Unstructured Thread...

[wisdomseeker]

To VARK

G. K. Chesterton once said,

“All the empires and kingdoms have failed because of this inherent and continual weakness - that they were founded by strong men.” That’s why empires fail because they were founded by strong men." But this one thing the historic Christian Church was founded on a weak man, Peter, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link. No, not for that reason alone, but because the weak man now has acknowledged Christ and because Christ makes him strong."

there is your evidence. all the quotes i posted.

 

[VARC]

Oh my. you are so smart. St Paul warns us of THE WISE LANGUAGE used by humans to mislead others from the true meaning of the word of God.

Fallacy. Ad Hominem. This is a sign that you are frustrated because Isa refuted your point. No need to get nasty. Just dust yourself off and present your next argument.

 

[VARC]

All this research still you have not proved that Peter was not the one chosen to be the leader of the True church. How much more body of evidence do you need?

Fallacy. Argument from silence. It not up to Isa to find proof that your argument isn’t true. You need to present proof that Peter was chosen to be the leader of the Church and allow Isa time to retort.

 

[VARC]

I am very happy that you know where to find every verse of the Bible yet you fail to understand it.

Another Ad Hominem. Don’t be afraid to engage Isa. Insulting him only makes you look defeated.

 

[VARC]

To VARK

G. K. Chesterton once said,

“All the empires and kingdoms have failed because of this inherent and continual weakness - that they were founded by strong men.” That’s why empires fail because they were founded by strong men." But this one thing the historic Christian Church was founded on a weak man, Peter, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link. No, not for that reason alone, but because the weak man now has acknowledged Christ and because Christ makes him strong."

Again I would ask you not to throw quotes at me without telling what you are attempting to prove. That’s pretty lazy argumentation.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Fallacy. Ad Hominem. This is a sign that you are frustrated because Isa refuted your point. No need to get nasty. Just dust yourself off and present your next argument.

I think you a little confused.

Here is more evidence. Jesus said: and you are Peter and upon this rock I will built my church and the Gates of hell will not prevail against it. and I will give you the keys of the kingdom.
if you still cannot understand this. think of a kingdom how it works. lets say the country of England, there is the queen then there is the prime minister who rules over the empire. if you dont understand this, go back to the times of the OT, read the kingdom of David and who had the keys that ruled over the empire.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Well, hello

Even The Orthodox Protestant ones?

Still wroking on capitilization?

I specified which ones were Orthodox and in communion, and which ones weren’t (which included the Old Believer’s, if that is what you are refering to. Btw, Protestant Orthodox would be a better phrase, if you must use those terms). Are you trying to prove you don’t know the English language? (btw, a professional editor states that is correct as spelled).

Hmmm…not what I heard (or have seen on YouTube).

Ah, yes. I forgot you only consult the most impeccable sources.

then you heard wrong. Or weren’t listening.

Just wondering how Churches that disagree could be the same.

Maybe you should discuss that between Rome and her American branch, and some of her sui juris jurisdictions.

Wow…there goes The King of Kings and God’s Kindgom.

Mattew 20:28

Kind of reminds me of what a once great Catholic once said something to the effect of: “in an effort to rid myself of one Pope, I now have to deal with a hundred popes.”

Take it up with the Fathers.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Again I would ask you not to throw quotes at me without telling what you are attempting to prove. That’s pretty lazy argumentation.

why? dont you know how to read. that is pretty clear to me.

 

[VARC]

I think you a little confused.

Here is more evidence. Jesus said: and you are Peter and upon this rock I will built my church and the Gates of hell will not prevail against it. and I will give you the keys of the kingdom.
if you still cannot understand this. think of a kingdom how it works. lets say the country of England, there is the queen then there is the prime minister who rules over the empire. if you dont understand this, go back to the times of the OT, read the kingdom of David and who had the keys that ruled over the empire.

First you have to tell me WHAT you are attempting to prove before I engage your argument.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

why? dont you know how to read. that is pretty clear to me.

Just VARC doesn’t have to do your reading for you.

 

[VARC]

why? dont you know how to read. that is pretty clear to me.

Argumentation doesn’t work like that. You have to state an assertion THEN you attempt to prove it. You can’t assume that your opponent knows what you’re getting at.

 

[wisdomseeker]

When you are preaching to the choir, you can use strong language.

Wasn’t this the same theologian who denied the immaculate conception?

I think the whole confusion lies on that you are looking at the faults of man instead of trying to understand the word of God. you keep point out the sins of man. if God depended on us to be perfect then His son did not have to come down to save us.

 

[VARC]

I think the whole confusion lies on that you are looking at the faults of man instead of trying to understand the word of God. you keep point out the sins of man. if God depended on us to be perfect then His son did not have to come down to save us.

Do you have a point or not? Kickoff is in 30 mins

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just VARC doesn’t have to do your reading for you.

another ignorant statement. how is he going to answer my posts if he does not read them?

 

[2ndGen]

=Isa Almisry;3275678

O Lord when Thou was baptized in the Jordan
the Worship of the Trinity was made manifest (Acts 1:22).

For the Father bore witness to Thee,
and called Thee His beloved Son (John 5:18-38, 8:13-58, Matthew 16:16-7)

And the Spirit in the form of a dove,
Confirmed the truthfulness of His Word.(John 1:30-4,14:15-26, 15:26, 16:5-15 )

I requested a “doctrine”, not verses that hint at The Trinity. The Trinity as a “docrtine” doesn’t exist in The Holy Bible.

