if yes, why?
You still dont see that Paul already WAS a Bishop of the Church! So were the apsotles. There always WAS and always WILL BE only ONE CHURCH. So then, when you quote what Paul has to say in his letters, you're quoting a BISHOP of the ONE CHURCH. This Church still exists today!
If evangelicals obey their leaders, well, they obey only so far as being obedient to "private" interpretation of the bible since the inception of their respective "invented" assembly after 1500s AD. Period
@Fallschirmjaeger29 2 Thes. 2:15 is self-explanatory. Paul had preached the Gospel to the Thessalonians. They believed the truth for their salvation. Now that he was absent, he exhorted them to hold on to the "traditions" he had passed on to them. These traditions, or teachings, are simply the truths of the Gospel which the apostle Paul had "handed on" to them by 2 means: by preaching ("by word") & by writing ("our epistle"). Cont/..
That's true! He passed on the TRADITIONS, which are the "spoken" word of God given to them BY GOD in their authority!
What you also wrote, though, is only "YOUR" private interpretation of what that means! See? it's only "your" private exegesis! You hold no authority from God. God knows you mean well, but your assembly isnt THE CHURCH to hold authority from "HIM". Only HIs "CHURCH" holds authority. Your assembly, though, isnt THE CHURCH of the Bible. You're an "invented assembly"
@Fallschirmjaeger29 There is nothing here about transmission of an undefined body of teachings through a succession of bishops. The argument for the Catholic concept of Tradition based on 2Thes is a logical fallacy of ambiguity. The same term, "traditions", is used with 2 different meanings. In Paul's epistle it means divine doctrines handed on personally to the church; but inCatholic theology it means transmission of God's Word from one generation to another by the church.
Also, it doesnt have to tell that he was "crowned". It doesnt give the year that Peter & Paul died in the BIble, but they died before the NT gospels were completed. In fact, Paul was beheaded under Nero. Find that in the Bible. Peter was crucified upside down. Find that in the BIble. They died in 64 & 67 AD respectively in Rome. Find that in the BIble
Where is Mark's martydom in the BIble? Where was he a Bishop? WHERE was he martyred? How was he martyred? Find it "fundy"
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Yes. the Bible does not tell Linus was crowned, 1st because he was neither crowned as Peter's successor IN ROME nor Peter's successor at all! In fact Peter's ever being in Rome as a leader of a Church there is disputed by Scriptures themselves. If he ever went there, most likely he was a prisoner. 2ndly Peter & Paul's death were not recorded in Bible because they are not Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit - they are not needed spiritually!
Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. It doesnt HAVE to be in the BIble to be valid. It doesnt even tell the exact year that Jesus died. What we know is Jesus died AROUND 33-34 AD, but that year is not given exactly, but it certainly IS valid. In fact, when Peter went to Rome in 42 AD, Mark accompanied him from Antioch. Find that in the BIble. Mark wrote his gospel based on Peter's sermons IN ROME. Find it. How did Luke wrote his gospel? Who wrote Acts? If he wasnt w/ the apostles&Paul, well then?
Peter WAS a prisoner in Rome in the Mamertine prison, but it was after he had already been there from 42-67 AD. He was crucified upside down by the Romans under Nero in 67AD. Paul was beheaded in 64 AD. Please find these in the Bible. While ur at it, FIND Jesus' entire LIFE in the Bible
PS, find what happened to Mark after his time in Rome & WHERE he too was martyred
Peter was the presiding BISHOP of the Church. He was the ONLY head Bishop, even over the others, back then. Linus (2Tim4:21) succeeded him after Peter was martyred. Then came Anacletus. Then Clement (Phil 4:3)
Also, at the Last supper when he BROKE BREAD & said to His apostles "TAKE THIS ALL OF YOU AND 'EAT IT', THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.." "TAKE THIS ALL OF YOU AND DRINK, FOR THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD" --> Show me where He says merely "a symbol"; "THIS IS" !!
@Fallschirmjaeger29 But answer my question! Did Peter pastor the Church in Rome? As far as I am concerned Peter just calls himself an elder among other elders. 1 Pet 5:1 "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder...2 be shepherds of God's flock that is under your cares serving as overseers..4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears (Jesus Christ)...
a) Peter is not writing to other apostles
b) Peter does not call himself the Chief Shepherd but titles it to the Lord.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 1 Cor.11:24-25 and when he had given thanks, he broke it & said 'This is my body which is for you; DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME In the same way after supper he took the cup, saying 'This cup is the new convenant in my blood, do this whenever you drink it, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."
--> Show me where He says merely "a symbol"; "THIS IS"< I have done just that. You don't remember a person who is present in the physical. Is that too hard to understand?
@Fallschirmjaeger29 3dly, it seems the recordings of "martydoms", who beheaded who, how Peter was crucified, Mark's martydom, etc, is important to Roman Catholicism but not to God. RCC emphasises these things to boost their traditions as valid, knowledgeable & autholitative. But God calls such "the leaven of Pharisees" because the spirit behind them is the same spirit the Pharisees of Jesus' day had (Mat 16:6,11,12). They appear very big & impressive with little or no value.
If that's your argument, FIND most of Jesus' LIFE in the BIble, then
Look, your "assembly" isnt even "THE CHURCH" of the Bible. Your "assembly" didnt even compile & arrange the Bible as we know it. Why are the epistles behind the written gospels if all the epistles were written FIRST? Who arranged this? *Hint* It most certainly wasnt your assembly doing this. It was THE CHURCH that did: 380-397AD. The Bible came out in 397AD. You poor buffoons think the Bible fell outta the sky
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Look, your "assembly" isnt even "THE CHURCH" of the Bible."
If my assembly is not a Church is none of your business. I am still waiting for my answer, what was the message your 1st "Pope" Peter preached which resulted into 3000 Jews to be converted in Acts 2? Give the key verse, at least you are the one who claim to have given us the Bible, isn't strange that such a simple bible study is to difficult for you?
the term "pope" didnt come out until the 300s AD. It doesnt matter. ALL authority has been given BY JESUS TO HIS "CHURCH", His Body on earth. He already had ordained His apostles to the office of Bishop before He ascended to heaven. He told His apostles to carry out all that Hhe left behind. The NT wasnt even WRITTEN when He ascended but they immediately went out & ordained others & preached the gospel. What gospel, einstein? Was it Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Tell me WHICH?
@Fallschirmjaeger29 It does matter, because Jesus did not institute papacy. Jesus did not give ALL His authority to the Church but rather by His Authority as our Saviour, (please read Eph. 4:8-10 carefully because what He did no man, including Peter could do) He gave gifts to men including His Apostles. E.g. Paul was an apostle as well as a teacher, while Peter was more of an evangelist. But John was a prophet, etc These gifts are given to individuals as individuals...
The papacy comes from Jesus' authority to PETER. "Peter, I give YOU the Keys to the KINGDOM. What "you" bind on earth is bound in heaven. What YOU loose on earth is loosed in heaven".. You nor I, nor your "preacher" has ever "bound & loosed" something with Christ's "authority".. You'll give me some loosy goosy answer to this I know, but it carries no wieght. It's only "your" private interpretation what "you" think that means
"Peter, 'TEND' MY FLOCK, FEED MY LAMBS" -Jn21:15-18
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "The papacy comes from Jesus' authority to PETER. "Peter, I give YOU the Keys to the KINGDOM."
Oh, then how come there was no pope to be shown until Leo I who in 451 took the title & then confered it on all previous bishops of Rome psthumously? In 606 Boniface III became the Universal Bishop. Do I need to mention that there were times when no pope existed. The claim to succession is as empty as those who promote it. No truth in it whatsoever.
Oh, and here is my loosy goosy answer. The condition to tend Jesus flock was about the amount of love Peter had for His Saviour. The Catholic lot are beaten emotionally into submission to a system which does not give a damn about the Saviour but just a lust for power over them! They have no regard for the Sheep either, so in their invented authority are busy inventing purgatories to control them.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 They don't go to seminaries & Bible colleges to receive "gifts" of teaching, evangelist, pastors or apostleship. No in fact Seminaries simply spoils these God given-gifts by making people kings, primeministers, etc instead of servants meant to equip the saints of God (Eph 4:12)!
Mat 28:18b-19 "All power is given to Me in heaven & in earth. God you therefore & tell all nations, baptising them... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever...
