Another Round with the Baptist

[EricFilmer]

Hi “NotWorthy”
She actually sent me a YouTube Video of some black minister teaching some odd things where he mentions that the Catholic Church is trying to start a “New World Order”

I only have time for a quick response, but this is the first time I have heard this accusation. I think it is amusing for this preacher to say that the Catholic Church is trying to start a New World Order when so many other people criticize the Catholic Church for being too medieval-minded and failing to “change with the times.”

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Another way of approaching this would be to cite from the early Church fathers and show that the Church before 400 A.D. was already organized in the same hierarchical structure as we know today. Think of “Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church” by Ignatius in the 2nd century. Etc. That way, it is easy to show that there wasn’t a ‘before’ and ‘after’ Constantine.

Search the Catholic Answers website for these quotations, there are plenty.

 

[CEAbbott]

My question is, Has she even attempted to understand your POV? Did you confront her about her Landmarkism, which the majority of baptist reject and was she even open to reading a refutation of landmarkism by a baptist?

If not, shake the dust from your feet and move on.

Now if you want to continue ask her to:

1. Prove Constantine started the Catholic Church. Not just the word or works of some radical protestant teacher. The original document in which Constantine states he is starting the Catholic Church. The document appointing the bishops, organizing the Church, setting doctrine, setting the scriptures etc etc etc. Hint she can’t and won’t.
2. Most protestant theologians and seminaries teach nothing of what she is saying about the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which we shorten to Revelations. Ask her to name prominent protestant theologians who support what she says about Revelations…guys like Sproul, Packer, Wright, Guthrie etc. Not fringe guys like Camping or White whom most protestants think are fringe and/or a joke…especially Camping. I was taught in protestant seminary that the churches named were those under the authority of St John the Apostle, whom I was taught wrote the Revelation. Also, the Revelation never named one of those churches as the seat of power, nor does it say Rome is not the seat of power. So she can not use sola scriptura to prove it as scripture is silent on it.

I have been gone due to work, so I have not read the other thread completely. I seriously doubt she addressed any of your points. I would be surprised if she did. So I will go and read it.

I applaude your desire, but am cynical to its fruit. I have dealt with such too many times as a protestant pastor, they only accuse and condemn and never reason from the scriptures as I use to say.

I will pray for your success and to be proven wrong.

blessings
Mark

Thank you MarkBrown for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I hope that you don’t mind if I plagarize you; copy your comments and post them to my response on FB. I have already done this with the CF member named “Nathan” from my last thread, and she did not leave any debating comment at that time. It is only yesterday that I received another message from her as shown in this thread. Thank you so much for your posting here. I also realize it will probably do no good to keep up a dialogue with this woman regarding our faith, but at least, it will give her something to think about.
All the best and God bless you!
Cindy

 

[CEAbbott]

The Church was legalized by Constantine, not invented.

Before legalization, the Church was underground and therefor, not as visible as it became after legalization. Consider the fact that if you were caught with Christian documents you would likely be executed. The early Christians under persecution couldn’t just rent out office space and build Churches on the street corners but after Constantine legalized Christianity they did just that.

The fact that the Church began building a much more publically visible structure and hierarchy in the fourth century was not because it suddenly sprang into existence but because Christians were no longer under the threat of torture and death for doing so.

The good Baptist may need a reminder that the Book of Revelation was written by a Catholic Bishop in Asia minor, hence its preoccupation with the seven Churches in that particular part of the world.

***Ah,such wonderful stuff here Tim! Bravo! and Thank you again, as to all my good new friends on CF!
God Bless you all for your knowledge!

