Catholic Heresy (for the record)

[Cloud9]

Oops, gave you the wrong title valiant.

The training book is called "Sons of God"

God's Kingdom Ministries :: Chapter 1: Becoming a Son

 

[valiant]

So where in scripture does it say that? Nowhere to my certain knowldge.
It says "all scripture is valuable" (and paraphrases) nowhere does it say "only in scripture is truth". It cannot be true, because to be true, logically scripture woudl have to say it , and it does not.

That is not logically true. you have no idea of what being logical means. but then you come from an illogical church.

God always presents His truth so that those whose hearts are open will see and understand, and those whose hearts are hard will not understand.. This was His stated reason for speaking in parables. So you see it was quite logical for God to leave us to appreciate the truth for ourselves.

It actually says the "pillar of truth is the church" (it does not say pillar of truth is scripture - so Jesus made a mistake you think?)

where does Jesus say that the pillar of truth is the Roman Catholic church?

Which church is the pillar of truth? The church whose teachings are in line with those of the Apostle. Certainly not the Roman Catholic church which came into existence in 8th century'

The Papacy was not organized until the second half of the 8th century. It broke away from the Eastern Church under Pippin III (in the Ency. Brit., 13th Ed., vol. 21, page 636; also the Papacy, by Abbe Guette." ​

-

it also says "hold true to tradition taught by word of mouth and letter" (so the gospels are irrelevant you think?)

The tradition taught by word WAS the Gospels as the early church made clear

Both of which are testament to the objective reality, that jesus gave us apostles to hand down truth, not writings, and that the new testament scripture came later.

Yes within the fifty years after His death, written by or under the authority of the Apostles.

Indeed the concept of bible christian owning a bible was only financially possible in the last couple of centuries at most! Till then scripture was used in liturgy.

In fact the Bible was available to be read in churches. UNTIL THE ROMAN CATHOLICS FORBADE IT. Many would take copies from it. They would also learn it by heart as the Jews had the Old Testament.

Of course it was later made more difficult when the Roman Catholic church burned Bibles and murdered those who tried to sell them, so as to STOP people from finding out the truth about them.

The early fathers give testament to what was handed down. Bishops. Liturgy. Sacraments. Real presence and baptism administered only by bishops or those they empower. So on.

the genuine early fathers said nothing about liturgy and sacraments. Nor did they mention the real presence. Later fathers gradually distorted baptism by applying it to infants.

 

[Elin]

Bible thumping is devil thumping and if you want to knock the devil out once and for all time then do it with knowledge.

But you will have to read and acquire it first.

I'm hearing Gnosticism. . .

 

[Cloud9]

That is all I have to say guys.

Get your knowledge. God's knowledge is the power to change the world.

God likes to change the world through one person at a time.

Amen and Peace Be With You, All!

 

[valiant]

In his statement of faith he simply says that Jesus Christ existed before creation. That is an indication that he does not see Him as eternal.

May I suggest you do your proselytising on another thread. Or do you also see yourself as a heretic?

 

[Cloud9]

I'm hearing Gnosticism. . .

LOL...Gnosticism?

Sin is demonic and sin is contagious like leprosy.

That is why God compares it to leprosy and leaven.

We are living in a leavened Age...leavened with sin...

We could have all been whiter by now but the early church let the evil pagan hell doctrine in.

But doctrinal error is correctable...we just have to be brave and persevere and love the truth....Jesus is worth the effort.

 

[Cloud9]

In his statement of faith he simply says that Jesus Christ existed before creation. That is an indication that he does not see Him as eternal.

May I suggest you do your proselytising on another thread. Or do you also see yourself as a heretic?

Why don't you email him and ask him personally?

He is in Holland right now on one of God's assignments but he usually responds to sincere inquiries. Though he has a very heavy schedule.

His email is godskingdm@aol.com

 

[MikeHenderson]

The Pillar of Truth is the Church of God, not the Catholic Church.

1 Timothy 3:15
[SUP]15 [/SUP] but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

How can the Catholics say they are the True Church when they went around murdering people who refused to convert to Catholicism? Do you Catholics not know that those who kill other people can never enter into Heaven?

Exodus 20:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP] "You shall not murder.

Here is a verse just for Cloud9.

Matthew 10:28
[SUP]28 [/SUP] And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Jesus Christ Himself is saying He will destroy people in Hell!

Therefore for Cloud9 to say there is no Hell proves that Cloud9 is NOT a child of God! He is a wolf in sheep clothing teaching the doctrines of Satan as truths from God!

Reject what Cloud9 teaches! Reject what mwc68 teaches! Reject what the Catholic Church teaches!

Only God has the Truth! And the Truth is only in God!

 

[Cloud9]

So it may be a week or two before Jones responds valiant.

 

[mikeuk]

have no idea of what being logical means

Another insult, since I proved your logic was faulty, you cannot fault mine.

Those were questions for someone else.
I asked Mike Henderson how he answers the same questions, since you clearly cannot.