"Be obedient to ALL the doctrines & traditions WE tell you" 2Thes2:15, 3:6; 1Cor11:2.(Where are all the docrines & traditions WRITTEN down that he speaks of here? FIND EM.. In fact, all the apostles except John were martyred. Find those in the bIble)
Incidentally Titus was NOT a bishop! However I would ask this of you. When Paul rebuked & opposed Peter as indicated in Gal. 2:11-14, was the "authority" of Peter which you so much depend on relinquised to Paul? I wonder why it is difficult for you to read the Scriptures to know how these men treated each other, never separating themselves from the commons, someting you seem unable to grasp.
Titus MOST certainly was a BISHOP. So was Timothy, Barnabus, Clement (Phil4:3), Titus (2Tim4:21).. All of the apostles & Paul were Bishops of the Church. You say no. It doesnt even matter because you dont know the history of Christianity AND you dont know the bIble.
In fact, in 2 of Peter's non-biblical epistles, he referred to the CHURCH as "Katholikos", Greek for "Universal, whole, complete" to describe "The Church". Why can the Church have this name? --> Authority given to it
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Timothy was left in Ephesus by Paul to pastor the Church there while Titus was left in pastor the Church in Crete. Titus & Timothy were two of the young men Paul had won to Christ and enlisted to help him in his ministry (see Phip 2:19-30)
@Fallschirmjaeger29 In fact, in 2 of Peter's non-biblical epistles, he referred to the CHURCH as "Katholikos", Greek for "Universal, whole, complete" to describe "The Church". Why can the Church have this name? --> Authority given to it
The word Catholic whether in Greek or French stands for universal - Church which is made up of all believers on Christ. Taking the word itself & own it does not mean the Church is following the ways of the Lord. Believers make up a Church.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "..I have commanded you; & lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world."
The Lord ascending to heaven did not mean He lost His attributes of God, i.e. Omnipresent, Omniscient & Omnipotent. He is still here. The Church is still guided by Him & Him alone. People, however great the gift they possess, should work through Him, NOT on His behalf. Any Church that claims to work on His behalf has lost its way. It has no Head therefore no eyes to see.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "you obviously dont know the BIble. Jesus told all of His apostles, the 1st BISHOPS, that they had His authority.."
I expect that from you honey, but I do know my bible. Jesus was not talking about your bishops & popes but those who are faithful to His Gospel & ready to up hold His truths before the people. It is your Church that flatly reject the Bible as a sole rule of faith. It is the only book that holds God's truth which sanctifies us (John 17:17).
NO, you DONT know your BIBLE. If you do, then tell me what "DOCTRINE OF BREAKING BREAD" MEANS IN ACTS 2:42.. WHAT'S THE correct EXEGESIS of this.. Now then, dont give me what you "think" it means.. Tell me EXACTLY what that means
The CHURCH is the SOLE RULE of faith because THE CHURCH ALREADY "IS" CHRIST ON EARTH WITH US. It is His Body on earth which HE speaks THRU. It is the CHURCH which gives ALL, not some, but ALL infallible EXEGESIS of the Bible! Your assembly holds NO authority from God. His ordained Bishops are the ones who always have had His authority..
All of you invented assemblies that began in the 16th century onwards have given nothing but "private" exegesis, meaning what it means to "YOU"
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "The CHURCH is the SOLE RULE of faith because THE CHURCH ALREADY "IS" CHRIST ON EARTH WITH US."
Do you remember what Jesus said to His disciples once, "whosoever hears my words & hid to them is like house built on the rock.. That statement you have made shows that your Church is built on sany ground.
He also tols His apostles, "HE WHO HEARS 'YOU' HEARS ME. HE WHO REJECTS 'YOU' REJECTS ME. IT WAS NOT YOU WHO CHOSE ME, RATHER I CHOSE YOU AND I ORDAINED YOU"
He ordained them as BISHOPS of His Church: His ministers to hold all authority given from Him. You disagree? It doesnt matter. You're NOT THE CHURCH. You think u are. Jesus will tell u that He gave us His "CHURCH" which is His Body to hold authority, not "assemblies"
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "He also tols His apostles, "HE WHO HEARS 'YOU' HEARS ME. HE WHO REJECTS 'YOU' REJECTS ME. IT WAS NOT YOU WHO CHOSE ME, RATHER I CHOSE YOU AND I ORDAINED YOU""
That statement has two sides. One is hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ from those who faithfully present it to those who have not heard it, or who have left the faith for some reasons. That is what I understand.
The other one which is yours is not about the Gospel but rather a lust for authority.
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "What did He ordain them to? --> The office of BISHOP. 1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25, 5:1-5"
I would rather say He ordained them in Mark 16:18 to preach the Gospel. However you are bent to reject what I say, the bishop talked about in 1 Tim 3 does not fit in anyway Catholic Bishops of priests unless you want to admit that indeed over the centuries, Cardinals, bishops & priests had concubines & illigimate children as history indicates.
I am amazed when RCs put their faith & trust in a system this system cannot save anyone the RCC sacraments are as worthless in salvation as the priest that dispenses them the bible clearly explains how a sinner gets Saved its by grace through faith in the merits of Christ's finished work but RCC being the false religion it is REJECTS Gods revealed truth concerning salvation you need a new nature before you can become part of Christs true church & sacraments cannot give it to you neither can RCC
glizag 4 days ago
Wow. That Baptist preacher is the ultimate snake oil salesman. Have to kind of admire his dexterity in confidently spouting off his blather.
bcg72 3 weeks ago
The baptist preacher fellow was a bit of a jerk wasn't he? Course he could afford to be in a Church filled with all his "buddies" I guess :/
Apologetics4Christ 1 month ago
@BB1 Lev 7:27 Absolutely brother, we need to be cut off from "Adam's family" and be saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and brought into the Father's family.
Where's the wine? MK 14:22 and Cor 11:27-29 This doesn't sound "symbolic to me"
The flesh is of no avail - really? You nullify JN 6:51
It is precisely because Jesus' flesh is united with his spirit (something for you to contemplate as we celebrate the incarnation of Christ this Christmas) that his flesh and blood does save us. Rev 5:6
eussar 1 month ago
this baptist is the biggest desperate idiot I have seen. HE does not even propose an argument that he defends, he only quotes random books which are probably fabricated. I just want to punch him in the face because of how childish his objections are, he is not even replying to Karl's arguments all this baptist is dancing around the blatant facts which contradict his faith and arguments, something that James white does.
Zebedex 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zebedex I call that sour grapes ~~ you sound like a good Christian wanting to punch someone in the face ~ You shall know them by their fruits are your are sour grapes I guess
glizag 1 month ago
per my last post:
"be obedient to them that RULE for they watch your souls and must give an account" is from Heb13:17
Paul was a Bishop in the Church. All of the apostles, Paul, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Linus (2Tim4:21), Clement (Phil4:3) etc etc were all BISHOPS of the Church. Where do ya find BISHOP? --> 1Tim3; Titus1:7; 1Pt2:25; 1Tim5:17 (Elders ARE Bishops); Heb13:17
Bishop comes from the Greek "episcopoi".. Priests were the "presbyteroi", & deacons were "diakonoi"
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 months ago
@RepentOFstatueKISSIN
"you are a royal priesthood offering up sacrifices pleasing to God" 1Pt2:5
'The office of Bishop" 1Tim3
"A BISHOP is a representative of God" Tit1:7
"know brethren that ELDERS [Bishops] that RULE well are worthy of double HONOR" 1Tim5:17
"be obedient to them that RULE for they watch your souls and must give an account"
"..I chose you AND I 'ORDAINED' YOU" -Jesus (John 15:16).. Ordained to WHAT? --> Office of BISHOP
"..i who am ALSO an ELDER [Bishop]" 1Pt5:1-5
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 months ago
@Lilprofessor1740
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a load of crap you poor simpletons bring in here.
Hey einstein, which GOSPELS did the apostles & Paul preach? Was it Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Give that one your best shot
I use Chick publications as toilet paper. That's all it's good for. Your invented assembly isnt THE CHURCH of the Bible.. Your give mere "private" exegesis. You hold NO authority from God whatsoever.
Who is Linus of 2Tim4:21? Who is Clement of Phil 4:3?
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 months ago
@HERETIChelper
Thanks for your "help", but since you done hold "THE KEYS", I put my trust in the only "CHURCH" there is, not your invented assembly. U people dont even "follow" the Bible. If u did, you'd be IN "THE CHURCH" Jesus began.
Your "assembly" was invented sometime after 1521. Jesus began His Church in c. 33AD. HIs apostles were the 1st BISHOPS of the Church. 1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25, 5:1-5.