-Tim-***

 

[Randy_Carson]

"The truth is that the Catholic church was started by emperor Constantine 4 century’s after the death and resurrection of Christ. I’d like to add that if you are familiar with the book of Revelation, 7 churches are discussed therein as being the “seat” of Christianity. NOWHERE is mentioned the "church of Rome

Christian History
catholic.com/library/Fundamentalist_or_Catholic.asp

Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs. To see which is the true Church, we must look for the one that has an unbroken historical link to the Church of the New Testament. Catholics are able to show such a link. They trace their leaders, the bishops, back through time, bishop by bishop, all the way to the apostles, and they show that the pope is the lineal successor to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true of Catholic beliefs and practices. Take any one you wish, and you can trace it back. This is just what John Henry Newman did in his book An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

He looked at Christian beliefs through the ages. Starting with the nineteenth century (he was writing in 1844), he worked backward century by century, seeing if Catholic beliefs existing at any particular time could be traced to beliefs existing a century before. Back and back he went, until he got to New Testament times. What he demonstrated is that there is a real continuity of beliefs, that the Catholic Church has existed from day one of Church history, that it is in fact the Church established by Christ.

Newman was not a Catholic when he started the book, but his research convinced him of the truth of the Catholic faith, and as the book was finished he converted. Fundamentalist leaders make no effort to trace their version of Christianity century by century. They claim the Christianity existing in New Testament times was like today’s Protestant Fundamentalism in all essentials.

According to modern Fundamentalists, the original Christian Church was doctrinally the same as today’s Fundamentalist churches. When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in A.D. 313, pagans flocked to the Church in hopes of secular preferment, but the Church could not assimilate so many. It soon compromised its principles and became paganized by adopting pagan beliefs and practices. It developed the doctrines with which the Catholic Church is identified today. Simply put, it apostatized and became the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, true Christians (Fundamentalists) did not change their beliefs but were forced to remain in hiding until the Reformation.

The trouble with this history is that there are no historical facts whatsoever to back it up. Distinctively Catholic beliefs—the papacy, priesthood, invocation of saints, sacraments, veneration of Mary, salvation by something besides “faith alone,” purgatory—were evident long before the fourth century, before Constantine. They were believed by Christians before this supposed “paganization” took place. Another difficulty is that there are no historical records—none at all—which imply an underground Fundamentalist church existed from the early fourth century to the Reformation. In those years there were many schisms and heresies, most now vanished, but present-day Fundamentalists cannot find among them their missing Fundamentalist church. There were no groups that believed in all or even most, of the doctrines espoused by the Protestant Reformers (e.g. sola scriptura, salvation by “faith alone,” and an invisible church). No wonder Fundamentalist writers dislike discussing Church history!

Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

Christ designated Peter head of the Church when he said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Fundamentalists, desiring to avoid the natural sense of the passage, say “rock” refers not to Peter, but to his profession of faith or to Christ himself. But Peter’s profession of faith is two sentences away and can’t be what is meant. Similarly, the reference can’t be to Christ. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a quite different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4–8) does not mean Peter was not appointed the earthly foundation. The apostles were also described as foundation stones in a sense (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), meaning that Christ is not the only person the Bible speaks of as being the Church’s foundation. In one sense the foundation was Christ, in another it was the apostles, and in another it was Peter. In Matthew 16:18 Christ has Peter in mind. He himself would be the Church’s invisible foundation since he was returning to heaven, from where he would invisibly rule the Church. He needed to leave behind a visible authority, one people could locate when searching for religious truth. That visible authority is the papacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Christians R Us
By Jack Taylor
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea3.asp

 

[CEAbbott]

Hi there again folks,

Got another message from my FaceBook Baptist friend regarding the Catholic Church not being the Church Christ established. Before I post it here for your help, I want to thank each and every one of you who wrote to help me debate her accusations against the Church with Catholic apologetics.
Here is the new message she sent me this morning…:

**"The truth is that the Catholic church was started by emperor Constantine 4 century’s after the death and resurrection of Christ. I’d like to add that if you are familiar with the book of Revelation, 7 churches are discussed therein as being the “seat” of Christianity. NOWHERE is mentioned the "church of Rome **