I did not ask you valiant - you have no interest in scripture, history or logic, only twisting it all to fit your a priori belief set, snatching verses out of context to do it.

Both from scripture and history, I demonstrated that the greek only distinction you made in Petra Petros is irrelevant, because the conversation was Aramaic, and even in Greek your version does not make idiomatic sense either without "but" "other" instead of "and" "this". From which we conclude you have decided the meaning regardless of truth. I proved that Augustine quotes the entire succession from Peter through bishops of Rome to his time, and uses that scripture as basis for it, as does Irenaus 3. Yet still you ignore it all Anything goes so long as it is not catholic with you, and that too is disingenuous, you quote the reformers as disagreeing with catholicism, yet the key reformers disagree with you!


You are beyond hope.

You are welcome to offbeat eccentric and wacky views, Britain is a colourful place because of its band of eccentrics, just do not present them as anything other than eccentric.

 

[Elin]

I'm hearing Gnosticism. . .

Bible thumping is devil thumping and if you want to knock the devil out once and for all time then
do it with knowledge.

But you will have to read and acquire it first.

I would be Berean and research it.

I already gave two research sources in this thread.

Why would anyone in their right mind want the fire in the bible to be literal?

That is merciless thinking.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to be subject to the wrath of God by being apart from Christ, but there it is right there in Jn 3:36; Ro 5:9, 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1Th 1:10; Rev 19:15.

That is neither "wrathful" nor "merciless" thinking.
That is Biblical thinking.

Your problem is unbelief. . .not "the ancient languages."

I like to think spiritual fire is like energy.

It says every knee will bow to God....this life isn't the cut off point for every knee bowing....God can make everyone who didn't bow in this life bow in the next one. He is that powerful.

Love saves the most not fear.

Do you really think God is going to raise everyone at the Great White Throne only to execute and torture endlessly 95 percent of the world's population?

I don't....that is why you research the ancient languages....the devil can quote scriptures...anybody can...but the ancient language words have fixed meanings....

The meaning of the language of the NT is clear.

No need to cloak one's unbelief in the unknown meaning of "the ancient languages."

That is all I have to say guys.

Good choice. . .

 

[notuptome]

They may require scholarship, they cannot prevent such as you superimposing your opinions on what is simply not there.That is the problem valiant. You have no regard for history or the meaning of scripture, you twist it all to your apriori beliefs so all that study was wasted on you.
We DO know what language was spoken, because for the common man such as Peter aramaic was the working language.
And if history is not enough for you, scripture says it clearly in acts 1-19 "the people of jerusalem called in in their language akeldama, fields of blood" which is ARAMAIC
And the ONLY reason you contest it is you do not like the obvious meaning.
Petra and petros are the same. Peter is the rock of the church.

Even the phrase "thou art peter, and upon this rock" is a protestant way of writing what is there.
It should read

either Simon....thou art (I will call you) peter and upon this (large) peter I build my church.
or Simon.... thou art (I will call you) rock and upon this (large) rock I will build my church

Same word. So either peter or rock should be used.

Your translation makes no historic sense - it was aramaic,
but neither does it make grammatical or idiomatic sense

Because if Jesus were trying to distinguish ordinary idiom would say "but" or "other"
Peter thou are a rock, but on this other rock... He did not say it, because that is not what he meant or said.

NOTHING IN YOUR VERSION MAKES SENSE OTHER THAN YOUR DETERMINATION TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS.
I could ask 100 kids and they would say it was Peter. "revealed to children, hidden from wise men" spring to mind, except everything you say does not point at wisdom.

Then take sola scriptura. " all truth is in the bible " or "all necessary truth is in the bible" (protestants cannot even agree on it)_

But you make the classic logical error of assuming A AND B is the same as NOT A and NOT B ie that which is not in the bible is not necessary for salvation.

Nor is your view logically possible. Because "IF all necessary truth were in the bible" that very statement IS in your view a necessary truth so has to be in the bible to be logically possible. It is not. So logically false.

Jesus never said it either. Because the scripture on which you rely was not written then.
Sola scriptura is logicall, biblically and historically false.

It leads to all sorts of stupidity. For example Paul said "hold true to tradition passed on by word of mouth and letter" - why ? because the gospels were not in circulation yet. But taking sola scriptura "your way" - I can use it to say that the gospels are not to be used, because only word of mouth and letter?

Sola scriptura is provably silly. Not historical. Not biblical. Not logical

So Valiant study logic and history , this time without twisting what it says, so the obvious translation of "peter the rock" prevails. So learn something before you comment again.

Well the problem with your scholarly argument is that the scripture thoroughly refutes it. Jesus Christ is the rock, the chief cornerstone, the foundation upon which the church, living, is built and founded. This is the church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

Scripture does teach that there will be some who profess themselves to be wise, scholarly, but the are fools. They have chosen the way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof is death.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Cloud9]

Eternal torment is a message of condemnation!

Love saves the most.

Condemnation Interferes With Intimacy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u6MxzPvQMng

 

[Cloud9]

Why would anyone in their right mind want to be subject to the wrath of God by being apart from Christ, but there it is right there in Jn 3:36; Ro 5:9, 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; 1Th 1:10; Rev 19:15.