The pope is a BISHOP & the successor to Peter. You disagree? Doesnt matter. Ur not THE CHURCH
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 months ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 How did Jesus begin His Church?
bulyabalive 1 month ago
@bulyabalive
Matthew 16:18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Matthew 24:1-8 "Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed." The establishment of Jesus's teachings aside Jewish doctrine came at the confirmation of the His Church to Peter and the prophecy of the fall of the Temple of Solomon to Rome.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 Misinterpretated, misrepresented.
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive How so?
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Quite sure there is only one Temple of Jerusalem, which was the Temple of Solomon.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 1stly, what significant thing happened to the temple in the OT which caused the Lord to disregard it and prophesied against it this way?
2nd the topic in Mat. 24 are not in anyway connected to the foundation of the NT Church! How do you connect the two?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Jesus professes that upon Peter ("Cephas" in Aramaic meaning "Rock") He will build his Church. A rock is a strong object of incredible strength, which is the name given to him from Jesus in John 1:42. In Matthew 16, Jesus builds his Church upon Peter, giving him divine responsibility to protect Christ's teachings. Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, signifying his power as a "foundation rock", a protector, a governor of Christ's principalities.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 Let us read Scripture. Meaning of Cephas: John 1:42 "..And when Jesus beheld him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is ba interpretation, A stone. (KJV).
Mat 16:18 "And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;..." I agree that the rock spoken of in this verse is "a strong object of incredible strength (Petra) while Peter in Greek is Petros meaning a pebble or in Aramaic, a stone.
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Jesus did not say "you are Peter & upon you I will build my Church" or using Greek which you people love to appeal to "you are Petros & upon petros I will build my Church.." Rather,Jesus said "you are Petros & upon Petra (which is interpretated a massive strong rock). So the Rock in Mat. 16:18 is not Peter. It just does not add up.
Yes Jesus gave the keys to Peter for the purpose of opening the kingdom of heaven, do you know when Peter used these keys & the results?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive You are a little mixed in your Greek. but "Petros" and "Petra" are synonyms in the Greek language and are frequently interchangeable. They both mean "Rock" or "Stone".
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 Petros & Petra don't mean the same thing. Jesus did not apply the two words to mean the same thing in this particular Scripture. The Lord knew exactly what He was saying & because He is God, He also knew people will misinterprete it according to their agendas & ungodly desires! When the Church was seduced into lust for power, because it "Church", they had to find Scriptures to fit their goals. And which was the best? Mat. 16:18-19 totally ignoring the preceding verses.
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Petros and Petra do mean the same thing. You can even look up the terms in Wikipedia. Petra is preferably a basic form of Greek terminology, whereas "Petros" is a more proper noun, like the terms "tu" and "usted" in Spanish, which are interchanged depending on who is addressed.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 In the sense these two words are applied, they don't mean the same thing for the reasons I gave you. You can not approach this subject with an open mind because you already believed what your Church taught you. However Jesus had one thing in mind while your Church interpretation of these verses had another!
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 2ndly if Petros & Petra were interchangeable, the rest of the Bible Scriptures would be in hamony with them. However many passages in the Bible simply confirm Christ at the Rock normally refered to as the Chief cornerstone on which the foundation of the Church is built, e.g. 1 Cor. 3:11 "For other foundation can NO MAN lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ:" 3rdly if Peter was the foundation stone on which the Church is built as you claim, then why... Cont/..
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive You are right with the interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:11, but I believe your mistaking the "Pope" with Jesus in this verse, who are not in anyway the same. Also, 1 Cor. 3:11 doesn't have a lot in relation to the terminology of "Petros" and "Petra" and the power bestowed to Peter. The power of Christ and the power of Peter and the Pope are completely different in the sense that Jesus is the Son of God and a deity while Peter and the Pope protect and profess Jesus' teachings.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KCspur92 >>Jesus then gives Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, signifying his power as a "foundation rock", a protector, a governor of Christ's principalities.<<
The above words were from you clearly indicating that Peter was the "foundation rock" in form of "power" on which the Church is founded! 1 Cor. 3:11 is in relation with the building of the Church which is the argument here. Paul is careful to mention in v10 that he too, like other apostles has laid a foundation...
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 Paul continues to teach that "another" builds thereon. v12 reads "Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble... Paul says "any man", he is not saying deacons, or elders or overseers(bishop) but ANYONE. When the Bible says anyone it means anyone. Every Christian is part of the building & are responsible for upholding the truth.
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
Paul is ALREADY A BISHOP IN THE CHURCH, THOUGH.. There has always been only ONE CHURCH in the last 2K yrs.. Fundamentalist arent OF THE CHURCH; they are an "offshoot" of The One true Church.. You people dont know any better.. Unreal
Fallschirmjaeger29 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 would Scripture tell us in Eph. 2:19-20 especially v20 that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles & prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief corner stone? (The prohets in the OT included & the 12 Apostles & Paul)These men were unique called by Christ Himself are the foundation of the Church, laid by Christ & because of this unique position they held (see Acts 1:21) they made disciples, not successors!
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive The "strong object of incredible strength" was just a detailed explanation. But generally, "Petros" and "Petra" are interchangeable.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 However in Mat 18:18 Jesus is teaching all His disciples (His disciples were more that 12) & gave them the same power He gave to Peter, not the keys but the power to bind & loose. Why was that?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive The keys to the kingdom of Heaven are a very important aspect of Peter. Though the power to profess and protect Jesus's teachings were given to all the disciples, "whatever the bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven" refers to the "loosing and binding of bands of temporal punishment"(due to sin) in proper English. This is called "indulgence." All priests in the Catholic Church are granted this power, just as the disciples have.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 I know that the keys to the kingdom of heaven were an important aspect, but my question was, when & how did Peter use them? To show off his power? And when & how did Peter loose & bind the bands of temporal purnishement due to sin? Such claims are not biblical. Not even your cherished "priests". Neither Jesus nor the Apostles institute the heirarchy of priesthood.
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive The disciples were given this power to pardon the sins of other sinners. Historically speaking, "the laying of hands" was common amongst the disciples before the turn of the 1st century, which is the same action performed by a priest during reconciliation.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 >>The disciples were given this power to pardon the sins of other sinners.<<
Oh, then who pardon their sins? If you have no "disciple" to pardon your sins, do you die in them?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 The laying of hands in the NT was for 5 purposes: For an office (1Tim 5:22); for healing (Mat. 21-46); for ordination (Acts 6:6); and for Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17, 18). I don't read anywhere were it is for reconcilaition!
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive But this power of indulgence does not mean the disciple/priest forgives the sin. God still forgives the sinner, but God works through these blessed men to forgive the sinful acts. Sort of like a Space Satellite working through a Satellite receiver to connect to your television. Because the priest/disciple has been blessed and ordained by God to profess and protect the teachings of Jesus Christ, so may he be the one that God make work through to forgive the sinner.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 >>But this power of indulgence does not mean the disciple/priest forgives the sin. God still forgives the sinner, but God works through these blessed men to forgive the sinful acts.<<
I rise a red flag here! 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, He is faithful & just to forgive our sins, & to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.. 1 John 2:1 "..And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous." John was an apostle, whe doesn't simply write...
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 if you sin come to us & confess your sins & then God will forgive you? That is the problem with your Church! Adding their thoughts to God's word. In fact confession to the priest started in year 1215 wereas the indulgences started selling in 1190! Of course indulgences as history tells, went way beyond bingo games as means of raising funds for "(un)holy mother church, while confessing to the priest was a perfect way of controling troublesome individuals by the Holy See!
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Are you referring to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215? The only largely impacting Canons brought to the Council were mounting the defense for the imperialist Seljuq Turks during the Crusades and the term defining the blessing of the Holy Eucharist. There was nothing on record that explained "the invention of confession."
Secondly, indulgence is the exact same thing as confession. How could the same act begin in two different time periods?
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 All I wanted to show is when the Confessionals, confessing your sins to the priests started, I am not particularly interested it is on record somewhere in in a council minutes, the fact is this practice is neither biblical or found in the teachings of the pre-apostlic era.
If someone is looking for truth, he/she goes to the author of Truth, not in traditions of men. God is word is the truth (John 17:17) not dates in which particular practices, moreover unscriptural started!
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive It started in the Bible. Read where the Bible talks about it.
22grena 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
BALONEY!! JESUS said to His apostles in Jn20:23 "Whose SINS YOU FORGIVE WILL BE FORGIVEN, WHOSE SINS YOU 'RETAIN' WILL BE RETAINED" -Jesus (PS, HOW do you "retain" a sin? Have YOU ever done that? I know I havent. Only a Bishop or priest may do that
Also, Paul (a BISHOP) says in 2Cor5:18-20 "the words of RECONCILIATION have been given to 'US'.." Who is "US", here? Dont give me a loosy goosy answer what "YOU" think it is, I want a factual answer.. What's Tit1:7 mean? 2Cor10:8?
