T
Tanner9188
Guest
**Remember…to be steeped in Christ and Christ in you is salvation!
Remember to be steeped in religion and revision history displeases God!
Thought I would add a little color
**
- Status
Remember to be steeped in religion and revision history displeases God!
Thought I would add a little color
**
M
Mickey
Guest
There is nothing wrong with the word “religion”. It simply means a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. You seem to have added a negative connotation to the word.
But as far as revisionist history goes—you are 100% correct. Nothing is more revisionist than the protestant reformation.
E
elvisman
Guest
I couldn’t agree with you more, friend! That’s why every single doctrine that Jesus’ Church has taught since he built it.
Ummmm . . . WRONG.
The warning at the end of Revelation pertains to that book ONLY. This is why it’s so dangerous to start other churches that were NOT established by Christ but by prideful, rebellious men with their own agenda.
Rev 22:18-19 states:
**I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, ****and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book. **
Yup! Again, I couldn’t agree with you more!
Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. Oh, and my ALL-TIME favorite, “Non-Denominational”.
They are every other “church” established by rebellious men, whereas the Catholic Church was started by Christ himself.
E
elvisman
Guest
You’re absolutely right, brother!There is nothing wrong with the word “religion”. It simply means a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. You seem to have added a negative connotation to the word.
But as far as revisionist history goes—you are 100% correct. Nothing is more revisionist than the protestant reformation.
Our Sola Scriptura-adhering friends don’t know the Scriptures.
James 1:27 emphatically states:
***"*Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
E
elvisman
Guest
The only thing you can discern is that you’re both virulent anti-Catholics and are of like-mind.
It has less to do with God and more to do with ignorance and spiritual pride.
That is the reason for your warm feelings towards him.
John 6:65-66 spoke of you and those like you:
**And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." **
As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Perhaps one day, God will reveal himself to you - and I pray he does, friend.
J
jpaul1953
Guest
Tanner9188,Good news; you are seeing the path! (EDITED for Space) I would agree with the Biblical record, which implies that after the resurrection His blood brothers believed. EDITED FOR SPACE ** You are merely speculating; what does your Church teach you to say?**
John 7 "After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4 “For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be {known} publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him."
Not only did they not believe in Him; they mocked Him! No one can believe or understand God unless they are chosen or called; the “calling” apparently had not happened until after His resurrection.
** What does your Church tell you to say in regards to this; don’t answer we already know.**
Neither do I, because like the passages concerning His blood brothers; the context of this passage is easily understood.
Yawn, yawn - and more yawn. Who builds the church? Jesus Who stared the church? Jesus What tools does Jesus use in building His church? All men inspired and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. What role does Peter play? He was indwelt and is but one stone of the building, know as the “body” or “assebly” of the called or elect of whom? Christ Jesus. How is “pillar” described?
" {I write} so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
**You have really digressed; you now are starting to sound like Elvis…all you need now is to shorten the response and add some color and you will be there.
The reason the Holy Spirit is spoken of soo much; which you seem to think is over the top, but forgive if I have overstated that or put thoughts that were not yours; as you continuously do to me.
All believers, the true ones, are very tight with the Holy Spirit, so tight that He literally dwells inside of me. Can’t get much tighter than that. I wish (pray) you had that; then we would not have issues and would be united in “Spirit”; as Jesus says we are; that is all believers in spirit and truth.
I don’t know Freedomwriter** at all, but I can discern he is of God; as a result he is my brother and I love him in Christ and I know he feels the same way about me. I also know that if we were to meet on earth; we would fell as though we new each other for a lifetime, but even if we never meet here on earth; we will know each other in heaven.
God bless the reading of His word and may God bless you!
Just as I expected, you have nothing to say in defense of yourself. If you are yawning understand this. This should be one of the times you most listen, but being that you’re a child at heart, you can’t handle the truth if you didn’t think of it first.
You really could learn something here, but your ego won’t allow you. You have skated your way through these threads with undocumented, unproven chit-chat, but by your thoughts your a Scriptureal Genius. So being the Genius you are, we need not waste your time the truth, because there is only one truth in Tanner 9188’s mind and that truth is everything that comes out of Tanner’s mouth.
You can’t learn when you really think you know everything. I would like to guess that you are probably an egocentric 21-year old kid with the 2nd greatest brain given to mankind.
I believe you would like all of us to respond to your mighty wisdom by saying : " Thank you for sharing some of your perfect wisdom with us, Raboni."
Signing out for the last time with the self-proclaimed 14th Apostle.
