Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[BreadOfLife]

Well, personally I see no closer historical or spiritual link between Peter and the current Pope than between Peter and my local Protestant parish pastor. But I can accept that you have a different viewpoint.

So just out of interest: I hear that many Conservative American Catholics are not that pleased with Pope Francis. If he announced ex cathedra that the time has come to bless homosexual weddings, to ordain women priests, to hand out free condoms or that Trump is the antichrist …, would you still quote that passage above?

Answer: He can't - or Jesus is a liar. And, if Jesus is a liar - then we're ALL in trouble.

The Pope has never taught heresy nor unbiblical moral teaching - and never will because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No kidding it was about authority. Papal authority. The Eastern Church refused to be servants of the Pope. The Roman Pontiff.

Stranger

So, your moronic charge that there was a "rise" of Papal Authority is historically-bankrupt.
If anything - there was a decline in the East to adhere to the Papal Authority established 1000 years before.

 

[BreadOfLife]

My dear BOL, the reason Martin Luther and others left the formal church was because their efforts to effect correction were not just ignored. They were condemned. The man Luther was doubtless in error in places, but in that which was more important he probably followed God more closely than the leadership which you would continue to follow and to whom you would ask others to join. There is and must be a time and place to come out of her. The "her" is anyplace or anyone that anything above the kingdom and righteousness of God.

When God calls us out, how can we ignore Him? So then I know you will continue with your condemnation although God did not call you to it. God does not work as you work except it be with and for His left hand. We'll be praying for you.

REALLY??
Tell me - when did these "efforts" take place??

The ONLY thing the Church rejected was the perversion of the Scriptures by some prior to the Revolt.
Either you have swallowed another historical lie - or you simply haven't done your homework.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes just not yours. we can all see that it is not the HS that leads you, you are led by your religion, you walk like a catholic, talk like a catholic, promote teh catholic agenda, so you are a catholic, by name and by nature , this bit

1Co_6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Have a lovely day.

And, so my challenge STILL stands:
Which Church today is older than the Catholic Church??

Jesus guaranteed that His Church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).
Sooooo - which Church of today is the Church that Jesus started??

Can't WAIT to read your answer . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

no He does not, you are guided by your churches doctrines its rules its leaders and your own ideas, and that lovely thing you quote just shows how you despise teh truth,no answer, shoot teh messenger, 14 years is it, thats a lot of people yo9u are going to have to answer for.

Soooooo - answer my challenge in post #204.
This should be EASY for you . . .

 

[amadeus]

REALLY??
Tell me - when did these "efforts" take place??

The ONLY thing the Church rejected was the perversion of the Scriptures by some prior to the Revolt.
Either you have swallowed another historical lie - or you simply haven't done your homework.

Pardon me! I was wrong to give much so credence to history to one so well versed in what Catholics have written. Truly the study of history does not provide us with the truth. Your position is of course correct according to Catholic writings and beliefs, but whose is not according to their own writings and beliefs?

"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the fles" Ecc 12:12

This is why the only Way to the truth is going directly to the source of truth...

Jesus simplified it with these words:

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6

He reemphasized the way to do it with these words:

"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matt 6:33

He only mentions two things to seek. Seeking those two things first all else needed will be added.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Pardon me! I was wrong to give much so credence to history to one so well versed in what Catholics have written. Truly the study of history does not provide us with the truth. Your position is of course correct according to Catholic writings and beliefs, but whose is not according to their own writings and beliefs?

"And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the fles" Ecc 12:12
This is why the only Way to the truth is going directly to the source of truth...
Jesus simplified it with these words:
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Matt 5:6
He reemphasized the way to do it with these words:
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matt 6:33
He only mentions two things to seek. Seeking those two things first all else needed will be added.

And this is nothing but a giant cop-out.

YOU falsely charged that the concerns of your Protestant Fathers were "ignored" by the Catholic Church.
I simply asked you to show me some historical documentation for that - and you couldn't. Instead, you quoted Scripture.

Don't be angry with ME because YOU made a false claim that you couldn't back up . . .

 

[amadeus]

And this is nothing but a giant cop-out.

YOU falsely charged that the concerns of your Protestant Fathers were "ignored" by the Catholic Church.
I simply asked you to show me some historical documentation for that - and you couldn't. Instead, you quoted Scripture.