Fallschirmjaeger29 3 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 John 20:23 is true, but don't you think Mat 6:12 & 18:35 are equally true? I tell you if your Bishops "retain" sins, then their sins will also be retained! But let us make it simple. Would you qoute from the Scriiptures you boast that your Church gave & tell us where the disciples of the Lord sat in confessionals & people came to them to repent & their sins where they were either forgiven or retained?
I recommend you read 2 Cor. 10:7-18 all in context.
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
See, though? Your exegesis holds no weight because you're already OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and no, THE CHURCH is not how fundies outside THE CHURCH define The Church to be! There is only ONE CHURCH. Yes, God certainly allows other asemblies to exist because even God knows that there are ignorant people out there. Jesus said that the Chruch would be ONE, not 60K assemblies interpreting "their" version of what "ONE" means. You fundies cherry pick the Bible and give "private" exegesis
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "There is only ONE CHURCH. Yes, God certainly allows other asemblies to exist because even God knows that there are ignorant people out there."
Why are the 7 Churches in the Book of Revelation are all different in character, encounter different problems & do not have a "pope" over them as their leader? Why is it John Jesus instructs & not Peter or Peter's successor? And why are they seven not one?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Bu just like the decreasing disciples, there are many decreasing priests in the Church as well. Just because Jesus granted the numerous disciples their power does not mean their faithfulness and loyalty will always remain in tact. There will always be breakaway priests and followers who believe that what they hear and represent are not true. Power is meaningless if it is not used for the right and just reasons.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 Your concerns could be true when the Church decided to buid a kingdom which is of the world. But the kindgom Christ builds He trims the herd of thousands to twelve & even to them He asks, do you want to leave too? Many are called, few are chosen. The true disciples of Christ will always recognize like Peter did "..Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." However, I can see that we are talking about two different things here, unfortunately.
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Matthew 16 also reads "and whatsoever you bind upon earth, it shall be bound in heaven. And whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, it shall be loosed in heaven." This states that though Peter is given a responsibility of great importance, he is still human and will be held accountable for all sinful acts against him, which is held the same for each Pope. Matthew 16 is the focal point of the passing of Christ's doctrine and the founding of his definitive teachings.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 How do you identify yourself in the Church? Are you a disciple of Jesus Christ?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Not in the slightest. I am merely a member of the Church of Jesus Christ :).
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 Who are the disciples of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church. What is the difference between them & you?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive Second, the reading signifies the split between Judaism and Christ's new teaching. If you read Matthew 24, Jesus is standing at the Temple of Jerusalem with his disciples. He professes "Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you, there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed." The temple is destroyed in 70 AD by the surging Roman Empire. Not only does this signify the end of the Temple, but also the end and split of Jewish discipline.
KCspur92 3 weeks ago
@KCspur92 But Matthew 24 is not talking about the split between Judaism & Christdom. Rather Jesus is talking about the signs of His 2nd coming. His disciples asked Him in v3 "..tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the world?" Jesus answers only the 2nd question. Why don't you simply read the Bible for yourself instead of trying to interprete it?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
Jesus began His Church by appointing all of the apostles to the office of Bishop divinely ordained BY Him, giving the KEYS to Peter. All of them had certain authority, but only Peter was given total authority over all the others.. Mt16:17-19; Jn15:16; Mk3:14; 1Tim1:3; Tit1:7, 2:15; 1Pt2:25; 2Cor10:8
You people dont even know when the Bible was compiled and which heresies even took place in the first 200 yrs after Christ. There were a pile of 'em. WHO dispelled them w/ NO BIBLE?
Fallschirmjaeger29 3 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 The answers I have given toKCspur92 are the same answers I give you in regard to Mat. 16:17-19 so I am not here to waste my time. In regard to John 15:16, this verse kicks out the belief in "apostolic succession" which is the pride of your Church. It is God who choses, He is the only One who knows those who worship Him in Spirit & in the truth. The appointment of the 12 was unique to them only & has nothing to do with succession of popes (Acts 1:21)..
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
If you do not believe in the ONE TRUE CHURCH, you're already wasting your time. Jesus has not given any authority to your "assembly". Not you, not your preacher, and not your preacher's "version of exegesis is even condsidered "valid" unless given approval by THE CHURCH. It's not the Catholic Church that is "prideful", for there is but ONE CHURCH and that is the ONLY Church there is. NO PART of protestantism is considered "THE CHURCH". You people broke away several centuries ago
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "If you do not believe in the ONE TRUE CHURCH, you're already wasting your time. Jesus has not given any authority to your "assembly". Not you, not your preacher, and not your preacher's "version of exegesis is even condsidered "valid" unless given approval by THE CHURCH."
What was the first message Peter preached in Acts 2 which resulted into 3000 Jews to be converted? Give the key verse.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
The answers you give hold no validity unless given approval by "THE CHURCH", not private interpretation of the Bible as "you" might think it is.. Peter even wrote in his epistle 2Pt1:20, 3:16 "there is NO part of scripture that's for PRIVATE interpretation..and the UNlearned distort the scriptures to their own destruction"
"the office of BISHOP" 1Tim3
"younger, SUBMIT yourselves to the ELDER.. I who am also an elder" 1Pt5:1-5. An elder WAS a Bishop. Also, Tit1:7, 1Tim5:17
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
the "pride of our Church" you wrote? Again, your "assembly" isnt even THE CHURCH of the Bible.. You people are unreal. You dont follow the Bible, nor do you know Christian history. You're certainly well intentioned, and yes, God has a place for assemblies outside His Church, but these assemblies are a dime a dozen with errant exegesis. No 2 of you assemblies out there even "agree" on exegesis, AND you cherry pick the Bible. You pick what verses are "important" & ignore a lot of it
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@buly
Really? Tell that to Jesus that the appointment of the 12 has "nothing to do with succession of the popes".. Ask Jesus in prayer exactly WHAT His true Church is! This is the ONLY Church that has been in existence since the apostles. You poor fudies think that the apostles & Paul were toting a Bible back then. It wasnt even out! The epistles in fact all came out before the written gospels. HOW can they preach the gospel if it's not written? PAUL says he has no written gospel. Ga1:11-12
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 On 1 Tim 1:3, please list the false doctrines I have taught here & confirm them biblically with the right ones. Who are you refering to in Titus 1:7? Do you have to declare "we are the authority" to teach with authority? To whom did God give all authority & power?
What do you understand by 1 Pet 2:25?
When did Peter use the keys that were entrusted to him?
Who preserved Scripture, God or man & from whom do Scripture originate? Who insired their writing?
bulyabalive 3 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
All of the apostles & Paul were Bishops of the Church (1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25; 1Tim5:17; Heb13:17; 1Pt5:1-5). All "authority" has been deigned to the Church from God (Mt16:17-19; 2Cor10:8). Not everything will be compiled in scripture to placate you, in fact, most of Christ's LIFE isnt even in the Bible. All of the apostles were martyred except John. FIND this in the Bible for me what happended to them & where their martyrdoms were. Where is Jesus' life from ages 14-27?
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "All of the apostles & Paul were Bishops of the Church (1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25; 1Tim5:17; Heb13:17; 1Pt5:1-5)."
Which of the above verses say the apostles & Paul were bishops? I am picking 1 passage as exegesis (1 Tim 3:1-7). Does Biblical bishop fit a Catholic bishop? Let's find out:
"..If anyone set his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, cont/..
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 ..self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gent, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, He must manage his own family well & see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's Church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited & fall under the same judgment as the devil..etc.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
Yes, that correct about 1Tim3. Your point? Also, u have to remember that all authority has been given to THE CHURCH. You forget that Jesus told Peter "What you BIND on earth is BOUND in heaven", therefore, when marriage for the Bishops & priests was changed in the 11th century that the ordained with Holy Orders to hold the office of Bishop or priest, that they must be now single based on Matt 19:12 and 1Cor7:32. But this was after prayer to the HS, and also AUTHORITY from GOD
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Oh, so Paul bound Bishops from marrying & getting families as the Church went along and the word of God had to be changed because of this power & authority? Honestly whom are believing your are fooling apart from yourselves? In any case the Bible specifically warns that forbidding marriage is a teaching of demons coming right from hell! I am not in least interested in your tales about (un)holy orders who twist God's word.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 I wonder, do you read the bible or you just pick verses from Apologies notes?