I have been advised by a few people to block her from my FB page, but I don’t think that is the best way to handle this, as I think keeping open communications regarding our faith is the best way to share the faith. As with what happened with my own conversion to the Catholic Church 6 years ago, all it took was for some wonderful devout Catholic to show me the errors of my thinking and what I had been erroneously taught by protestant ministers, that brought me swiftly running to the Catholic Church. So for all its worth, I think I’ll put up with her accusations and questions for now and hopefully, with your help and alot of prayer, she’ll start to see the light. I would also like to add that many a good book has been advised that I should read (and I will read them) in order to know our faith more indepth, but I will learn much faster from you good people who have so much knowledge about the Church, and also, because I could not possibly write her with enough intelligence and/or wisdom to persuade her that her thoughts concerning the Catholic Church are completely incorrect.

***Hi Folks,

If you are reading this and a practicing Catholic, I invite you to my FaceBook page. Please find me on FB by the name “Cindy Quinto” and send me a friend request. I would like to add more good Catholics as friends to my FB account. I only have at present 21 friends and it would be wonderful to find more Catholics to converse with.
God bless you all.***

 

[PJM]

=CEAbbott;7893718]Hi there again folks,

Got another message from my FaceBook Baptist friend regarding the Catholic Church not being the Church Christ established. Before I post it here for your help, I want to thank each and every one of you who wrote to help me debate her accusations against the Church with Catholic apologetics.
Here is the new message she sent me this morning…:

**"The truth is that the Catholic church was started by emperor Constantine 4 century’s after the death and resurrection of Christ. I’d like to add that if you are familiar with the book of Revelation, 7 churches are discussed therein as being the “seat” of Christianity. NOWHERE is mentioned the "church of Rome **

The amazing thing to me is that THEY MIGHT actually bleieve what they are saying:shrug:

The problem with this point is that [putting religion asside for a second], the position is HISTORICALLY inaccurate and can be proven as such, by secular historians:

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition **[A.D. 251]). **

St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 **[A.D. 189]). **

Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 **[A.D. 200]). **

The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 **[A.D
312]). **

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D

ALL of these Pre-date the Great Constantine

It almost seems the more absurd the ststement the more traction it get’s

Just keep posting here and send her what you discover.

God Bless,
Pat**

 

[MarkBrown]

Thank you MarkBrown for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I hope that you don’t mind if I plagarize you; copy your comments and post them to my response on FB. I have already done this with the CF member named “Nathan” from my last thread, and she did not leave any debating comment at that time. It is only yesterday that I received another message from her as shown in this thread. Thank you so much for your posting here. I also realize it will probably do no good to keep up a dialogue with this woman regarding our faith, but at least, it will give her something to think about.
All the best and God bless you!
Cindy

Cindy,

Take what you need or want. I hope it proves to be fruitful for you and especially for her.

blessings

Mark

 

[PJM]

=TimothyH;7895412]A thought has come to my mind about one of my own rules for apologetics, specifically changing the subject when you are hit with obstinance and the standard Protestant arguments.

Change the subject to things you know well and address those. The idea is to show that there is at least one Catholic doctrine which is scriptural. The idea is to show the beauty and truth in at least one Catholic doctrine, preferably something which he had previously denied or never considered. The goal is simply to get him to say, “OK, I see your point” or “You know, I never really thought of it that way” and then move on letting God to the rest. The idea is to leave him thinking that those Catholics arn’t as crazy as he originally thought, at leas on one particular doctrine.

Personally, I’d change the subject and take this guy straight to Mary. I’d go straight to Our Lady, the Blessed Mother. Marian doctrine is something which Catholics have traditionally been cautious about discussing with Protestants but I’d go there. Doing so would hit the good Baptist with the doctrine that he probably believes Catholics are completely wrong about and something which he thinks he knows all about.

Since he knows so much about Revelation, I’d ask him if he keeps God’s commandments and bears witness to Jesus and then go straight to Revelation 12 and show him where those who do so are called Mary’s “Offspring”.