God can only Bless you if you are of a humble heart. Please ask for and accept God’s love.
jpaul1953
very dissappointed in your behavior, young fellow
P
PRmerger
Guest
Interesting and revealing comment, humble.It’s kinda fun to watch the whose least arrogant competition. I’m proud to lose that one
We’ve all been to family gatherings where we inwardly groan because Cousin Arrogant has shown up. No one wants to eat with him. No one wants to converse with him. He blusters and pontificates and bullies, yet everyone tolerates his arrogance…why? Because we all know his bravado hides his doubts, his insecurities, his misgivings. The prouder and the more arrogant he is, the more hurting there is in his psyche.
No, one ought not brag about being arrogant. It reveals too much. :sad_yes:
T
Tanner9188
Guest
There is nothing wrong with religion per se; but to the Christian it is all about a personal relationship with God, not religion based on tradtions, rites, and rituals. The Jews in Jesus day were of the most devout and religious people on the planet; and Jesus had plenty to say about that “religion”. That’s is all I am saying. Sorry that I offended you; please forgive!There is nothing wrong with the word “religion”. It simply means a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. You seem to have added a negative connotation to the word.
But as far as revisionist history goes—you are 100% correct. Nothing is more revisionist than the protestant reformation.
T
Tanner9188
Guest
**You just can’t handle the truth; my defense comes from the Bible and some commentaries of godly men and women; but primarily from the Bible. What you may call arrogance, I call confidence in the word of God and lean on God’s promises that those whom He has called to Himself before the foundation of the world He will lead them to the truth. I lean not on my own or someone else’s understanding, as many do because they have no choice; they sound like parrots in my opinion. There is only one truth; it came from the very mouth of God. If I hear or read something from a trusted source; I will compare those thoughts and understandings and test it against the word of God; just as we have been instructed. Otherwise you with be tossed to and fro and never coming to the truth.Tanner9188,
Just as I expected, you have nothing to say in defense of yourself. If you are yawning understand this. This should be one of the times you most listen, but being that you’re a child at heart, you can’t handle the truth if you didn’t think of it first.
You really could learn something here, but your ego won’t allow you. You have skated your way through these threads with undocumented, unproven chit-chat, but by your thoughts your a Scriptureal Genius. So being the Genius you are, we need not waste your time the truth, because there is only one truth in Tanner 9188’s mind and that truth is everything that comes out of Tanner’s mouth.
You can’t learn when you really think you know everything. I would like to guess that you are probably an egocentric 21-year old kid with the 2nd greatest brain given to mankind.
I believe you would like all of us to respond to your mighty wisdom by saying : " Thank you for sharing some of your perfect wisdom with us, Raboni."
Signing out for the last time with the self-proclaimed 14th Apostle.
God can only Bless you if you are of a humble heart. Please ask for and accept God’s love.
jpaul1953
very dissappointed in your behavior, young fellow
God bless you old or young or middle aged man!**
T
Tanner9188
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Religion comes from the Latin *“religare”, *meaning “relationship”–relationship with God.
So when someone claims to be a member of the Catholic religion, he means that he has a personal relationship with God. The most personal that a human being can have!
T
Tanner9188
Guest
**I couldn’t agree with you more, friend! That’s why every single doctrine that Jesus’ Church has taught since he built it.
Ummmm . . . WRONG.
The warning at the end of Revelation pertains to that book ONLY. This is why it’s so dangerous to start other churches that were NOT established by Christ but by prideful, rebellious men with their own agenda.
Rev 22:18-19 states:
I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
**Yup! **Again, I couldn’t agree with you more!
Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. Oh, and my ALL-TIME favorite, “Non-Denominational”.
They are every other “church” established by rebellious men, whereas the Catholic Church was started by Christ himself.
Okay; let’s look at all the warnings about adding or subtracting and it is quite fitting that the very last words of the last scroll of the NT would have such a warning and I believe it can be reasonably shown that it applies to all of Scripture. If for no other reason; the Bible is the very words of God and adding or subtracting from God’s word would not please Him; probably anger Him. Why? Who would want to add or subtract but someone with an evil agenda; The devil was the first starting in the Garden of Eden. Some or many believe verse 18 is John speaking, but verse 20 says He who testifies, which is the Lord Jesus; therefore it is probable that verse 18 is the Lord speaking and not John. (just a side note w/o much significance as far as I understand)
Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
Did the Jews do that? Yes What was the consequences? Do you think it makes sense that it would apply to all God has revealed?
Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” Do you think it is mere coincidence that this warning was put at the end of the Pentateuch? I don’t think so.
Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Does this just apply to Proverbs or this verse or all?
Jeremiah 26:2 "Thus says the LORD, 'Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship {in} the LORD’S house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!
Do you believe he warnings forbids any alteration of this book, the Bible, and any alteration of anything that God has ever written, which goes for all sixty-six books.
I say 66 because the Apocrypha; which have been added to various religions, against all the warnings, have geographical and historical errors and the writer of Maccabees states directly that it is not inspired (If I recall 2 Maccabees). The early Christian teachers used the Apocrypha as an enhancement tool to teach spiritual truths already used in the Bible , but did not consider it inspired. Why? Because it isn’t; but some religions use these books a inspired and therefore add and/or subtract from the very word of God; which He warned about. Don’t you believe that is worth thinking about?
Ezekiel 3:10 "Moreover, He said to me, "Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I will speak to you and listen closely.
This an example of the positive use and not the negative use; there are man more we could add to the positive side of staying the course on the use of God;s word. Hopefully you and others get the whole of the picture and the seriousness of the handling of His word.
Matthew 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Your Church was not started by Christ or Peter as you may claim; that is one thing that a Christian easily discerns, in my opinion and knowledge of both the Bible and religion.**
T
Tanner9188
Guest
The only people that don’t nor can understand Scripture are the one;s that God as not chosen, nor called, nor predestined or written in the Lambs Book of Life. I know with confidence and certainty that my name is there? Do you? Thank you Lord; I love You with all my being and testify this before all in this forum for your Namesake!You’re absolutely right, brother!
Our Sola Scriptura-adhering friends don’t know the Scriptures.
James 1:27 emphatically states:
***"***Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
E
erikd
Guest
Tanner:
I see you’ve been quite busy on this thread. I also see, however, that you suddenly left another thread when the questions seemed to get difficult. When you do your research and figure out who put the Bible together, how many Books were involved, and who really tried to take Books out (a topic you addressed in this thread) we’ll be waiting for you. Hate to see these questions go unanswered.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Actually, Tanner, you don’t know with certainty either.
You do not have assurance of salvation because you believe that there are those who* think* they’re really saved, but were never truly saved in the first place. So, how do you know you’re not in that category?
F
freedomwriter
Guest
THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHI couldn’t agree with you more, friend! That’s why every single doctrine that Jesus’ Church has taught since he built it.
Ummmm . . . WRONG.
The warning at the end of Revelation pertains to that book ONLY. This is why it’s so dangerous to start other churches that were NOT established by Christ but by prideful, rebellious men with their own agenda.
Rev 22:18-19 states:
I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.
**Yup! **Again, I couldn’t agree with you more!
Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. Oh, and my ALL-TIME favorite, “Non-Denominational”.
They are every other “church” established by rebellious men, whereas the Catholic Church was started by Christ himself.
The Book of Acts records for us the birth of the New Testament Church, and some of the history of the first 30 years of Christianity. In spite of great persecution, by the end of the first century A.D. Christian churches had been established in numerous cities throughout the Roman Empire. Primarily because of its location in the capital of the Roman Empire, the church in Rome slowly began gaining some prominence. When the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized the Christian faith, and ended the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313, the church in Rome gained even further prominence. As the church in Rome allied itself with the Roman government, it continued to grow in it’s authority, and influence. As early as the 3rd century the leaders of the church in Rome were claiming for themselves a supremacy over other churches throughout the Empire when it came to matters of doctrine. And by the 6th century the Church in Rome was exercising jurisdiction over the churches. And thus, the Roman Catholic Church was born.
Most scholars, outside of the Catholic Church, reject the popular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that the Church at Rome was established by Christ Himself through the apostle Peter. Why?
- There is no record that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome as the Catholic Church claims.
- Irenaeus, a Bishop in the early church [at Lyons, in modern day France] from 178 – 200 A.D. provided a list of the first 12 bishops of Rome. Peter’s name does not appear. Irenaeus says that the first Bishop of Rome was a man by the name of Linus. Irenaeus is a very trusted source. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.
- Eusebius, (c.260- sometime before 341) who is called the “Father of Church History,” never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome.
- The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Church at Rome, greets more than two dozen people by name at the end of his letter. But not Peter. That would be a strange omission if Peter was living in Rome, and especially if he was the bishop there.
Rome’s claim to supremacy and legal jurisdiction was vigorously resisted by other church leaders and could never be enforced in the eastern portion of the Empire. Dissension remained in the Church between those in the West, based in Rome, and those in the East, based in Constantinople.
