• Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Peter's ministry was to the circumcision. I wrote down the wrong verse. The correct verse is (Gal. 2:7-9) "But, surely you have heard that before. Or, is it possible this is the first time? "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter....that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision."

There you go. Scriptural proof that Peter did not found the Church at Rome. Neither did Paul as he says himself. So my view is based on the Scripture.

Paul certainly had a role to play in the establishing the Church at Rome later. But it was already a Church when he got there. (Rom. 1:8,13)

Iraneus is wrong if he said that Peter and Paul started the Church at Rome. They didn't. And no single Church was ever given such authority as Iraneus states. He is part of the problem in what we have today as the Roman Catholic Church. An oxymoron.

Stranger
Soooo, you're saying that John the Apostle LIED to Polycarp, who then LIED to Irenaeus??
Ummmm, based on what - YOUR opinion??

And while were at it - are you really so ignorant as to NOT understand that there were Jews in Rome??
Why do you think that BOTH Apostles were there??

Irenaeus isn't the Problem.
Protestant rebellion is the problem . . .[/QUOTE]

What is it with the Romanists that they must play games with words or the posts. Why do you present my post without my name at the heading? You are a true representative of your denomination.

No, I'm not saying John lied. You just gave Irenaeus. What I did say came from the Bible.

I don't think both apostles were there. You do. Remember?

Stranger
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
I don't ever have to write any posts in this thread any more...all I have to do is click "like" on Scott's and your posts LOL :D
How the thread went from "Can salvation be lost"...back to the Catholic v Protestant issue once again, I have no idea...but, fun eh?
as near as i can gather this forum is named "Christianity Board," but is owned by a Catholic or something? Big Catholic influence? So, i have never considered Catholics to even be Christians, the mechanics being so different, but i guess Catholics consider themselves to be Christian so i have had to adjust my view there. But i am also convinced that God couldn't care less what you call yourself, if you are manifesting the Spirit of Christ.

Anyway, the point being that there can only be turmoil from this imo; we are even advised not to mix cultures somewhere...even if this is usually (incorrectly, imo) interpreted "mixed races," and the subject is technically "marriage."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
By rejecting the authority Christ established on earth? That's defending opinions.
Therein lies the problem. He did not sent Peter to lead, but to feed, and the authority was given to the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom He did send to [all] who receive Him.
That doesn't disprove Paul being subject to the Church. Besides, "not inferior" does not give Paul primacy. It means not inferior. Paul is not creating a false dichotomy of authority. Peter and Paul were not competitors, but co-workers.
You fail to understand the authority structure of the Apostles. They are all equal in one sense. Even Pope Francis functions as an ordinary bishop for the diocese of Rome. The only difference between him and other bishops is he sits in the Chair of Peter. You can't claim very much continuity from the Apostles, and "0" continuity in your ecclesiology.
You define the church incorrectly as a group of leaders, while Christ defines it as His body.
I know of no pope that threw out 7 books of the Bible, and I know of no pope that even claimed to be above Christ, if that is what you are insinuating, without a shred of evidence.
The word of God is established by His providence, not man's. You are like Israel, who preferred a man as a king, rather than God himself...and you shall suffer the same punishment.
In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). Told by whom? Did Jesus appear a second time?
Paul was met by Ananias and the Holy Spirit, whom told him - not Peter.
  • He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),

  • and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).

  • He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).

  • Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).

  • Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”

  • The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas being sent on their way by the church.”

  • Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),

  • and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
That's plenty of proof text to show that Paul was subject to the Church.
Again, you have incorrectly defined the church. And now you have mistaken Paul's acting as One with the body, as being subordinate, which He was not.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and bbyrd009