-Tim-

Good Advise IF one actually how to explain such If not it’s just more fuel for the fire.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[RedSoxFan]

Hi there again folks,

Got another message from my FaceBook Baptist friend regarding the Catholic Church not being the Church Christ established. Before I post it here for your help, I want to thank each and every one of you who wrote to help me debate her accusations against the Church with Catholic apologetics.
Here is the new message she sent me this morning…:

**"The truth is that the Catholic church was started by emperor Constantine 4 century’s after the death and resurrection of Christ. I’d like to add that if you are familiar with the book of Revelation, 7 churches are discussed therein as being the “seat” of Christianity. NOWHERE is mentioned the "church of Rome **

I have been advised by a few people to block her from my FB page, but I don’t think that is the best way to handle this, as I think keeping open communications regarding our faith is the best way to share the faith. As with what happened with my own conversion to the Catholic Church 6 years ago, all it took was for some wonderful devout Catholic to show me the errors of my thinking and what I had been erroneously taught by protestant ministers, that brought me swiftly running to the Catholic Church. So for all its worth, I think I’ll put up with her accusations and questions for now and hopefully, with your help and alot of prayer, she’ll start to see the light. I would also like to add that many a good book has been advised that I should read (and I will read them) in order to know our faith more indepth, but I will learn much faster from you good people who have so much knowledge about the Church, and also, because I could not possibly write her with enough intelligence and/or wisdom to persuade her that her thoughts concerning the Catholic Church are completely incorrect.

Uhm who the heck does she think St. Paul was writing to when he wrote the letter to the Romans in the 1st Century?

 

[NotWorthy]

Uhm who the heck does she think St. Paul was writing to when he wrote the letter to the Romans in the 1st Century?

Good point!

Also, who was St. Irenaeus writing of in the late 2nd century when he wrote:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church

." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414*

and again:

[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;

as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416*

Or Ignatius in the early 2nd century:

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…"

 Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110), in ANF,I:73*

I could give you more more from the 1st and 2nd century Church, but I think the point is clear that the Roman Church had supreme thought as “the foundation of the Church” long before Constantine came around.

 

[CEAbbott]

Good point!

Also, who was St. Irenaeus writing of in the late 2nd century when he wrote:
and again:
Or Ignatius in the early 2nd century:

*a

I could give you more more from the 1st and 2nd century Church, but I think the point is clear that the Roman Church had supreme thought as “the foundation of the Church” long before Constantine came around.***

***Wow! That is all so fantastic! Thanks so very much! But I can tell you this – once I copy and paste all that you have written here, her response will be, “WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE BIBLE!!!” What do you want to bet?

God bless you for helping me so tremendously!
Cindy, ***

 

[CEAbbott]

good point!

Also, who was st. Irenaeus writing of in the late 2nd century when he wrote:
and again:
or ignatius in the early 2nd century:
i could give you more more from the 1st and 2nd century church, but i think the point is clear that the roman church had supreme thought as “the foundation of the church” long before constantine came around.***

***you’re awesome! Hope you don’t mind but i just copied and pasted to my fb wall for her to see!

Now it’s on to the children baptism debate.
God bless you all,you are all so fantastic!!!***

 

[NotWorthy]

***Wow! That is all so fantastic! Thanks so very much! But I can tell you this – once I copy and paste all that you have written here, her response will be, “WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE BIBLE!!!” What do you want to bet?

God bless you for helping me so tremendously!
Cindy, ***

Well, remember the context. She claimed that “Rome wasn’t the seat of the Church until Constantine”. We are showing in these posts that Church Church in Rome was the Foundation, throughout the History of the Church, as declared by that very Church.

But, for that matter, why don’t we look at what St. Paul said in Romans 15:20 - 22: *Thus I aspire to proclaim the gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another’s foundation … That is why I have so often been prevented from coming to you.*There was a foundation built by another, hence there was definitely a Church in Rome prior to St. Paul and it was well-founded, or else Paul would have come to correct any inconsistencies.