This finally led to a major split in the church in 1054, when the Eastern churches broke away from the Church in Rome. The Church in the East went on to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, (also known as the Greek Orthodox Church). The next major split came in the sixteenth century (the 1500’s). In Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517, a Catholic monk by the name of Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the local Catholic Church, protesting numerous teachings of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther’s disagreements with the Catholic Church sparked a fire of protest against the Catholic Church that spread throughout Europe. That movement became known as the Reformation.
If you haven’t see the movie Luther: One Man’s Faith in God Launched the Greatest Revolution of All. I highly recommend it! It is very well done.
E
erikd
Guest
Freedomwriter:THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Most scholars, outside of the Catholic Church, reject the popular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that the Church at Rome was established by Christ Himself through the apostle Peter. Why?
He does tell us that Peter came to Rome “about the end of his days” and was crucified there.
- There is no record that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome as the Catholic Church claims.
- Irenaeus, a Bishop in the early church [at Lyons, in modern day France] from 178 – 200 A.D. provided a list of the first 12 bishops of Rome. Peter’s name does not appear. Irenaeus says that the first Bishop of Rome was a man by the name of Linus. Irenaeus is a very trusted source. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.
- Eusebius, (c.260- sometime before 341) who is called the “Father of Church History,” never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome.
Most scholars date the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church at 590 A.D. when the leader of the church in Rome, Gregory I consolidated the power of the bishops in Rome and set the church on a new course.
- The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Church at Rome, greets more than two dozen people by name at the end of his letter. But not Peter. That would be a strange omission if Peter was living in Rome, and especially if he was the bishop there.
Rome’s claim to supremacy and legal jurisdiction was vigorously resisted by other church leaders and could never be enforced in the eastern portion of the Empire. Dissension remained in the Church between those in the West, based in Rome, and those in the East, based in Constantinople.
This finally led to a major split in the church in 1054, when the Eastern churches broke away from the Church in Rome. The Church in the East went on to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, (also known as the Greek Orthodox Church). The next major split came in the sixteenth century (the 1500’s). In Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517, a Catholic monk by the name of Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the local Catholic Church, protesting numerous teachings of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther’s disagreements with the Catholic Church sparked a fire of protest against the Catholic Church that spread throughout Europe. That movement became known as the Reformation.
If you haven’t see the movie Luther: One Man’s Faith in God Launched the Greatest Revolution of All. I highly recommend it! It is very well done.
I think you’re missing a couple of things. First, St. Irenaeus does mention Peter. Here’s what he says:
- The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.
Adversus Haereses, Book 3, Chapter 3, Verse 3
While St. Irenaeus does not specifically say “Peter was the first Pope” he does say that the Church was founded and built by the Apostles, who were commissioned directly by Jesus. The reason Catholics believe that St. Peter was the leader of the Church is simply because he was the leader of the Apostles:
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [R] +]
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. [R] +]
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus, speaking directly to Peter, changed his name from Simon to Cephas which means “rock” and then promised to hand him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus also gave him authority (John 20:21) and passed on the title of Shepherd (John 21:15-17) to him, a title within the Gospels only bestowed onto Jesus Himself.
As far as the Apostle Paul, remember that he wrote to people he called his “children” (1 Tim. 1:2, 2 Tim. 1:2). Peter was his elder and teacher. As you know, Paul and Barnabas came to Peter in Acts 15 to settle the Christian circumcision dispute. Peter, the head of the Apostles, spoke for all of Christendom (Acts 15:7-11).
If you want to cover any other issues I’d be happy to, but let me leave you with this final note. If St. Irenaeus and Eusebius both claim that the Apostles built the Church and handed the Episcopate to St. Linus, and you obviously put some credence into their writings or else you would not have utilized them, would that in itself not conclude that Jesus, who commissioned the Apostles to spread the Gospel throughout the world was the original founder of this Church? If Jesus commissioned the Apostles, then the Apostles directly appointed Linus, Linus appointed Anacletus, and so on until you get to Pope Benedict XVI, would that in itself not show you how the Church originated?
One more thing about Papal authority is that you should read some of the early Papal writings. Pope Clement I wrote a letter to the Corinthians in the first century that showed Papal authority. This letter was sent to Corinth with a delegation who was to make sure the contents of the letter were enforced by the Church in Corinth. Pope Leo the great, in the middle of the fifth century, wrote some amazing letters to Bishops and Congretations instructing them in the true worship of the Lord as taught by the Church built by Jesus Himself.