"All "authority" has been deigned to the Church from God (Mt16:17-19; 2Cor10:8)."
What exactly do you understand by "authority"? What do you understand in this Scripture: "[Jesus] All authority in heaven & on earth has been given to Me, therefore go & make disciples of all nations".(Mat. 28:18). Is this the same authority in 2 Cor. 10:8?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Not everything will be compiled in scripture to placate you, in fact, most of Christ's LIFE isnt even in the Bible. "
Oh, I guess you use John 20:30 as a basis for this argument. This is not the first time I hear this excuses for Romanists to use their claimed authorities & traditions, a magician's hat where they pull any new theological rabbit & call it God's truth without accountability what so ever. After all John 20:30 said it!
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
FIND JESUS' ENTIRE LIFE IN THE BIBLE FOR ME, EINSTEIN!! YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETICALLY STUPID (AS EVEN PAUL CALLED THE GALATIANS "STUPID")
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "FIND JESUS' ENTIRE LIFE IN THE BIBLE FOR ME, EINSTEIN!! YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETICALLY STUPID (AS EVEN PAUL CALLED THE GALATIANS "STUPID")"
No honey, you bring the argument, go ahead & complete it. Since you are wiser than God who gave Scriptures as they are, just give the life of Jesus which is NOT in Scriptures since you seen to believe your tradtion has the records! It is your argument not mine.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "All of the apostles were martyred except John. FIND this in the Bible for me what happended to them & where their martyrdoms were. Where is Jesus' life from ages 14-27?"
Very clever, aren't you? But without God's wisdom or knowledge of why such were not recorded in the bible. Why do you think Jesus took on humanity? What was the reason(s)?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
Titus 1:7? Paul writes that a BISHOP is a STEWARD OF GOD, or, God's representative on earth. They hold His authority to carry out what He has left behind. This has always been from the very start. Look, there was NO BIBLE when the apostles & Paul, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus etc were around. They were all BISHOPS of the Church. The Bible in fact wasnt "compiled" until 397 AD! What was going on for the 1st 400 yrs with NO BIBLE? The Bible was ratified in 419 by Bishop pope Boniface I
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Titus 1:7? Paul writes that a BISHOP is a STEWARD OF GOD, or, God's representative on earth. "
What position was that of Titus? Was he an elder, overseer(bishop), a pastor, a priest or a pope? Read Titus 1:5-9.
You may be representing a different "bishop" other than what the Bible represents. Incidentally, Catholic bishops & priests are not in the Bible. Their (Catholic Bishops) main role is wage "authority" over others.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Look, there was NO BIBLE when the apostles & Paul, Barnabus, Timothy, Titus etc were around. "
Scriptures were there. Otherwise the Apostels would not have preached the gospel of Jesus Christ ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES. (1 Cor. 15:3-4) Acts 2:14----. The Lord Himself refered to written Scripture endlessly! 42 times Jesus said "It is written...in reference to written Scriptures!
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
No they werent there, einstein!! LOL. The Hebrew Canon had been compiled from the OLD Test and the 7 add'l books of the Septuagint were all there. The NT hadnt been written yet! Again, this is WHY you fundiesw get it wrong all the time b/c you all dont know any better. The epistles all came out before the written gospels did. How could they preach the gospel then, Newton? Come on man! You can do better than this
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 You know I am always amazed how far you Romanists are set to argue, just for sake of it. I even gave you Scriptural evidence where the Apostles presented the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures but you cannot accept them simply because of your mind-set based on arrogancy "what-good-could-come-out-of-"fundies" camp!" Just study Peter's first message, how many verse does he qoute from Scriptures in the OT about the Lord?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
"THE GOSPEL I PREACH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY ANY MAN, RATHER, A REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST" -Gal1:11-12
This is SACRED TRADITION.. The "SPOKEN WORD"
Also, einstein, the NT could NOT have been written without Sacred Tradition. You poor simpletons in assemblies OUTSIDE the Church of the Bible dont know this because you lack sound exegesis of the scriptures, Christian history, & knowledge in general. You all mean well, but you simply dont know any better
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 >>"THE GOSPEL I PREACH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY ANY MAN, RATHER, A REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST" -Gal1:11-12<<
I guess by this you want to assert that Paul's revelation is not recorded in the NT but rather it comes from "tradition". Let us pretend that your assertion is true, where do I read this revelation in the achieves of tradition? Did you ever stop to consider that Roman Catholic Church is the major enemy of God is Word as recored in Scriptures?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive In fact I am amazed at the length a 'group of men' could go to brainwash & mind control their followers into damping God's Word in favour of men's. Then assign themselves authority even over God's Word by pretending to have infallible power supposedly given by "Jesus" to define the extent of Scripture (the canon). RCC believes they ONLY interpret the meaning of the text of Scripture because, they believe "Jesus gave them authority", and
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 then they go ahead & define the extent of tradition & its meaning.. They then claim Scripture is the written tradition which is God is portion of Scripture & theirs is the "ORAL tradition" portion of Scripture supposedly passed on orally by Apostles - therefore nobody can read this "sacred tradition"!
In the end, God is written word in Scriptures does not really matter, what matters in SOLA ECCLESIA. Church is the authority, who cares what God has to say?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@buly
Tradition comes fro, the Latin, "Trado, tradere" to BEQUEATH OR PASS ON".. In the scriptural sense, the Bible couldnt have been written WITHOUT Sacred Tradition. God's word is SPOKEN FIRST to His hagiographers, then in turn THEY wrote it down, BUT, not ALL of God's word got recorded on parchment. In fact, when the apostles & Paul etc all went out & preached the gospel, they didnt HAVE any of the written gospels! THEY WERENT OUT YET! The epistles came out FIRST. 2Cor3:3; Gal1:11-12
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
NO, that's NOT what they claim. That's what "YOU" claim that they claim.. That holds no water..
"The TRADITION I RECEIVED FROM THE LORD" -1Cor11:23
"THAT WHICH I RECEIVED I ALSO PASSED ON TO YOU" 1Cor15:3
"Be OBEDIENT TO ALL THE DOCTRINES & TRADITIONS WE TELL YOU WHETHER ORALLY OR BY LETTER" 2Thes2:15 --> The written gospels werent OUT YET, that's WHY he states "orally or by letter", not "WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE GOSPEL" BECAUSE THEY HADNT BEEN WRITTEN YET!! MAN, YOU PEOPLE!!
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 On yes the famouse favorate verse totally misintepreted! So you do assume that what Paul received from the Lord is not recorded in the NT? You affirm that Paul was nurtured by other Apostles not even Barnabars but recieved from the Lord Orally which was supposed passed on to your Bishops? Can you even see that by tradition RCC means its Bishops, that they are the tradition? Therefore whatever they say like false dogmas supposed to have passed orally?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 How do you check their claims. No you can't they oral so they are written in their heads & passed on orally. Rubbish!
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
THE GOSPEL I PREACH HASNT BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY ANY MAN, RATHER A REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST --GAL1:11-12
THE WORD OF GOD NOT WRITTEN WITH INK BUT ON THE STONES TABLETS OF THE HEART --> 2COR3:3
"NEXT"
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 THE GOSPEL I PREACH HASNT BEEN GIVEN TO ME BY ANY MAN, RATHER A REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST --GAL1:11-12
THE WORD OF GOD NOT WRITTEN WITH INK BUT ON THE STONES TABLETS OF THE HEART --> 2COR3:3
The "NEXT" is that you have no I idea of who the Holy Spirit is, because you do not think things of God but of men. The Holy Spirit is God, my dear, He cannot be commanded around by sons of men. 1 Cor. 3:1-3 (context) The work of HS in the lives of Corinthians!
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
how do you define "NOT WRITTEN WITH INK", EINSTEIN?
If it's NOT WRITTEN with ink, then what is it?? --> TRADITION.. the SPOKEN WORD
AND THIS IS IN THE BIBLE -> "THE TRADITION I RECDEIVED FROM THE LORD" 1COR11:23
"THAT WHICH IS RECEIVED I PASSED ON TO YOU" 1COR15:3
"BE OBEDIENT TO ALL THE DOCTRINES & TRADITIONS WE 'TELL YOU' WHETHER ORALLY OR BY LETTER" 2Thes2:15
How can Paul tell other to be obedient to HIM and the apostles? -> THEIR AUTHORITY GIVEN THEM FROM GOD
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
correction
i meant to write "RECEIVED FROM THE LORD"
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
This is what I mean by you people dont know any better. People in your fundy seminaries dont know any better. EVEN THEY MISQUOTE scripture, yet, they claim to preach the word of God.