Don't be angry with ME because YOU made a false claim that you couldn't back up . . .

As you are wont to say, I am not angry.

As in this particular courtroom, you consider yourself judge, jury and executioner, I will submit not any secular evidence [for that is all that you have or will accept] since you have already pre-judged the case as if you were God. How well do the following words fit the situation?

"... the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." II Thess 2:3-4

The scriptures should really be all the evidence needed, but you have rejected them as evidence. You prefer the evidence of men. But as I previously quoted to from the writings of Paul: 'God gives the increase'.

Jesus wept!

 

[BreadOfLife]

As you are wont to say, I am not angry.

As in this particular courtroom, you consider yourself judge, jury and executioner, I will submit not any secular evidence [for that is all that you have or will accept] since you have already pre-judged the case as if you were God. How well do the following words fit the situation?

"... the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." II Thess 2:3-4

The scriptures should really be all the evidence needed, but you have rejected them as evidence. You prefer the evidence of men. But as I previously quoted to from the writings of Paul: 'God gives the increase'.

Jesus wept!

Another cop-out from a historically-bankrupt anti-Catholic

Remember - YOU are the one who called history into question. When I held you accountable for your false claims - you ran to the Bible stating that this was "all" the evidence you needed.

If you're going to pick a fight about history - be prepared to provide evidence FROM history.
Don't just quote irrelevant passages from Scripture thinking that nobody is holding you accountable . . .

 

[amadeus]

Another cop-out from a historically-bankrupt anti-Catholic

Remember - YOU are the one who called history into question. When I held you accountable for your false claims - you ran to the Bible stating that this was "all" the evidence you needed.

If you're going to pick a fight about history - be prepared to provide evidence FROM history.
Don't just quote irrelevant passages from Scripture thinking that nobody is holding you accountable . . .

I am not a historian, but I know how very unreliable it is. [For that reason I regret having suggested that you consider it. I should have known that you had your own set of historical truths to cite.] We can look to it for ideas, but we should be slow to base our conclusions on it. You however has chosen to base much of your belief on history from outside of the Bible. I did not know Martin Luther and I did not know George Washington, but I have opinions about them. That is all that they are. The best and most honest of historians will not argue much more strongly than that because they realize better than anyone how unreliable our sources of human history are as we go back in time.

This need not be so about scripture, because we have the witness of Jesus in our heart, or we have it if we lean on God rather than on our own understanding which apparently is so often the case with you. Oh you have a bit a truth, but you are really unable to separate the truth from the error... although you believe that you can. That is called delusion because you either never had or have lost the first Love of which God speaks. How do I know this? Because I check in the Master every morning. You only check your memory and you notes and your church writings. I am continuing to pray for you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not a historian, but I know how very unreliable it is. [For that reason I regret having suggested that you consider it. I should have known that you had your own set of historical truths to cite.] We can look to it for ideas, but we should be slow to base our conclusions on it. You however has chosen to base much of your belief on history from outside of the Bible. I did not know Martin Luther and I did not know George Washington, but I have opinions about them. That is all that they are. The best and most honest of historians will not argue much more strongly than that because they realize better than anyone how unreliable our sources of human history are as we go back in time.

This need not be so about scripture, because we have the witness of Jesus in our heart, or we have it if we lean on God rather than on our own understanding which apparently is so often the case with you. Oh you have a bit a truth, but you are really unable to separate the truth from the error... although you believe that you can. That is called delusion because you either never had or have lost the first Love of which God speaks. How do I know this? Because I check in the Master every morning. You only check your memory and you notes and your church writings. I am continuing to pray for you.

Ummmmmm, if you're NOT a historian - why would you make such a ludicrous statement about history like:
"the reason Martin Luther and others left the formal church was because their efforts to effect correction were not just ignored. They were condemned."

If you're going top make claims about history - then be prepared to back them up with historical evidence.
Otherwise - you will be exposed for telling lies - and, as you have seen - that's never fun

 

[amadeus]

Ummmmmm, if you're NOT a historian - why would you make such a ludicrous statement about history like:
"the reason Martin Luther and others left the formal church was because their efforts to effect correction were not just ignored. They were condemned."