E
elvisman
Guest
Ahhhh, NOW I know with whom I am dealing. Not just an anti-Catholic - but an extremely poorly educated one.THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
The Book of Acts records for us the birth of the New Testament Church, and some of the history of the first 30 years of Christianity. In spite of great persecution, by the end of the first century A.D. Christian churches had been established in numerous cities throughout the Roman Empire. Primarily because of its location in the capital of the Roman Empire, the church in Rome slowly began gaining some prominence. When the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized the Christian faith, and ended the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313, the church in Rome gained even further prominence. As the church in Rome allied itself with the Roman government, it continued to grow in it’s authority, and influence. As early as the 3rd century the leaders of the church in Rome were claiming for themselves a supremacy over other churches throughout the Empire when it came to matters of doctrine. And by the 6th century the Church in Rome was exercising jurisdiction over the churches. And thus, the Roman Catholic Church was born.
Most scholars, outside of the Catholic Church, reject the popular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that the Church at Rome was established by Christ Himself through the apostle Peter. Why?
He does tell us that Peter came to Rome “about the end of his days” and was crucified there.
- There is no record that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome as the Catholic Church claims.
- Irenaeus, a Bishop in the early church [at Lyons, in modern day France] from 178 – 200 A.D. provided a list of the first 12 bishops of Rome. Peter’s name does not appear. Irenaeus says that the first Bishop of Rome was a man by the name of Linus. Irenaeus is a very trusted source. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.
- Eusebius, (c.260- sometime before 341) who is called the “Father of Church History,” never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome.
Most scholars date the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church at 590 A.D. when the leader of the church in Rome, Gregory I consolidated the power of the bishops in Rome and set the church on a new course.
- The apostle Paul, in his letter to the Church at Rome, greets more than two dozen people by name at the end of his letter. But not Peter. That would be a strange omission if Peter was living in Rome, and especially if he was the bishop there.
Rome’s claim to supremacy and legal jurisdiction was vigorously resisted by other church leaders and could never be enforced in the eastern portion of the Empire. Dissension remained in the Church between those in the West, based in Rome, and those in the East, based in Constantinople.
This finally led to a major split in the church in 1054, when the Eastern churches broke away from the Church in Rome. The Church in the East went on to be known as the Eastern Orthodox Church, (also known as the Greek Orthodox Church). The next major split came in the sixteenth century (the 1500’s). In Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517, a Catholic monk by the name of Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the local Catholic Church, protesting numerous teachings of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther’s disagreements with the Catholic Church sparked a fire of protest against the Catholic Church that spread throughout Europe. That movement became known as the Reformation.
If you haven’t see the movie Luther: One Man’s Faith in God Launched the Greatest Revolution of All. I highly recommend it! It is very well done.
I visited your little anti-Catholic website that you copied and pasted from “alwaysbeready.com”. The charge that the Catholic Church started in the 3rd, 4th or 5th centuriy has been debunked for 1500 years and is also heavily debunked by just about every major Protestant scholar from R.C. Sproul to Norman Geisler. Heck - secular history has a better record of the Church than you. I can’t believe there are still websites out there that make these ridiculous claims.
Also - Irenaeus DOES include Peter in his list of Popes in his Against Heresies - CONTRARY to your plagiarized claim.
Look - if you hate God’s Church - so be it. BUT - don’t tell lies about her. You will be held accountable to God for this when you are judged.
**Do your homework and don’t paste such sloppy garbage and try to pass it off as "fact". **
INCREDIBLE!
E
erikd
Guest
Freedomwriter:THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Most scholars, outside of the Catholic Church, reject the popular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that the Church at Rome was established by Christ Himself through the apostle Peter. Why?
I forgot one more thing: Which scholars? The reason I ask is that even secular encyclopedias disagree with your statement. It seems that only non-Catholic Christians, who have a very strong belief in their leaders (like you in Luther) believe this. History certainly does not support this claim so I’d like to find out which scholars reject this and what their background is making them an actual scholar.
Thanks in advance.
E
elvisman
Guest
Again - you don’t know the Scriptures or the Historic Christian faith. You have NO certainty of anything - only a moral certitude - ONLY if you remain faithful:
Matt. 24:13
"He who endures to the end will be saved"
Romans 11:22****
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Hebrews 10:26-27****
“If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”
2 Peter 2:26-27****
**For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. **
**For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them. **
Matt. 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” shall enter the kingdom of heaven’."
1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified".
1 Cor. 4:4
"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified. It is the Lord who judges me".
- Status