Matter of fact, while you maybe an expert at “other” languages, allow me to introduce you to English for a change:

doc·trine
–noun

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

See that? You cannot find a doctrine on The Trinity because the Apostles never developed one. The Catholic Church did “after” The Apostles passed away.

Therefore the whole theory that a Christian cannot believe in teachings “not” found in The Holy Bible or that weren’t taught by The Primitive Church is simply wrong.

Hence, those Churches that were created based on regions, ethnicities, races, political relations and on independant supreme leaders and their excuse that they left because of changed doctrines or creeds are…wrong.

Christianity since the beginning of Jesus ministry has always evolved with it’s teachings. Even Jesus “changed” and “innovated” beliefs and doctrines.

Who had to decide the format for preaching to Gentiles and to Jews? The Apostles. Obviously Jesus had left that up to them. Who created the doctrine of The Trinity that doesn’t exist in The Holy Bible? The Catholic Church.

If The Orthodox are the “true” Church, why do they have a “Bible” and a “Patriarch”?

None of The Apostles were Patriarchs and the word doesn’t even exist in The Bible (by the same standards you apply to the word “pope” being there that its).

Which Apostle walked into a non-Believing town with a Bible in his hand? Not one.

Yet Orthodox Christians believe in their Patriarchs and use Bibles that The Apostles didn’t use.

Isn’t that a “change” and “innovation” from the original Church of The Apostles?

Again, your canned responses to Protestants won’t work here.

Ok, but the “request” still remains unresponded to.

The Fathers set their seal on the Creed in 381. What’s with the 90 AD date?

What Fathers? The Catholic Church Fathers?

There weren’t any “Orthodox Churches” back then, so it couldn’t Orthodox Church Fathers (unless along with our Bible, you want to hijack them too and try to claim them as your own when none made any allegiance to The Orthodox Church that wouldn’t exist until the 11th Century and all (a-l-l) proclaimed their allegiance to The Bishop of Rome when the Creed was created.

No…when was “your” Creed (not The Catholic Church Creed) established?

Leave our Creed out of it.

That’s Catholic business as it was created by The Catholic Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

St. Clement of Rome in writing in 96 A.D.,

“But if any disobeyed the word spoken by him, Peter, through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger.”
St. Clement was the second or third Pope, the Bishop of Rome and one of the great martyrs.

Tertullian writing in the late 100s wrote, “Was anything withheld from Peter who was called the Rock on which the Church should be built, who also obtained the keys to the kingdom of heaven with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”

more prove that Peter had primacy

 

[2ndGen]

I specified which ones were Orthodox and in communion, and which ones weren’t (which included the Old Believer’s, if that is what you are refering to. Btw, Protestant Orthodox would be a better phrase, if you must use those terms). Are you trying to prove you don’t know the English language? (btw, a professional editor states that is correct as spelled).

 

[wisdomseeker]

St. Cyprian, writing in the 3rd century

“a primacy which is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair.”

St. Ephram,
who lived outside of the Roman Empire
he lived in Syria and the Syrians were hostile enemies to the Romans.
On Holy Week he wrote a hymn that was to be sung in his churches.
St. Ephram is one of the forty Doctors of the Church.

In his hymn he writes and they sang,

“You, Simon, my disciple have I set at the foundation of Holy Church. I call thee Caipha from of old, that thou mightest bear all buildings. Thou art the overseer of those who built for me the Church on earth. If they built anything hateful, your foundation restrains them. You are the fountainhead of my teaching, and you are the head of my disciples. By them I will give drink to all nations. You have the sweetness of life which I will give. It is thee I have chosen to be the firstborn of my teaching, to be heir of my treasures. I have given thee the keys of my kingdom. Behold, thou rulest over all my possessions.”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

St. Clement of Rome in writing in 96 A.D.,

“But if any disobeyed the word spoken by him, Peter, through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger.”

The “him” in the original (sect. 59) is “Him,” i.e. God.

Freudian slip of the Ultramontanist?

Peter is nowhere mentioned in this section of Clement I, nor alluded to.

That you (or your ultramontanist quote mine) felt compelled to interpolate St Peter’s name like a filioque speaks volumes on the shakiness of your position.

 

[2ndGen]

St. Cyprian, writing in the 3rd century

“a primacy which is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair.”

St. Ephram,
who lived outside of the Roman Empire
he lived in Syria and the Syrians were hostile enemies to the Romans.
On Holy Week he wrote a hymn that was to be sung in his churches.
St. Ephram is one of the forty Doctors of the Church.

In his hymn he writes and they sang,

“You, Simon, my disciple have I set at the foundation of Holy Church. I call thee Caipha from of old, that thou mightest bear all buildings. Thou art the overseer of those who built for me the Church on earth. If they built anything hateful, your foundation restrains them. You are the fountainhead of my teaching, and you are the head of my disciples. By them I will give drink to all nations. You have the sweetness of life which I will give. It is thee I have chosen to be the firstborn of my teaching, to be heir of my treasures. I have given thee the keys of my kingdom. Behold, thou rulest over all my possessions.”

Wisdom, The Church Fathers dont’ count…they don’t believe in them.

You have to use sources that they cannot deny;

Like secular history.

That way, they cannot claim “Catholic” bias.

Just turn their questions over onto them…

Where in The Bible does the word “Patriarch” exist?

Did Jesus create the office of Patriarch?

Where in History is The Orthodox Church first seen to exist?

What was The Christian Church “first” known as formally?

Simple questions like that do the trick.