Has anyone found secret messages in the bible?
- Thread starter NTNT58
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
i submit further that Ignatius wrote to the church in Rome in the first century and mentioned no bishop, and he, being from Antioch, spoke to them with authority, not in obeaience to them
The premeninence of the Roman church is a myth. the first person called pope was from. Alexandria in the 4th century. Roman bishops created the idea of being in charge of all. of the churches in the Roman empire completely out of their imagination a few hundred years after the Roman empire itself.oved.to Constantinople. it is a purely cultural and political machination born in the socual vacuum created by the empire moving its seat east towards its center.
so.
you really don't have any argument for the RCC.
and that's why it so happens that proteatantism exists, and eastern orthodoxy exists - the latter, having scoffed and laughed at the RCC for 1800 years, knowing how preposterously asinine their supposed claim to authority is and. fully. rejecting it whole cloth with all the authority of the councils and the scripture. Augistine Himself argues that the keys of the kingdom belong to everyone that confesses Christ is LORD, not to Peter peculiarly.
The premeninence of the Roman church is a myth. the first person called pope was from. Alexandria in the 4th century. Roman bishops created the idea of being in charge of all. of the churches in the Roman empire completely out of their imagination a few hundred years after the Roman empire itself.oved.to Constantinople. it is a purely cultural and political machination born in the socual vacuum created by the empire moving its seat east towards its center.
so.
you really don't have any argument for the RCC.
and that's why it so happens that proteatantism exists, and eastern orthodoxy exists - the latter, having scoffed and laughed at the RCC for 1800 years, knowing how preposterously asinine their supposed claim to authority is and. fully. rejecting it whole cloth with all the authority of the councils and the scripture. Augistine Himself argues that the keys of the kingdom belong to everyone that confesses Christ is LORD, not to Peter peculiarly.
Catholicism didn't even become official in Rome until 380ad.
Just because the word pope isn't mentioned doesn't mean anything. The words like trinity and rapture aren't mentioned either, but they are still a biblical concept. The many verses I provided are proof of Peter being the chief apostle, and Mathew 16:19 in light of Isiah 22 is biblical proof of papal succession.
Where does he say that?
Just because the word pope isn't mentioned doesn't mean anything. The words like trinity and rapture aren't mentioned either, but they are still a biblical concept. The many verses I provided are proof of Peter being the chief apostle, and Mathew 16:19 in light of Isiah 22 is biblical proof of papal succession.
Where does he say that?
I'm the one who actually quotes from and relies on the word of God here, not you. You haven't quoted a single Bible verse to back up any of your erroneous opinions. I haven't assumed anything about you unless you ignored questions multiple times or danced around it, then it's a safe bet to assume you have something to hide or you are stuck in your hard-headed opinions. Stop rebelling against God (Romans 13:1-2).
Acts 15.
Who presided over the first church council ever? not Peter.
and i present to you further the history of the orthodox church: Christ is the head, and no single man ever had preeminent rulership, but each center was equal.
Peter did not have control. over the disciples. Jesus did.
if anyone can be shown to hold sway over them al outside of Christ, it is Judas, who almost convinced them to rebel against Jesus - see John 12, Mark 14 and Matthew 26. Peter ne er received the sop, Judas did. Judas held the money. Judas had the authority and power, Peter just had a big mouth - which got him in trouble more often than it got his k. praise.
Don't get me wrong - yes Christ greatly honored Peter. but He has honored the weakest vessel as the greatest, and He made it clear in His word that Paul rebruked Peter, not the other way around - not the same make Paul boast, but to make it clear Peter is not above anyone but as Paul, a servant.
the RCC demonstrably recounts a completely imaginary, false history when it tries a to link itself to Peter. likewise the theological argument is completely imaginary and unsupportable, and even if it was supportwd, the implications is that the current head of f the eastern Roman empire controls the church, which is Moscow aka "Magog" not the RCC.
Who presided over the first church council ever? not Peter.
and i present to you further the history of the orthodox church: Christ is the head, and no single man ever had preeminent rulership, but each center was equal.
Peter did not have control. over the disciples. Jesus did.
if anyone can be shown to hold sway over them al outside of Christ, it is Judas, who almost convinced them to rebel against Jesus - see John 12, Mark 14 and Matthew 26. Peter ne er received the sop, Judas did. Judas held the money. Judas had the authority and power, Peter just had a big mouth - which got him in trouble more often than it got his k. praise.
Don't get me wrong - yes Christ greatly honored Peter. but He has honored the weakest vessel as the greatest, and He made it clear in His word that Paul rebruked Peter, not the other way around - not the same make Paul boast, but to make it clear Peter is not above anyone but as Paul, a servant.
the RCC demonstrably recounts a completely imaginary, false history when it tries a to link itself to Peter. likewise the theological argument is completely imaginary and unsupportable, and even if it was supportwd, the implications is that the current head of f the eastern Roman empire controls the church, which is Moscow aka "Magog" not the RCC.
Got you, you lying narcissist! You keep quoting me out of context because you don't actually read anything before replaying with blind ignorance! That's not what I said. I said...
I haven't assumed anything about you unless you ignored questions multiple times or danced around it, then it's a safe bet to assume you have something to hide or you are stuck in your hard-headed opinions.
I haven't assumed anything about you unless you ignored questions multiple times or danced around it, then it's a safe bet to assume you have something to hide or you are stuck in your hard-headed opinions.
-
1
- Show all
It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, “To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” After all, it is not just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity.
- Augustiner of Hippo, Sermon 295, 1-2, 4, 7-8 (PL 38, 1348-1352)