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
back to the Catholic v Protestant issue once again, I have no idea...but, fun eh?
imo Catholics should have their own section, and it is deliberate confusion to mix the two dogmas. Christians do not "confess" to other men they call "father" in dark closets, and that cannot be found in Scripture, not anywhere. It is a sin.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Therein lies the problem. He did not sent Peter to lead, but to feed, and the authority was given to the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom He did sent to [all] who receive Him.
You define the church incorrectly as a group of leaders, while Christ defines it as His body.
The word of God is established by His providence, not man's. You are like Israel, who preferred a man as a king, rather than God himself...and you shall suffer the same punishment.
Paul was met by Ananias and the Holy Spirit, whom told him - not Peter.
Again, you have incorrectly defined the church. And now you have mistaken Paul's acting as One with the body, as being subordinate, which He was not.
i suggest that he obviously cannot hear you, and the case has been made abundantly clear at this point. Best to avoid those who cause divisions imo
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA and Helen

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Soooo, you're saying that John the Apostle LIED to Polycarp, who then LIED to Irenaeus??
Ummmm, based on what - YOUR opinion??

And while were at it - are you really so ignorant as to NOT understand that there were Jews in Rome??
Why do you think that BOTH Apostles were there??

Irenaeus isn't the Problem.
Protestant rebellion is the problem . . .

What is it with the Romanists that they must play games with words or the posts. Why do you present my post without my name at the heading? You are a true representative of your denomination.

No, I'm not saying John lied. You just gave Irenaeus. What I did say came from the Bible.

I don't think both apostles were there. You do. Remember?

Stranger[/QUOTE]
WRONG.
The Bible never explicitly mentions whether or not Peter was in Rome - but it does ALLUDE to it in 1 Pet. 5:13.
And, as I mentioned before - the Early Patristic evidence is overwhelming.

Finally - You ARE saying that John lied because he instructed Polycarp who instructed Irenaeus.
Irenaeus, as I have amply shown, states explicitly that not only did Peter and Paul establish the Church in Rome - but listed the succession of the Bishops of Rome - starting with Peter.

If you have ANY evidence to the contrary - I would LOVE to hear it.

I have Scriptural Evidence on my side.
I have historical Patristic evidence on my side.
I have archaeological evidence on my side.

All YOU have is angry anti-Catholic sentiment . . .
 

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
as near as i can gather this forum is named "Christianity Board," but is owned by a Catholic or something?

I did not know that.
Well, I am glad that the Admin's and Mods are not heavy handed and they hold back on any control.
( I know a few Catholics, and can fellowship with them easy..I haven't met the "fighting mad" Catholics like on here before.)

I have been on sites in the past where if you look sideways you get an open warning. Or if you post something that the Admin doesn't hold as 'his' doctrine..then you are openly corrected. In other words, a person is not allowed to 'be themselves' or post as and what they personally believe.
As you can guess, I didn't last long!! LOL

So..hey, hats off to the Admins and Mods on here. Wish they had a thumbs up icon. I have to say this IS the most "open" free forum, and the least "run" one that I have ever been on! And I've been on quite a few in the last 15 years!! Im happy about that. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: aspen and bbyrd009

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits." Prov 16:2

So wrote Solomon and the Lord is still weighing the spirits whether one believes that salvation can or cannot be lost. Ultimately, of course, we would all agree that it cannot. The difficulty lies in knowing we have reached the point of no return, where we are with God forevermore or we are not.

Because a person has already overcome some things standing between him and God, does this mean that he has overcome all that he needs to overcome in order to qualify for the rewards to an overcomer as per Revelation chapters 2 and 3?
Similarly or the same thing, because a person has been saved from one thing that would lead him to sin, can he neglect anything else that would lead him to sin again?

What is it that we must be saved from or what is it that we must overcome more than what is described in this verse?

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." I John 2:16
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife

I see you continue with your manipulation of my post to misrepresent in your post #866. It is a sign of desperation. You have nothing else to offer.

(1Peter 5:13) says nothing about Peter being in Rome or starting the Roman Church.

No, as far as I can see, Irenaeus lied. That is the only quote you gave. You 'assume' the rest. As does the Roman Church.

I have given you Scriptural evidence that you ignore. And you provide none.

So, now, desperate one, how will you contort and misrepresent my post next time. You are the wordsmith, and postsmith. I find this a common ability among the Romanist's. When is a lie, a lie? No problem, confession makes it better.