 

[wfr]

Hi Cindy,

Your friend will say “Show me where that is in the Bible.” I would advise you to get your friend to establish her authroity. I usually ask, “show me from Scrirture where it says that all authority in matterts of faith and doctrine?”. Then I ask, “Show me from Scripture where it gives you the right to correctly interpert Scripture.”

Your friend will not be able to point to a single text which supports her view (but she will try). You most likely will never get her to admit that Scripture does not support her views. Remember that the burden is on her as she is the one who claims that the Bible is our only source of religious authority.

PAX CHRISTI

Bill

 

[DPMartin]

Hi there again folks,

Got another message from my FaceBook Baptist friend regarding the Catholic Church not being the Church Christ established. Before I post it here for your help, I want to thank each and every one of you who wrote to help me debate her accusations against the Church with Catholic apologetics.
Here is the new message she sent me this morning…:

**"The truth is that the Catholic church was started by emperor Constantine 4 century’s after the death and resurrection of Christ. I’d like to add that if you are familiar with the book of Revelation, 7 churches are discussed therein as being the “seat” of Christianity. NOWHERE is mentioned the "church of Rome **

I have been advised by a few people to block her from my FB page, but I don’t think that is the best way to handle this, as I think keeping open communications regarding our faith is the best way to share the faith. As with what happened with my own conversion to the Catholic Church 6 years ago, all it took was for some wonderful devout Catholic to show me the errors of my thinking and what I had been erroneously taught by protestant ministers, that brought me swiftly running to the Catholic Church. So for all its worth, I think I’ll put up with her accusations and questions for now and hopefully, with your help and alot of prayer, she’ll start to see the light. I would also like to add that many a good book has been advised that I should read (and I will read them) in order to know our faith more indepth, but I will learn much faster from you good people who have so much knowledge about the Church, and also, because I could not possibly write her with enough intelligence and/or wisdom to persuade her that her thoughts concerning the Catholic Church are completely incorrect.

CEAbbott
I personally believe it was prophesied when Pilot wrote the “King of the Jews” in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. That might have been first on the Lord’s agenda as to were the baulk ( if you will) of the message would take hold. And I think history has proved that. Considering Paul and Peter finished their work in Rome.

Also if you remember that the Roman solders cast lots for the robe. Hence the rope of the (as we know now ) the true High Priest. Look at the history of the east and west Church and how the cards fell to Rome as the voice of the whole of the Church. Ask them what’s that about.

And for the record, just so you know, they “Baptists” have no recorded history that goes back to the Apostles. Its sparse at best, there here, then there not, then there here again.

 

[PJM]

=CEAbbott;7906734]***Wow! That is all so fantastic! Thanks so very much! But I can tell you this – once I copy and paste all that you have written here, her response will be, “WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IN THE BIBLE!!!” What do you want to bet?

God bless you for helping me so tremendously!
Cindy, ***

THANKS for asking

Matt.16: 15 to 19 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” [16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” [17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19]*** I will give you[PETER/ CC ALL of the ACCESS] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven***

Matt.28:19 to 20 [HAD TO BE PASSED ON INORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS COMMAND] … [19] Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

John.20: 19 to 22 "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” [20] When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. [21] Jesus said to them again, “***Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” *** [22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. [This is a precise transfer of God’s Power and Authority to Peter and the CC…"As the FATHER sent Me; So to I [Jesus/God, SEND YOU!]

John.14:16 to 17 " And I will pray the Father, and he will give you [The HS: Done Deal] another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

And WHO BUT THE CC HAS JESUS CHRIST IN PERSON TO BE THE WARRANTY OF HER TRUE TEACHINGS? >>>> NO-ONE!

John.17: 15 to 19 " I [Jesus] do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. ***Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [19] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. ***

Their ya go!

God Bless you!
Pat