Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Brakelite]

Nice try dodge ball. Here is the question again: In all your years of searching, have you found a Church leader that meets your conditions?

"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20
My question to you is, in light of the above verse, why are you a Cathol8c?

You found a Church leader that meets your conditions. Are you still under their tutelage?

I found a church that teaches the closest to Bible truth that I know. And yes, I'm still a member. And yes, I still have questions I actively put to my church leaders regarding doctrine, because we also believe in religious freedom and liberty of conscience, so we don't incinerate those who differ from us, do long as they don't impede the preaching of the gospel.

You already know who my church leaders are. Who is yours? Or what denomination is it that has this leader that meets YOUR conditions?

You continue to refer to my conditions. I find that interesting. Did you join your church having no conditions? You didn't care whether they taught the truth or not? You didn't care of their history is the most abominably despicable murderous history even compared to secular rulers? If you didn't have any criteria, conditions, or expectations at all, why on earth did you become a Catholic?

You already know who my church leaders are. Who is yours? Or what denomination is it that has this leader that meets YOUR conditions

I belong to a group of Christians who the Pope, your leader, has described as terrorists. Fundamentalist, Bible believing, and expecting the imminent coming of Jesus. I believe in having a personal relationship with Jesus. I believe in pacing the gospel to everyone, because not everyone is saved. I want no-one to miss out on eternal life. Your leader believes in none of those things. Your leader is a Jesuit whose beliefs were sourced through spiritualism and demonic channeling. You say you stick to the Bible and facts. Yet you trust a Jesuit for your leader? You trust a Jesuit to tell you the truth? Oh wait. You don't have conditions do you, so truth doesn't matter.

 

[The Learner]

I have not. What's it about?

read to here

 

[Marymog]

I found a church that teaches the closest to Bible truth that I know. And yes, I'm still a member. And yes, I still have questions I actively put to my church leaders regarding doctrine, because we also believe in religious freedom and liberty of conscience, so we don't incinerate those who differ from us, do long as they don't impede the preaching of the gospel.

You continue to refer to my conditions. I find that interesting. Did you join your church having no conditions? You didn't care whether they taught the truth or not? You didn't care of their history is the most abominably despicable murderous history even compared to secular rulers? If you didn't have any criteria, conditions, or expectations at all, why on earth did you become a Catholic?

Got it. You found a church that teaches closest to what YOU say is "Bible truth". Since you already know "Bible truth" why don't you start you own church and teach that truth to anyone that will attend?

No, I did not become a member of The Church without any conditions. For you see Brakelite I was once like you; Lost! Wandering into different Protestant denominations trying to find the one that taught MY truth. Of course, they all failed to live up to MY truth. At one of them the pastor (I shouldn't even call him a pastor, he was the owner of the building that he called a church because he got kicked out of another church for not adhering to the lead pastors "truth") stood up on stage and LIED (added words to scripture that weren't there to fit his truth) and threw his parents under the bus saying they were going to hell because they believed that baptism saves you. I continued to work in the food pantry after I left that church.

My conditions to find THE church was that their doctrine had to line up with Scripture and their history had to be closest to Christ/Apostles:

Scripture says, "baptism saves you". The Church agrees, baptism saves you.

Jesus says you must eat/drink my body/blood and "this IS my body/blood". Thirty years later Paul reaffirms it is his body/blood. The Church agrees with Jesus, it IS His body/blood.

Scripture says that those who eat/drink the body/blood in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord and whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. The Church agrees with Scripture.

Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me". We do what Jesus told us to do.

Scripture says, they gathered daily to participate in consuming the bread (body). The Church offers daily mass so one can partake of his body (bread) just like the NT Christians did.

Scripture says, if anyone among you is sick call an elder to anoint them with oil. The Church still adherers to that Scriptural practice.

Apostolic succession is plain and clear in the NT. I researched for any historical Christian writings from students of the Apostles. It turns out we do have some writings from students of the Apostles. After reading the early 2nd century writings of those Successors to the Apostles, they align with the teachings of The Church.

Today, some of you Protestants accuse The Church of practicing cannibalism. The early 2nd century Christians were accused of the same thing.

The earliest written detailed historical record of what Christians did when they gathered on Sundays is from around 154AD and it mirrors what The Church still practices today.