GOD's word is NOT ONLY that which is "written". The apostles, Paul, Mark & Luke had NO written NT-- > THEY WROTE THE NT FROM SACRED TRADITION FROM GOD!! GET IT YET, EINSTEIN? SACRED TRADITION IS THE "SPOKEN WORD OF GOD"
LOOK UP 2THES2:15 --> IT'S ALL THERE! ALSO 1COR11:2, 23, 15:3
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
your definition is nothing more than "private interpretation".. You hold no authority from God, therefore, you hold no argument. It's merely opinion. Look, you mean well, but in no way do you hold any authority from God
When Christ was around, the chief priests always asked, "FROM WHERE does Jesus get his AUTHORITY?" Authority was a big deal back then. God made His covenant w/ the jews so they were authoritative in the OT. JESUS came along & passed His authority to His BISHOPS
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "your definition is nothing more than "private interpretation".. You hold no authority from God, therefore, you hold no argument. It's merely opinion. Look, you mean well, but in no way do you hold any authority from God"
And how do you know & believe that your interpretation is NOT private? As far as I am concerned Jesus is the only one who holds AUTHORITY. Your Church dumped Him long ago & assigned themselves His authority. He must be amazed up there!
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
God gave His full authority to Peter by the Keys. (Mt16:17-19) You fundies say no. It doesnt matter if you do or not! What? Are ya gonna tell God what He can & cant DO?! This has always been from the onset. In fact, when Matthew wrote his gospel, he wrote it in Greek. When he wrote, "Peter, I give YOU the Keys to the Kingdom, what YOU bind on earth is bound in heaven" etc, he wrote this in the 2nd person SINGULAR of "you" in Greek, not PLURAL, and it's spelled differently
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "God gave His full authority to Peter by the Keys."
Yes, and I sure the keys where not to be locked up somewhere in the safe!
My question was simple, when did Peter use the keys to open the kingdom of heaven? Please answer this. I am not in the least interested in Greek plural/singular stuff here.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
You're not interested in the Greek because you dont know any better. This is what makes scripture important and the vernacular, syntax, meaning, and exegesis. This is WHY you fundies hold NO authority because it's easy to pick up scriptures and misinterpret them if you have no foundation. Matthew used the SINGULAR of "you" in his verse when Jesus addressed Peter with the Keys. Not PLURAL. Had Jesus meant "all of them" to have the Keys, Matthew no doubt woulve used the plural
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 I don't speak Greek. And if you are here to defend your arguments in Greek, then first denounce the translators of the Bible in English false. O.K? Then give me the right translations as you correct the false in the English Bibles. In any case, I don't see your problem in Matthew Peter & the keys business! I said the power to bind & loosing was given to all the disciples of Jesus in Mat. 18:18. I haven't argued about the keys, have I? Read properly.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
The Keys entrusted to him were always understood by the apostles. In fact, in Acts when there was some bickering going on among the Gentiles, Peter stood up and said, "brethren, we all know who has been CHOSEN BY GOD to speak among us", referring to HIMSELF as the chief apostle.
When Peter was martyred in 67 AD under Nero, LINUS of 2Tim4:21 succeeded him. Then came Anacletus. Then Clement (Phil4:3) as #4.. Benedikt XVI is the 265th successor to Peter. Google list of popes.
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "In fact, in Acts when there was some bickering going on among the Gentiles, Peter stood up and said, "brethren, we all know who has been CHOSEN BY GOD to speak among us", referring to HIMSELF as the chief apostle."
The knowledge of knowing when Peter was martyred or his supposed successor does not interest me in the least, do you know why?
However I advise you to read Acts 15 again. It is not good to misrepresent the word of God.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
I "misinterpret" the word of God? Buly, you're not even OF "THE CHURCH" of the Bible!! All authority has been deigned from GOD to His CHURCH! and no, the Church is not how fundies (whose assemblies were invented in the last few hundred yrs) interpret "THE CHURCH" to be! Fundies divorced themselves from the Body of Christ, "The Church". You people broke away and started you own "assemblies" after 1521 AD.. These are NOT "THE CHURCH", rather inventions with NO authority from GOD
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "I "misinterpret" the word of God? Buly, you're not even OF "THE CHURCH" of the Bible!!"
You are right, I am not. And you know what, with all the nonsense your write here, I am very happy I will never be. Jesus did not die for actors in Roman Catholic Church to hijack His Church. In case if you do not know, the saints of God are scattered all over the globe, & God's Church is NOT an institution of idol woshippers.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
But see? U skip over parts of the BIble! I mean, Ive answered ur questions!!
"A BISHOP IS GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE" Tit1:7
"OFFICE OF BISHOP" 1Tim3
"I SHOULD BOAST MORE OF OUR ;AUTHORITY' GIVEN TO 'US' BY JESUS CHRIST" -Paul, a BISHOP. 2Cor10:8 (The ;US" here is Paul & the other apostles who are BISHOPS)
"Peter I give YOU THE KEYS to the KINGDOM. What YOU BIND ON EARTH IS BOUND IN HEAVEN" -Mt16:17-19
"PETER, TEND MY FLOCK" Jn21:15-18
The pope is Peter's successor who TENDS
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "A BISHOP IS GOD'S REPRESENTATIVE" Tit1:7
Because the verse does not say that. I have three Bibles in front of me. They all do not say or even assert what you claim. It is your private interpretation meant to push God from His position as God & set men on the throne.
You are even ignorant of the work of the Apostles. Apostles, like Evangelists do not do the work of overseers. Oversees should stay a Church as administoring to people. Apotles do not.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
It DOES say, a BISHOP is God's representative.. Some have A STEWARD OF GOD
Theyre one and the same thing. The pope is a BISHOP & successor to the apostle Peter with Christ's authoity to TEND His Flock per Jesus's words to Peter in Jn21. It always has been. You say no. It doesnt matter. Say no then. You hold absolutlely NO authority from God in any way, shape, matter or form. Neither do I, and neither does your preacher. ONLY Peter's successor and Bishops of the Magisterium
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "PETER, TEND MY FLOCK" Jn21:15-18"
BTW what was Jesus' question before He commanded Peter to tend to His Sheep? It is more important you know!
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
He asked him if he loved him.. The office of Peter (the Pope) is a labor of love
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Does love come by succession?
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
what is you point, buly? Your assembly isnt even THE CHURCH. Ive slammed dunked you all day and you have no defense
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "what is you point, buly? Your assembly isnt even THE CHURCH. Ive slammed dunked you all day and you have no defense"
My point is according to the God's word neither you nor your almighty church is in position to judge other Churches who loves the Lord & believes in Him as their only Saviour. Like athiests, you're defending a position which can only be determined by God. So you can slam & dunk all you like. It is only God who know those who are His.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
Ask Linus of 2Tim4:21 if love comes by succession. He immediately succeeded Peter.. Also, CLEMENT of Phil 4:3. He was Peter's 3rd successor..
Google List of popes
Fallschirmjaeger29 2 weeks ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 And where does 2 Time 4:21 crowns Linus as Peter's successor? He was just a christian in the church in Rome, just like others Paul mentions. In fact Paul is careful to show that he does not "load over anyone" in Phil. 4:3 "...who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement & the rest of my fellow workers.." They did NOT work 'under' him but 'side by side' with him. Peter had the same mentality, very different form popery.
bulyabalive 2 weeks ago
@bulyabalive
Where is MOST OF JESUS' LIFE? Where are the martyrdoms of the apostles? If they're not written about in the Bible but indeed existed, what's your point?
Paul was a Bishop. He writes in his letters "I will send so and so".. What authority does he have to SEND someone? This is clerical obedience to the office of Bishop. Also, 2Thes2:15, 1Pt5:1-5
"Be OBEDIENT to them that 'RULE' for they watch your souls and must give an account" -Heb13:17
"Elders that RULE well" 1Tim5:17
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Where is MOST OF JESUS' LIFE? Where are the martyrdoms of the apostles? If they're not written about in the Bible but indeed existed, what's your point?"
Don't you think, in the light of the argument, I should be the one asking that question? My understanding is, whatever is not recorded in the Scriptures is not inspired by God to be written for simple reason, it is NOT NEEDED FOR THE SALVATION OF MAN'S SOUL. The Bible is never meant to be exhaustive.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
But you dont FOLLOW the BIble, buly! Why are you telling me this? LOL
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Paul was a Bishop."