Stranger
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits." Prov 16:2

So wrote Solomon and the Lord is still weighing the spirits whether one believes that salvation can or cannot be lost. Ultimately, of course, we would all agree that it cannot. The difficulty lies in knowing we have reached the point of no return, where we are with God forevermore or we are not.

Because a person has already overcome some things standing between him and God, does this mean that he has overcome all that he needs to overcome in order to qualify for the rewards to an overcomer as per Revelation chapters 2 and 3?
Similarly or the same thing, because a person has been saved from one thing that would lead him to sin, can he neglect anything else that would lead him to sin again?

What is it that we must be saved from or what is it that we must overcome more than what is described in this verse?

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." I John 2:16
This whole topic is man's foolishness.

By definition, if one is "saved", they are "saved"...unless that person intends to call God a liar, as many would and do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjrhealth

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This whole topic is man's foolishness.

By definition, if one is "saved", they are "saved"...unless that person intends to call God a liar, as many would and do.
Without a doubt you are correct, but sometimes, or even often, people will argue [discuss?] from the point of view they want to be true rather than from what God wants them to say or what He wants to say through them.

Jesus prayed,
"...nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

What is it hat God wills? In my case, or your case, or the other guy's case, we need to do what God leads us to do. Too many don't really know when or if God is leading them, even though they would say that they are His sheep. Do not His sheep know His voice?

"To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." John 10:3-4
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Okay - first of all - you'll never get 99% of all credible Protestant scholars to agree that we are ALL Apostles.
MOST of them will say that it was the Twelve- along with Paul and maybe Barnabas.

Secondly - nobody here has been able to answer the question I have asked now about a dozen times - worded about a dozen different ways.
There are tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines based on their different interpretations of God's Word. Many teach essential doctrines that are as different as night and day.

WHICH
one is correct??
They can't ALL be correct or the Holy Spirit is the Father of confusion.


God spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak (Mk 4:34).

A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning. This makes the whole Bible a parable.

When John the Baptist cried, “Behold Jesus the Son of God which takes away the sins of the world.” No. John did not say it that way but I would have. Actually John said, “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.” Wait a minute. Jesus is not an animal? What does an animal have to do with taking away sins? So we search the Bible and discover, in the Old Testament, the Jews sacrificed lambs to atone for their sins. Ah, now we understand Jesus is to be the ultimate sacrifice to atone for the sins of His people (Mt 1:21).

Now we come to the “meat” part where you claim it is easy for you to explain why there are so many different sects, if the Holy Spirit is the one who dispenses truth? A classic “put the blame on God” cop-out. At this point you must be wondering where I am going with this, and what has Mk 4:34 have to do with the subject at hand? Well, I am going to show through Scriptures the question you raised on this thread.

Mark 4:9-13 reads:

9. And He said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: WHY? Now Jesus gives the reason.
12. That seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at anytime they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
13. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?

Get it now?” The key passage is verse 12 which is likened to that of John 3:1-12. Plus, to top it all off God said He will send them a strong delusion that they will believe a lie.

The heart of man is desperately wicked! He would rather accept a lie than to receive God. By nature he is evil (Jo 3:19). Shall I continue?

Every denomination has what it calls "presuppositions." Therefore, they will read Scriptures according to their doctrines! Hence the Baptist will remain a baptist according to his church's doctrine, a Buddhist will remain a Buddhist, according to what Buddha dictates, a Catholic according to the infallibity of the Pope and church, plus other books and extra sayings, a Protestant according to the Bible and in its entirety is the word of God, in other words, Sola Scriptura...etc...etc...etc,; and I'll chellenge anyone in these forums as to the meaning of "Sola Scriptura" the biblical way.

As ByGrace said it as she "hit the nail on it's head" - so to speak - it is, "PRIDE."'
And pride goeth before a fall.

Perhaps Pia was also correct to say that the Catholics should have their own forum. So they can wallow in their intellects how great they are in their interpretation of scriptures. Believe me when I say this is NOT a Catholic bashing, rather a bashing of the false Catholic Church's doctrines.