Now I could go on and on but I think you get the gist of WHY I now belong to The Church. Not because they teach what I believe is the truth. But because they teach Scripture, and they have Christian history all the way back to the time of the Apostles to back them up.

What do you have brakelite? You have what YOU determine the truth is and you are still seeking for a church that teaches your truth. Good luck.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I belong to a group of Christians who the Pope, your leader, has described as terrorists. Fundamentalist, Bible believing, and expecting the imminent coming of Jesus. I believe in having a personal relationship with Jesus. I believe in pacing the gospel to everyone, because not everyone is saved. I want no-one to miss out on eternal life.

I stated and asked: You already know who my church leaders are. Who is yours? Or what denomination is it that has this leader that meets YOUR conditions. You dodged my questions AGAIN. Are you embarrassed to reveal what denomination you belong too? Are you embarrassed for your church?

Show me the quote from the Pope that described your 'group of Christians' as "terrorists". If you can't provide the quote, then you need to apologize and ask for forgives for bearing false witness.

Mary

 

[The Learner]

rth

 

[Brakelite]

Got it. You found a church that teaches closest to what YOU say is "Bible truth". Since you already know "Bible truth" why don't you start you own church and teach that truth to anyone that will attend?

No, I did not become a member of The Church without any conditions. For you see Brakelite I was once like you; Lost! Wandering into different Protestant denominations trying to find the one that taught MY truth. Of course, they all failed to live up to MY truth. At one of them the pastor (I shouldn't even call him a pastor, he was the owner of the building that he called a church because he got kicked out of another church for not adhering to the lead pastors "truth") stood up on stage and LIED (added words to scripture that weren't there to fit his truth) and threw his parents under the bus saying they were going to hell because they believed that baptism saves you. I continued to work in the food pantry after I left that church.

My conditions to find THE church was that their doctrine had to line up with Scripture and their history had to be closest to Christ/Apostles:

Scripture says, "baptism saves you". The Church agrees, baptism saves you.

Jesus says you must eat/drink my body/blood and "this IS my body/blood". Thirty years later Paul reaffirms it is his body/blood. The Church agrees with Jesus, it IS His body/blood.

Scripture says that those who eat/drink the body/blood in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord and whoever eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. The Church agrees with Scripture.

Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me". We do what Jesus told us to do.

Scripture says, they gathered daily to participate in consuming the bread (body). The Church offers daily mass so one can partake of his body (bread) just like the NT Christians did.

Scripture says, if anyone among you is sick call an elder to anoint them with oil. The Church still adherers to that Scriptural practice.

Apostolic succession is plain and clear in the NT. I researched for any historical Christian writings from students of the Apostles. It turns out we do have some writings from students of the Apostles. After reading the early 2nd century writings of those Successors to the Apostles, they align with the teachings of The Church.

Today, some of you Protestants accuse The Church of practicing cannibalism. The early 2nd century Christians were accused of the same thing.

The earliest written detailed historical record of what Christians did when they gathered on Sundays is from around 154AD and it mirrors what The Church still practices today.

Now I could go on and on but I think you get the gist of WHY I now belong to The Church. Not because they teach what I believe is the truth. But because they teach Scripture, and they have Christian history all the way back to the time of the Apostles to back them up.

What do you have brakelite? You have what YOU determine the truth is and you are still seeking for a church that teaches your truth. Good luck.

Mary

So in your opinion Jesus meant we ought to literally eat flesh and blood... And the priest every day everywhere in the world miraculously changes bread into literal flesh and blood, and this is for the purpose that the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, being eaten, literally in your opinion, saves us.
I was but 13 or so years old when I began to seriously doubt that teaching. Just that one. It was that one that offended me. But I didn't leave the church at that time. I still thought salvation depended on my staying in the church. It wasn't until after meeting Jesus and accepting Him as my true Saviour, that I realised He was all I needed. Salvation never depended on anything I did. From beginning to end, salvation is dependant on what Jesus had done, and is doing. Then it was that I discovered I had the courage and strength to walk away from Rome, and discover truth.

I stated and asked: You already know who my church leaders are. Who is yours? Or what denomination is it that has this leader that meets YOUR conditions. You dodged my questions AGAIN. Are you embarrassed to reveal what denomination you belong too? Are you embarrassed for your church?