That is neither "wrathful" nor "merciless" thinking.
That is Biblical thinking.

Your problem is unbelief. . .not "the ancient languages."


The meaning of the language of the NT is clear.

No need to cloak one's unbelief in the unknown meaning of "the ancient languages."


Good choice. . .

I am sorry but I believe better than you do.

I evangelized in unsafe quarters.

I am brave enough to put in,the work and establish the truth.

No fear of man is going to hold me back...I am a Caleb...I am a Joshua...

You identify with the crowd if you want.

I identify with Jesus Christ and the Apostles. That is my true family and I am a citizen of Heaven and my true family is in Heaven.

 

[mikeuk]

Well the problem with your scholarly argument is that the scripture thoroughly refutes it. Jesus Christ is the rock, the chief cornerstone, the foundation upon which the church, living, is built and founded. This is the church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

Scripture does teach that there will be some who profess themselves to be wise, scholarly, but the are fools. They have chosen the way that seemeth right unto man but the end thereof is death.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Comment on the arguments, not just your apriori conclusion!
Luther and Calvin both thought Peter was special because of that scripture.

They did not resort to the unhistorical, unbiblical and illogical arguments trying to separate petra from petros.
For sure, Calvins views on it are just as wacky. He says it applies to everyone who is part of the rock, not just Peter, but does afford Peter the word exceptional because he is the one first named!

Iit is easier to believe what it actually says in Aramaic one and the same.
Thou art ( I will call you) Peter and upon thisPeter I will build my Church
Even if you accept the unjustifiable, and unhistorical that it was spoken in Greek

Thou art ( I will call you) Peter and upon this (large?) Peter I will build my Church
Nowhere does he say "thou art peter but upon this ...other peter over here, I will build my church!
Nowhere does he say "I will call you rock but upon this ...other rock over here, I will build my church!, nor can any stretching of Grammar or semantics make it say that!

 

[valiant]

Another insult, since I proved your logic was faulty, you cannot fault mine.

so it is ok for you to say I am illogical, but if I say you are it is an insult?. Sounds like good Roman Catholic logic LOL

Those were questions for someone else.
I asked Mike Henderson how he answers the same questions, since you clearly cannot.

what you mean is you could not deal with my answers? you are long on talk, short on facts.

I did not ask you valiant - you have no interest in scripture, history or logic, only twisting it all to fit your a priori belief set, snatching verses out of context to do it.

let others judge.

Both from scripture and history, I demonstrated that the greek only distinction you made in Petra Petros is irrelevant, because the conversation was Aramaic, and even in Greek your version does not make idiomatic sense either without "but" "other" instead of "and" "this".

Does this also apply to Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret and the others I cited? You demonstrate nothing.. You just shoot your mouth off. You have no answers.

From which we conclude you have decided the meaning regardless of truth.

well you would, wouldn't you as you don't know the truth?

proved that Augustine quotes the entire succession from Peter through bishops of Rome to his time,

yes, somewhat inaccurately. but all you produced was a list. Augustine said NOTHING about what it demonstrated. Indeed he was himself doubtful of its value as I have demonstrated.

and uses that scripture as basis for it,

he does nothing of the kind. NO EARLY CHURCH FATHER USES MATT 16 TO PROVE THE PAPACY.

as does Irenaus 3. Yet still you ignore it all

No I answered it ALL you simply dare not believe it. and you NEVER prove your own case.

Anything goes so long as it is not catholic with you, and that too is disingenuous, you quote the reformers as disagreeing with catholicism, yet the key reformers disagree with you!

you are now being stupid again. there were hundreds of reformers how are Luther and Calvin 'the key reformers? they had nothing to do with reformation in the UK. And I note you give no references LOL it is all your invention

You are welcome to offbeat eccentric and wacky views, Britain is a colourful place because of its band of eccentrics, just do not present them as anything other than eccentric.

If the reformers were offbeat eccentric (did not agree with the Roman Catholic church) thank God for offbeat eccentric LOL

 

[Cloud9]

Catholics are famous for their guilt.

Messages of condemnation will put the spirit of bondage on you.

Satan's Guilt Trip Trap.

All because Catholics granted a fallible man, the pope, power over themselves.

 

[valiant]

Comment on the arguments, not just your apriori conclusion!

Coming from you that's hilarious !!!!

Luther and Calvin both thought Peter was special because of that scripture.

we all think he was special.. we do not accept that he had successors.

 

[Cloud9]

You know what....you don't need a priest to absolve you.

You are a priest in the Melchizedek Order and Jesus will absolve you!

Then he will teach you to be a forgiver like He is.

 

[Cloud9]

In his statement of faith he simply says that Jesus Christ existed before creation. That is an indication that he does not see Him as eternal.

May I suggest you do your proselytising on another thread. Or do you also see yourself as a heretic?

Existed before creation means he existed before time began and that is the definition of eternity or eternal.

We only have time because God gave it to us for this current life.