1. God is no respecter of persons.
2. Holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them.
3. What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?,

So you see the Catholics does not have a monopoly on Scriptures.

In this country (USA) we have the freedom to choose what religious affiliation we want to belong in, but we do NOT thave the power nor the ability to choose for God.

In short, now you know why there are so many denominations and sects in the world. If you know of an easier way as you've claimed bring it on so we can look and discuss the scriptures you will post along.

Indeed I am excited and curious in anticipation to learn from the mind of a Catholic.

Waiting...



To God Be The Glory
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScottA

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,447
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I really don't want to learn from the mind of a Catholic or the mind of a Protestant, unless what I learn is also from God. Catholics and Protestants are people like we all are with our good points [on God's side] and our bad points [opposed to God]. Hopefully, each of us will be working on ourselves and/or will be allowing God to work in us to increase the good points and to decrease the bad ones:

"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You should be a politician and you would probably make a good one not being biased. I on the other hand rests on the promises of God. Scripture says, I am not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Jesus said, in this world you will have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. As Jesus is my stand-in, I too have overcome the world.

To God Be The Glory
 
  • Like
Reactions: pia

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Well, I am glad that the Admin's and Mods are not heavy handed and they hold back on any control.
me too, i'd rather know who i'm dealing with, and i think that can be squashed
( I know a few Catholics, and can fellowship with them easy..I haven't met the "fighting mad" Catholics like on here before.)
ha me too! i volunteered at a Catholic Charities, they were great
 
  • Like
Reactions: pia and Helen

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
God spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak (Mk 4:34).

A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning. This makes the whole Bible a parable
.

Well this argument/discussion has been around and around for a while now on here.
And I still cannot agree with it!! It takes so much away from the truth..and hides it in the shade , and gives excuses as to why we can't understand things said to be- " not meant to be understood!!!" That is so sad.

1) Who was Jesus speaking to in parables?
Mark 4 .1 "And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that He entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.

2) He was NOT talking to His believing followers here!!

Numbers 12:6 "Hear now My words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; "

Gen 18: 17 "And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do." The answer was no! He told Abraham what He intended for Sodom...it was not a parable.

Plus... that was under the old Covenant, we dwell in the New Covenant!!
We have an open face to face relationship with our God through Jesus Christ!!
And your verse:- 34 "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."

Sorry for jumping here, but it's about the third time in the last week that someone has said the bible old or new, is a parable....
I have let it slide ..but when I saw it agin in your post..I just had to bring a balance to such untrue things.
To the unsaved..a flower, a river, the sun, the sky the bible are picture parable form...but not to God's people ,who have "ears to hear and eyes to see."

Sorry, I don't mean to "come on strong"...you "just happened" to be about the fourth person to say it this week!! :)
....H




 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pia

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
God spoke in parables and without a parable He did not speak (Mk 4:34).

A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning. This makes the whole Bible a parable.

When John the Baptist cried, “Behold Jesus the Son of God which takes away the sins of the world.” No. John did not say it that way but I would have. Actually John said, “Behold the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.” Wait a minute. Jesus is not an animal? What does an animal have to do with taking away sins? So we search the Bible and discover, in the Old Testament, the Jews sacrificed lambs to atone for their sins. Ah, now we understand Jesus is to be the ultimate sacrifice to atone for the sins of His people (Mt 1:21).

Now we come to the “meat” part where you claim it is easy for you to explain why there are so many different sects, if the Holy Spirit is the one who dispenses truth? A classic “put the blame on God” cop-out. At this point you must be wondering where I am going with this, and what has Mk 4:34 have to do with the subject at hand? Well, I am going to show through Scriptures the question you raised on this thread.

Mark 4:9-13 reads:

9. And He said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: WHY? Now Jesus gives the reason.
12. That seeing they may see, and not perceive, and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at anytime they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
13. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?

Get it now?” The key passage is verse 12 which is likened to that of John 3:1-12. Plus, to top it all off God said He will send them a strong delusion that they will believe a lie.