Show me the quote from the Pope that described your 'group of Christians' as "terrorists". If you can't provide the quote, then you need to apologize and ask for forgives for bearing false witness.

Mary

Fundamental believers are those who accept God's word as their final authority in faith and practise.
They wait patiently and look longingly for the second coming of Christ.
They believe salvation comes only through faith in the precious blood of Christ: in the mercy and grace of God.

 

[Brakelite]

What we do not believe is the following "infallible" declaration of the Catholic Church.

 

[TheHC]

…our right to defend ourselves…

…Defending yourself and others…

Oh, now you’re claiming that defense is the reason Catholic leaders encouraged their flocks to engage in war, in support of their respective countries? Fighting and killing other Catholics, from their native lands?

History is replete with accounts of Catholicism taking the offense and being the instigator in conflicts! You want a list?

…with the sword he told us to obtain to defend ourselves. Why did he command us to buy a sword THC?

I answered that. It was an object lesson…

What was the outcome, Mary?
When Peter did use it, what did Jesus do and say?

He rebuked Peter, telling him to return the sword to its place, and said , “everyone who takes up the sword will perish by the sword”!

Taking swords was also to fulfill prophecy, as Jesus stated in the next verse, Luke 22:37: “And he was numbered with the lawless ones”, quoting from Isaiah 53:12.

‘Mary, Mary, quite contrary’…. give up this argumentative delusion.

 

[Brakelite]

I stated and asked: You already know who my church leaders are. Who is yours? Or what denomination is it that has this leader that meets YOUR conditions. You dodged my questions AGAIN. Are you embarrassed to reveal what denomination you belong too? Are you embarrassed for your church?

Show me the quote from the Pope that described your 'group of Christians' as "terrorists". If you can't provide the quote, then you need to apologize and ask for forgives for bearing false witness.

Mary

Just a thought Mary. Don't make the mistake of representing me as some random modernist Christian who teaches theology but doesn't allow that theology to affect the way I live. I reject any suggestion that you charge me as God charged Israel...
KJV Judges 21:25
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
... And therefore I must needs bow before your king.
Jesus to me is not just some out of reach unknown and unknowable spiritual pie in the sky divine Santa Claus. I know Him in Whom I believe. Full consecration and obedience is the only right response to the grace and mercy of a loving benevolent Saviour Who gave His life for me. It isn't a theological argument nor is it a personal angst nor yet is it a selfish go-it-alone independent spirit that actuates my antipathy toward Roman authority. The reason I reject your overtures is I already have a King, I already have a God, I already have a Master and LORD and will not replace Him with an imposter and Antichrist.
As to your incessant demand that I identify my denomination, the answer is no. I have not hidden anything to anyone on this forum, most know me very well and know to what I belong, I even have thread titles identifying such. So no. I will not meekly acquiesce to your demands. Do some research.

 

[Marymog]

As to your incessant demand that I identify my denomination, the answer is no. I have not hidden anything to anyone on this forum, most know me very well and know to what I belong, I even have thread titles identifying such. So no. I will not meekly acquiesce to your demands. Do some research.

SDA?

 

[Marymog]

Fundamental believers are those who accept God's word as their final authority in faith and practise.
They wait patiently and look longingly for the second coming of Christ.
They believe salvation comes only through faith in the precious blood of Christ: in the mercy and grace of God.

Well, you didn't provide a quote from Pope Francis that fundamentalist are terrorist soooooooooo when are you going to retract and apologize?

 

[Marymog]

Oh, now you’re claiming that defense is the reason Catholic leaders encouraged their flocks to engage in war, in support of their respective countries? Fighting and killing other Catholics, from their native lands?

History is replete with accounts of Catholicism taking the offense and being the instigator in conflicts! You want a list?

No, I'm not claiming that, never suggested that and never implied that! I think it is very clear what I am claiming. Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword. I think we can both agree that the reason He told his disciples to buy a sword was for self-defense?

History is replete with accounts of Protestants taking the offense and being the instigator in conflicts! You want a list?

 

[The Learner]

Well, you didn't provide a quote from Pope Francis that fundamentalist are terrorist soooooooooo when are you going to retract and apologize?

Of course, fundamentalist belief usually does not lead to extremist or terrorist violence, but in rare cases it does. This has been particularly explored for Islamic fundamentalist belief.Nov 2, 2022


What are fundamentalist beliefs? - Taylor & Francis Online

 

[The Learner]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546551003689399

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546551003689399

 

[Marymog]

I answered that. It was an object lesson…

What was the outcome, Mary?
When Peter did use it, what did Jesus do and say?

