Salvation

[jerry_kelso]

Excuse me for smiling What is your proof of this?
Excuse me for smiling What is your proof of this? The Apostles were mostly Jews and are Definitely Catholics!

“The Way” were later called “Christians” who later were [are] called “Catholics.”** Notice I’m providing evidence of my position.**

“The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”… “From this time forward the technical signification of the word Catholic meets us with increasing frequency both East and West, until by the beginning of the fourth century it seems to have almost entirely supplanted the primitive and more general meaning.” Encyclopedia

You will notice that the term Protestant is not in the bible either and it came along about 1,400 YEARS AFTER the term “Catholic.” Friend your Pontificating without knowing what your talking about.

Again you don’t know what your talking about. PLUS it’s a different topic. You want to start a discussion on Peter and “the Rock” start a new String and PLEASE let me know about it.

What the heck is the “messianic Kingdom“? If it has to do with getting to heaven then the terms are synonymous.

“It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter. St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.”

Thank you for your observation friend. By the way where in the Bible does it say “everything is in the bible.” The closest references I could find are: Jn. 20: 30-31; Jn. 21: 24-25. Perhaps you can further educate me?

Love and prayers my friend,
Pat

PJM: the real truth is that we will not come to the same conclusion on everything because of hermeneutics and disagreement on history.
I have no problem with the fact that just because the Bible omits facts that history can’t be true. The problem is when it contradicts plain reasoning of a statement that is in the Bible. This is. The same reasoning that you use about scriptures that you say is open to interpretation. You are not worried about the interpretation that a member has as long as it doesn’t contradict your main doctrine and dogma of the church.
Your misuse of the word catholic and deception of Peter being the apostle in Rome like he started te church there is not right. And the church had been wanting Paul to come for years, so they couldn’t have started it together. Furthermore, Paul was the apostle to the gentiles mainly while Peter was apostle to the jews.
If you don’t understand the messianic kingdom you don’t understand the Kingdom of Heaven message which is another subject that is critical to getting doctrine right.
The only thing that indisputable is in accordance to your hermeneutics and history. The indisputable fact is that it doesn’t reconcile with the scriptures and it’s context.
God Bless Jerry Kelso

 

[PJM]

=jerry kelso;6781979]PJM: the real truth is that we will not come to the same conclusion on everything because of hermeneutics and disagreement on history.
I have no problem with the fact that just because the Bible omits facts that history can’t be true. The problem is when it contradicts plain reasoning of a statement that is in the Bible. This is. The same reasoning that you use about scriptures that you say is open to interpretation. You are not worried about the interpretation that a member has as long as it doesn’t contradict your main doctrine and dogma of the church.
Your misuse of the word catholic and deception of Peter being the apostle in Rome like he started te church there is not right. And the church had been wanting Paul to come for years, so they couldn’t have started it together. Furthermore, Paul was the apostle to the gentiles mainly while Peter was apostle to the jews.
If you don’t understand the messianic kingdom you don’t understand the Kingdom of Heaven message which is another subject that is critical to getting doctrine right.
The only thing that indisputable is in accordance to your hermeneutics and history. The indisputable fact is that it doesn’t reconcile with the scriptures and it’s context.
God Bless Jerry Kelso

God bless you Jerry. I hope God can find you in your mke believe world?

You have yet to address a single question of mine in HOW MANY POST? BYE BYE

 

[jerry_kelso]

God bless you Jerry. I hope God can find you in your mke believe world?

You have yet to address a single question of mine in HOW MANY POST? BYE BYE

PJM: 1. I beg to differ I have addressed yourr major concerns.
2. I agreed when you mentioned that if it is not in the Bible it doesn’t mean something can’t be right form an outside source. But when it contradicts the scripture that is a plain statement of fact or a line of reasononing will progress then the Bible is right.
3. I also agreed with you on the one true church, apostolic message and apostolic authority. The problem is that the one true church is not within a denomination but a body of believers. Some catholics have said they believe some protestants will be saved and they didn’t say because they came into the catholic church or believed their doctrine. If the catholic apostles believe that a protestant can be saved would be an oxymoron with the line of thinking on the one church.
4. The apostolic message and apostolic authority I agree is of God but you try to downplay the scripture except for when it seems to suit you in your main doctrines. I’m for history but you take it extreme. You may not agree but the truth is there are times your history lines up with the Bible and other times it doesn’t. The problem is not if history and the Bible say something different but, rather when you choose history over the Bible in instances when the Bible is right on the issue.
5. I showed you what the scripture meant about Peter,the rock, and how the keys to the kingdom had to do with the messianic kingdom and you didn’t even know what it was or is?
6. I have been gracious to you in my posts and you say that you hope I find God in my dream world. I have written it out plainly and if you cannot understand it now then you fail to answer to the truth which makes you not be honest with yourself.
I have been called catholic by protestants and protestants by catholics. Thank god I am neither one but, I am a true believer in Christ that has been redeemed and saved by the blood of Christ and I am highly favored of God and living in his victory each and everyday serving my eternal purpose and destiny in this life giving of myself for the sake of the call to a lost and dying world and to encourage, exhort, edify, challenge, reason and study to show myself approved of God.
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt I am on my way to heaven.
Praise God!!! Jerry Kelso