Wrong. Paul was an Apostel. Almost every epistle Paul wrote, he wrote he was a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle. Nowhere does he write that he is a bishop of any Church. Writing to the the Philippians he writes to christians, bishops & deacons but does not call himself a bishop. The work of an Apostle is not the same as that of an overseer. Better study your Bible to know the difference
bulyabalive 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "He writes in his letters "I will send so and so".. What authority does he have to SEND someone? This is clerical obedience to the office of Bishop. Also, 2Thes2:15, 1Pt5:1-5"
This is the closed-mind thinking of Roman Catholicism! Paul was not working alone. Jesus never intended that His people work alone. He Himself did not work alone. Writing to the Colossians, Paul indicates he is with Timonthy his brother!
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 The way Apostles related to each other & fellow christians is not the way Catholicism relates to its followers. In fact for RCC the Church does not contain in the laity. When your Church says Church it means that small curia of archbishops, bishops & priests (believed to be 'set apart'). Yet if one studies the letters of Paul he rarely address his epistles to individuals or leaders! He mostly addresses the saints (believers) of God of the local Church.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Be OBEDIENT to them that 'RULE' for they watch your souls and must give an account" -Heb13:17
"Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labor in the word (preaching) and doctrine (teaching)" 1 Tim 5:17
You short quotation of this verse was very deliberate, I think!
Now I ask, do you mean Evangelicals do not obey their leaders?
2ndly, Are Christians obliged to obey their leaders blindly, if yes, why?
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
You still dont see that Paul already WAS a Bishop of the Church! So were the apsotles. There always WAS and always WILL BE only ONE CHURCH. So then, when you quote what Paul has to say in his letters, you're quoting a BISHOP of the ONE CHURCH. This Church still exists today!
If evangelicals obey their leaders, well, they obey only so far as being obedient to "private" interpretation of the bible since the inception of their respective "invented" assembly after 1500s AD. Period
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 2 Thes. 2:15 is self-explanatory. Paul had preached the Gospel to the Thessalonians. They believed the truth for their salvation. Now that he was absent, he exhorted them to hold on to the "traditions" he had passed on to them. These traditions, or teachings, are simply the truths of the Gospel which the apostle Paul had "handed on" to them by 2 means: by preaching ("by word") & by writing ("our epistle"). Cont/..
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
That's true! He passed on the TRADITIONS, which are the "spoken" word of God given to them BY GOD in their authority!
What you also wrote, though, is only "YOUR" private interpretation of what that means! See? it's only "your" private exegesis! You hold no authority from God. God knows you mean well, but your assembly isnt THE CHURCH to hold authority from "HIM". Only HIs "CHURCH" holds authority. Your assembly, though, isnt THE CHURCH of the Bible. You're an "invented assembly"
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 There is nothing here about transmission of an undefined body of teachings through a succession of bishops. The argument for the Catholic concept of Tradition based on 2Thes is a logical fallacy of ambiguity. The same term, "traditions", is used with 2 different meanings. In Paul's epistle it means divine doctrines handed on personally to the church; but inCatholic theology it means transmission of God's Word from one generation to another by the church.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
Also, it doesnt have to tell that he was "crowned". It doesnt give the year that Peter & Paul died in the BIble, but they died before the NT gospels were completed. In fact, Paul was beheaded under Nero. Find that in the Bible. Peter was crucified upside down. Find that in the BIble. They died in 64 & 67 AD respectively in Rome. Find that in the BIble
Where is Mark's martydom in the BIble? Where was he a Bishop? WHERE was he martyred? How was he martyred? Find it "fundy"
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Yes. the Bible does not tell Linus was crowned, 1st because he was neither crowned as Peter's successor IN ROME nor Peter's successor at all! In fact Peter's ever being in Rome as a leader of a Church there is disputed by Scriptures themselves. If he ever went there, most likely he was a prisoner. 2ndly Peter & Paul's death were not recorded in Bible because they are not Scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit - they are not needed spiritually!
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@buly
Peter went to Rome in 42 AD. It doesnt HAVE to be in the BIble to be valid. It doesnt even tell the exact year that Jesus died. What we know is Jesus died AROUND 33-34 AD, but that year is not given exactly, but it certainly IS valid. In fact, when Peter went to Rome in 42 AD, Mark accompanied him from Antioch. Find that in the BIble. Mark wrote his gospel based on Peter's sermons IN ROME. Find it. How did Luke wrote his gospel? Who wrote Acts? If he wasnt w/ the apostles&Paul, well then?
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Peter went to Rome in 42 AD."
I will start with that today, (it is past midnight here) so, good nite.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
What are you gonna "start" with? You wont be able to refute me. Your assembly isnt even THE CHURCH
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "What are you gonna "start" with? You wont be able to refute me. Your assembly isnt even THE CHURCH"
Let's see. Jesus died to establish the Roman Catholic Church? Right?
bulyabalive 6 days ago
@bulyabalive
Peter WAS a prisoner in Rome in the Mamertine prison, but it was after he had already been there from 42-67 AD. He was crucified upside down by the Romans under Nero in 67AD. Paul was beheaded in 64 AD. Please find these in the Bible. While ur at it, FIND Jesus' entire LIFE in the Bible
PS, find what happened to Mark after his time in Rome & WHERE he too was martyred
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Was Peter the pastor of the Church in Rome?
bulyabalive 6 days ago
@buly
Peter was the presiding BISHOP of the Church. He was the ONLY head Bishop, even over the others, back then. Linus (2Tim4:21) succeeded him after Peter was martyred. Then came Anacletus. Then Clement (Phil 4:3)
Also, at the Last supper when he BROKE BREAD & said to His apostles "TAKE THIS ALL OF YOU AND 'EAT IT', THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.." "TAKE THIS ALL OF YOU AND DRINK, FOR THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD" --> Show me where He says merely "a symbol"; "THIS IS" !!
Fallschirmjaeger29 6 days ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 But answer my question! Did Peter pastor the Church in Rome? As far as I am concerned Peter just calls himself an elder among other elders. 1 Pet 5:1 "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder...2 be shepherds of God's flock that is under your cares serving as overseers..4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears (Jesus Christ)...
a) Peter is not writing to other apostles
b) Peter does not call himself the Chief Shepherd but titles it to the Lord.
bulyabalive 5 days ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 1 Cor.11:24-25 and when he had given thanks, he broke it & said 'This is my body which is for you; DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME In the same way after supper he took the cup, saying 'This cup is the new convenant in my blood, do this whenever you drink it, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."
--> Show me where He says merely "a symbol"; "THIS IS"< I have done just that. You don't remember a person who is present in the physical. Is that too hard to understand?
bulyabalive 5 days ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 3dly, it seems the recordings of "martydoms", who beheaded who, how Peter was crucified, Mark's martydom, etc, is important to Roman Catholicism but not to God. RCC emphasises these things to boost their traditions as valid, knowledgeable & autholitative. But God calls such "the leaven of Pharisees" because the spirit behind them is the same spirit the Pharisees of Jesus' day had (Mat 16:6,11,12). They appear very big & impressive with little or no value.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
If that's your argument, FIND most of Jesus' LIFE in the BIble, then
Look, your "assembly" isnt even "THE CHURCH" of the Bible. Your "assembly" didnt even compile & arrange the Bible as we know it. Why are the epistles behind the written gospels if all the epistles were written FIRST? Who arranged this? *Hint* It most certainly wasnt your assembly doing this. It was THE CHURCH that did: 380-397AD. The Bible came out in 397AD. You poor buffoons think the Bible fell outta the sky
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Look, your "assembly" isnt even "THE CHURCH" of the Bible."
If my assembly is not a Church is none of your business. I am still waiting for my answer, what was the message your 1st "Pope" Peter preached which resulted into 3000 Jews to be converted in Acts 2? Give the key verse, at least you are the one who claim to have given us the Bible, isn't strange that such a simple bible study is to difficult for you?
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
the term "pope" didnt come out until the 300s AD. It doesnt matter. ALL authority has been given BY JESUS TO HIS "CHURCH", His Body on earth. He already had ordained His apostles to the office of Bishop before He ascended to heaven. He told His apostles to carry out all that Hhe left behind. The NT wasnt even WRITTEN when He ascended but they immediately went out & ordained others & preached the gospel. What gospel, einstein? Was it Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? Tell me WHICH?
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 It does matter, because Jesus did not institute papacy. Jesus did not give ALL His authority to the Church but rather by His Authority as our Saviour, (please read Eph. 4:8-10 carefully because what He did no man, including Peter could do) He gave gifts to men including His Apostles. E.g. Paul was an apostle as well as a teacher, while Peter was more of an evangelist. But John was a prophet, etc These gifts are given to individuals as individuals...