He rebuked Peter, telling him to return the sword to its place, and said , “everyone who takes up the sword will perish by the sword”!

Taking swords was also to fulfill prophecy, as Jesus stated in the next verse, Luke 22:37: “And he was numbered with the lawless ones”, quoting from Isaiah 53:12.

‘Mary, Mary, quite contrary’…. give up this argumentative delusion.

What your men have taught you is delusional. It was NOT an object lesson.

Jesus never said we should be doormats and pacifists. He makes this clear in Luke 22:36-38 when he tells the apostles to “take up a sword” for self-defense.

It is true that Jesus tells St. Peter to put away his sword later in verses 50-51. He told Peter this AFTER Peter lashed out offensively and against Jesus’ will. Jesus had already told the apostles that it was God’s will that he suffer and die. Peter was acting contrary to Jesus’ revealed will. This does not negate the fact that it was Jesus himself that told Peter and the apostles to take up a sword to begin with.

In CONTEXT, here is 22:37: For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was counted among the lawless’;. What he said has NOTHING to do with Jesus rebuking self-defense.

You are correct that the words He quoted are from Isaiah 53:12! It means that Jesus was about to die the death of a criminal which is necessary in order that Scripture might be fulfilled. He is not saying that having a sword makes you a criminal. That would contradict what he said earlier telling His disciples to buy a sword.

You crack me up. What's even scarier is that @The Learner and @Cassandra seemed to like your delusional interpretation of that passage.

 

[RedFan]

What your men have taught you is delusional. It was NOT an object lesson.

You are correct that the words He quoted are from Isaiah 53:12! It means that Jesus was about to die the death of a criminal which is necessary in order that Scripture might be fulfilled. He is not saying that having a sword makes you a criminal. That would contradict what he said earlier telling His disciples to buy a sword.

You crack me up. What's even scarier is that @The Learner and @Cassandra seemed to like your delusional interpretation of that passage.

Add me to the list.

When the apostles replied to His buy-sell suggestion with "we've got two swords already," and He said that would be enough, I seriously doubt He was suggesting that nine of the eleven should remain unarmed if self-defense were His concern. Two swords sufficed to fulfill Isaiah 53 (I'll explain why later), but wouldn't suffice for all of His apostles to self-defend.

 

[Marymog]

So in your opinion Jesus meant we ought to literally eat flesh and blood... And the priest every day everywhere in the world miraculously changes bread into literal flesh and blood, and this is for the purpose that the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, being eaten, literally in your opinion, saves us.

NOPE, not my opinion. It's literally what He said and Christianity has taught for 2,000 years. Us Christians believe Him, believe in miracles and have faith: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats[g] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Paul believed Him (1 Corinthians 10:16), you and your ilk don't. What is your answer to these 2 questions Brakelite: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the [a]communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

The early Church believed him (The Real Presence — Church Fathers), you and your ilk don't.

 

[Marymog]

Add me to the list.

When the apostles replied to His buy-sell suggestion with "we've got two swords already," and He said that would be enough, I seriously doubt He was suggesting that nine of the eleven should remain unarmed if self-defense were His concern. Two swords sufficed to fulfill Isaiah 53 (I'll explain why later), but wouldn't suffice for all of His apostles to self-defend.

You make a very good point. 2 swords among the eleven means 9 were unarmed. Maybe He was saying that the 2 disciples who brought the swords were each sufficiently armed? Or he may have referred to the swords as examples of what each disciple should have? Or “Those swords are suitable (i.e. good enough) as weapons.” However we render it, the overall context clearly indicates self-defense.

What about this: When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

 

[RedFan]

You make a very good point. 2 swords among the eleven means 9 were unarmed. Maybe He was saying that the 2 disciples who brought the swords were each sufficiently armed? Or he may have referred to the swords as examples of what each disciple should have? Or “Those swords are suitable (i.e. good enough) as weapons.” However we render it, the overall context clearly indicates self-defense.

Prophecy of Two Swords has a different take.

 

[Cassandra]

Prophecy of Two Swords has a different take.

This is a great article!! Im gonna have to read it a few times to get it down!