The heart of man is desperately wicked! He would rather accept a lie than to receive God. By nature he is evil (Jo 3:19). Shall I continue?

Every denomination has what it calls "presuppositions." Therefore, they will read Scriptures according to their doctrines! Hence the Baptist will remain a baptist according to his church's doctrine, a Buddhist will remain a Buddhist, according to what Buddha dictates, a Catholic according to the infallibity of the Pope and church, plus other books and extra sayings, a Protestant according to the Bible and in its entirety is the word of God, in other words, Sola Scriptura...etc...etc...etc,; and I'll chellenge anyone in these forums as to the meaning of "Sola Scriptura" the biblical way.

As ByGrace said it as she "hit the nail on it's head" - so to speak - it is, "PRIDE."'
And pride goeth before a fall.

Perhaps Pia was also correct to say that the Catholics should have their own forum. So they can wallow in their intellects how great they are in their interpretation of scriptures. Believe me when I say this is NOT a Catholic bashing, rather a bashing of the false Catholic Church's doctrines.

1. God is no respecter of persons.
2. Holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them.
3. What? Came the word of God out from you? Or came it unto you only?,

So you see the Catholics does not have a monopoly on Scriptures.

In this country (USA) we have the freedom to choose what religious affiliation we want to belong in, but we do NOT thave the power nor the ability to choose for God.

In short, now you know why there are so many denominations and sects in the world. If you know of an easier way as you've claimed bring it on so we can look and discuss the scriptures you will post along.
Indeed I am excited and curious in anticipation to learn from the mind of a Catholic.

Waiting...

To God Be The Glory
I've already stated why there are so many Protestant denominations - and it can be swmmed up in TWO words:
Personal Interpretation.

Whenever a person from one of these sects opens the Bible and interprets something different than the leader of that sect - it is their DUTY as a good Protestant to splinter-off from that sect and create a new on.

Jesus didn't leave us with a Book - He left us with a Church to be our final earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Scripture is authoritative - but it is not our SOLE authority. NOWHERE does Scripture make this claim for itself.

Perhaps you all glossed over Peter's warning . . .
2 Pet. 1:20
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation"


Finally - you speak of "false" Catholic doctrines - but you fail to list any . . .
 

tabletalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2017
847
384
63
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
and I'll chellenge anyone in these forums as to the meaning of "Sola Scriptura" the biblical way.

Here is a quote from a book I am reading; "The Shape of Sola Scriptura" by Keith A. Mathison.

"If Sola Scriptura is true, the Scripture is to be interpreted by the Church within the hermeneutical context of the regula fidei or the rule of faith. This rule of faith has found written expression in the ecumenical creeds of the Church."

He's making a distinction between the Tradition used by the Catholic Church and the Tradition used by the Reformers (which was also used for the first 3 hundred years of the Church).

I'm reading it slowly, since Tradition seems like a bad word to this Protestant! What do you think?
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
BreadOfLife

I see you continue with your manipulation of my post to misrepresent in your post #866. It is a sign of desperation. You have nothing else to offer.

(1Peter 5:13) says nothing about Peter being in Rome or starting the Roman Church.
No, as far as I can see, Irenaeus lied. That is the only quote you gave. You 'assume' the rest. As does the Roman Church.
I have given you Scriptural evidence that you ignore. And you provide none.

So, now, desperate one, how will you contort and misrepresent my post next time. You are the wordsmith, and postsmith. I find this a common ability among the Romanist's. When is a lie, a lie? No problem, confession makes it better.

Stranger
Soooooo, your ENTIRE position relies on the myth that Irenaeus lied??
A man who was ONE degree of seperation away from the Apostle John - and he lied because . . . ??
Can you give me a motive??
Can you decipher anything else that Irenaeus "lied" about - or was this just the ONE great practical joke he played on history??

Unbelievable . . .


PS -
Oh, ummmm, by the way - "Babylon" was a first century code word for Rome. This is why John refers to Rome as "Babylon" in the Book of Revelation. Peter uses this SAME code for Rome in 1 Pet. 5:13.