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
The papacy comes from Jesus' authority to PETER. "Peter, I give YOU the Keys to the KINGDOM. What "you" bind on earth is bound in heaven. What YOU loose on earth is loosed in heaven".. You nor I, nor your "preacher" has ever "bound & loosed" something with Christ's "authority".. You'll give me some loosy goosy answer to this I know, but it carries no wieght. It's only "your" private interpretation what "you" think that means
"Peter, 'TEND' MY FLOCK, FEED MY LAMBS" -Jn21:15-18
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "The papacy comes from Jesus' authority to PETER. "Peter, I give YOU the Keys to the KINGDOM."
Oh, then how come there was no pope to be shown until Leo I who in 451 took the title & then confered it on all previous bishops of Rome psthumously? In 606 Boniface III became the Universal Bishop. Do I need to mention that there were times when no pope existed. The claim to succession is as empty as those who promote it. No truth in it whatsoever.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Peter, 'TEND' MY FLOCK, FEED MY LAMBS" -Jn21:15-18
Oh, and here is my loosy goosy answer. The condition to tend Jesus flock was about the amount of love Peter had for His Saviour. The Catholic lot are beaten emotionally into submission to a system which does not give a damn about the Saviour but just a lust for power over them! They have no regard for the Sheep either, so in their invented authority are busy inventing purgatories to control them.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 They don't go to seminaries & Bible colleges to receive "gifts" of teaching, evangelist, pastors or apostleship. No in fact Seminaries simply spoils these God given-gifts by making people kings, primeministers, etc instead of servants meant to equip the saints of God (Eph 4:12)!
Mat 28:18b-19 "All power is given to Me in heaven & in earth. God you therefore & tell all nations, baptising them... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever...
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
You're quoting the very words of Jesus to HIs apostles, the 1st Bishops, who would hold His authority
"I should boast more of the AUTHORITY given to 'US' by Jesus Christ" -2Cor10:8
"Refute & rebuke with all AUTHORITY" Tit2:15
"Be obedient to ALL the doctrines & traditions WE tell you" 2Thes2:15, 3:6; 1Cor11:2.(Where are all the docrines & traditions WRITTEN down that he speaks of here? FIND EM.. In fact, all the apostles except John were martyred. Find those in the bIble)
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "Refute & rebuke with all AUTHORITY" Tit2:15"
Incidentally Titus was NOT a bishop! However I would ask this of you. When Paul rebuked & opposed Peter as indicated in Gal. 2:11-14, was the "authority" of Peter which you so much depend on relinquised to Paul? I wonder why it is difficult for you to read the Scriptures to know how these men treated each other, never separating themselves from the commons, someting you seem unable to grasp.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
Titus MOST certainly was a BISHOP. So was Timothy, Barnabus, Clement (Phil4:3), Titus (2Tim4:21).. All of the apostles & Paul were Bishops of the Church. You say no. It doesnt even matter because you dont know the history of Christianity AND you dont know the bIble.
In fact, in 2 of Peter's non-biblical epistles, he referred to the CHURCH as "Katholikos", Greek for "Universal, whole, complete" to describe "The Church". Why can the Church have this name? --> Authority given to it
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 Timothy was left in Ephesus by Paul to pastor the Church there while Titus was left in pastor the Church in Crete. Titus & Timothy were two of the young men Paul had won to Christ and enlisted to help him in his ministry (see Phip 2:19-30)
bulyabalive 6 days ago
@bulyabalive
That's true, and Titus & Timothy were BISHOPS of the Church. So was Philemon. So were Barnabus, Apollos, Clement (Phil 4:3) & Linus (2Tim4:21)
Fallschirmjaeger29 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 In fact, in 2 of Peter's non-biblical epistles, he referred to the CHURCH as "Katholikos", Greek for "Universal, whole, complete" to describe "The Church". Why can the Church have this name? --> Authority given to it
The word Catholic whether in Greek or French stands for universal - Church which is made up of all believers on Christ. Taking the word itself & own it does not mean the Church is following the ways of the Lord. Believers make up a Church.
bulyabalive 6 days ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "..I have commanded you; & lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world."
The Lord ascending to heaven did not mean He lost His attributes of God, i.e. Omnipresent, Omniscient & Omnipotent. He is still here. The Church is still guided by Him & Him alone. People, however great the gift they possess, should work through Him, NOT on His behalf. Any Church that claims to work on His behalf has lost its way. It has no Head therefore no eyes to see.
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
you obviously dont know the BIble. Jesus told all of His apostles, the 1st BISHOPS, that they had His authority..
"HE WHO HEARS YOU HEARS ME. HE WHO REJECTS YOU REJECTS ME...IT WASNT YOU WHO CHOSE ME RATHER I CHOSE YOU AND I 'ORDAINED' YOU.." -Jesus
What did He ordain them to? --> The office of BISHOP. 1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25, 5:1-5
This 'IS' THE CHURCH. Not some "invented" assembly that came down the pike in the last few hundred yrs. No other denom holds Christs' authority
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "you obviously dont know the BIble. Jesus told all of His apostles, the 1st BISHOPS, that they had His authority.."
I expect that from you honey, but I do know my bible. Jesus was not talking about your bishops & popes but those who are faithful to His Gospel & ready to up hold His truths before the people. It is your Church that flatly reject the Bible as a sole rule of faith. It is the only book that holds God's truth which sanctifies us (John 17:17).
bulyabalive 1 week ago
@bulyabalive
NO, you DONT know your BIBLE. If you do, then tell me what "DOCTRINE OF BREAKING BREAD" MEANS IN ACTS 2:42.. WHAT'S THE correct EXEGESIS of this.. Now then, dont give me what you "think" it means.. Tell me EXACTLY what that means
Ever read 1Cor10:16-17? 1Cor11:23-29?
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "NO, you DONT know your BIBLE. If you do, then tell me what "DOCTRINE OF BREAKING BREAD" MEANS IN ACTS 2:42."
What post are you answering? Please give a line of quotation as I normally do for proper follow up!
bulyabalive 6 days ago
@bulyabalive
The CHURCH is the SOLE RULE of faith because THE CHURCH ALREADY "IS" CHRIST ON EARTH WITH US. It is His Body on earth which HE speaks THRU. It is the CHURCH which gives ALL, not some, but ALL infallible EXEGESIS of the Bible! Your assembly holds NO authority from God. His ordained Bishops are the ones who always have had His authority..
All of you invented assemblies that began in the 16th century onwards have given nothing but "private" exegesis, meaning what it means to "YOU"
Fallschirmjaeger29 1 week ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "The CHURCH is the SOLE RULE of faith because THE CHURCH ALREADY "IS" CHRIST ON EARTH WITH US."
Do you remember what Jesus said to His disciples once, "whosoever hears my words & hid to them is like house built on the rock.. That statement you have made shows that your Church is built on sany ground.
bulyabalive 6 days ago
@bulyabalive
Jesus told that to His apostles who were BISHOPS.
He also tols His apostles, "HE WHO HEARS 'YOU' HEARS ME. HE WHO REJECTS 'YOU' REJECTS ME. IT WAS NOT YOU WHO CHOSE ME, RATHER I CHOSE YOU AND I ORDAINED YOU"
He ordained them as BISHOPS of His Church: His ministers to hold all authority given from Him. You disagree? It doesnt matter. You're NOT THE CHURCH. You think u are. Jesus will tell u that He gave us His "CHURCH" which is His Body to hold authority, not "assemblies"
Fallschirmjaeger29 6 days ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "He also tols His apostles, "HE WHO HEARS 'YOU' HEARS ME. HE WHO REJECTS 'YOU' REJECTS ME. IT WAS NOT YOU WHO CHOSE ME, RATHER I CHOSE YOU AND I ORDAINED YOU""
That statement has two sides. One is hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ from those who faithfully present it to those who have not heard it, or who have left the faith for some reasons. That is what I understand.
The other one which is yours is not about the Gospel but rather a lust for authority.
bulyabalive 5 days ago
@Fallschirmjaeger29 "What did He ordain them to? --> The office of BISHOP. 1Tim3; Tit1:7; 1Pt2:25, 5:1-5"
I would rather say He ordained them in Mark 16:18 to preach the Gospel. However you are bent to reject what I say, the bishop talked about in 1 Tim 3 does not fit in anyway Catholic Bishops of priests unless you want to admit that indeed over the centuries, Cardinals, bishops & priests had concubines & illigimate children as history indicates.
bulyabalive 1 week ago