If you're going top make claims about history - then be prepared to back them up with historical evidence.
Otherwise - you will be exposed for telling lies - and, as you have seen - that's never fun

My friend, until you know all of the truth don't be so quick to speak of exposing lies. God knows that every man is a liar. Yes, that means me but it also means you. Jesus speaks clearly in this regard:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matt 7:1-5

Now probably we should leave this for the moment as there is no edification to found.

 

[Stranger]

So, your moronic charge that there was a "rise" of Papal Authority is historically-bankrupt.
If anything - there was a decline in the East to adhere to the Papal Authority established 1000 years before.

There was no 'decline in the east' to adhere to Papal authority. There was resistance to adhere to the Papal take over. You are the wordsmith.

Why did the East break from the Roman Church? Because they didn't want to be under Roman rule. They didn't want to be under the Pope. They didn't want to be under Papal authority. See, Rome is the cause of all the splintering of the Church. She wants to rule everyone and they refuse.

There was no Papal authority 1000 years before. The Papacy did rise over time as a dictatorial rule over the Church.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

And, so my challenge STILL stands:
Which Church today is older than the Catholic Church??

Jesus guaranteed that His Church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).
Sooooo - which Church of today is the Church that Jesus started??

Can't WAIT to read your answer . . .

Not much of a challenge really.

The Catholic Church is the original and only Church. Composed of all born-again believers. But, the Roman Church, is not the Catholic Church. Though it wants to be over the Catholic Church and wants the title of the Catholic Church.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

Can't WAIT to read your answer . .

I dunno why, you need no excuse to tear people down its your favourite hobby after spiritual murder. Our Lords church began at pentecost,

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

a lot older than your which certainly is not Led by teh Holy Spirit, just that ugly religious one that devours people.

 

[mjrhealth]

Soooooo - answer my challenge in post #204.
This should be EASY for you . . .

wouldnt matter to you BOL, couldnt be bothered wasting my time. You are a liar, by your own words, you yourself said it we could show you where you have called us a liar, and many have shown you just that, yet here you still are,so you lied. liar by name and by your very nature, Just like your religion. Must be so lonely up in that high tower you built yourself. Im not going to be teyhre when it falls down around you.

God can forgive

God bless

 

[BreadOfLife]

My friend, until you know all of the truth don't be so quick to speak of exposing lies. God knows that every man is a liar. Yes, that means me but it also means you. Jesus speaks clearly in this regard:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matt 7:1-5

Now probably we should leave this for the moment as there is no edification to found.

You seem to want to end the conversation - NOT because there is no "edification" - but because you got caught with your historical pants down.
Again - don't make these kinds of false claims about history unless you can back them up - with HISTORY.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There was no 'decline in the east' to adhere to Papal authority. There was resistance to adhere to the Papal take over. You are the wordsmith.

Why did the East break from the Roman Church? Because they didn't want to be under Roman rule. They didn't want to be under the Pope. They didn't want to be under Papal authority. See, Rome is the cause of all the splintering of the Church. She wants to rule everyone and they refuse.

There was no Papal authority 1000 years before. The Papacy did rise over time as a dictatorial rule over the Church.

Stranger

Only in your twisted view - but NOT in history.

I already presented evidence from EASTERN Patriarchs touting the Authority of the Pope from the early centuries of the Church.
I already showed you that at the Council of Chalcedon, which was in the EAST - the Fathers stated, "Peter has spoken through Leo."

This proves that the accepted Papal Authority of the Early Church was gradually rejected by the Eastern Church.
YOUR version of history exists only in your mind . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Not much of a challenge really.

The Catholic Church is the original and only Church. Composed of all born-again believers. But, the Roman Church, is not the Catholic Church. Though it wants to be over the Catholic Church and wants the title of the Catholic Church.

Stranger

And when did this "Roman Church" arise?
Who started it? Who was its first Pope?

The Popes have been referred to ans listed as earthly heads over the Church since the 2nd century.
When did this "Roman" Church begin??

 

[BreadOfLife]

I dunno why, you need no excuse to tear people down its your favourite hobby after spiritual murder. Our Lords church began at pentecost,

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

a lot older than your which certainly is not Led by teh Holy Spirit, just that ugly religious one that devours people.

wouldnt matter to you BOL, couldnt be bothered wasting my time. You are a liar, by your own words, you yourself said it we could show you where you have called us a liar, and many have shown you just that, yet here you still are,so you lied. liar by name and by your very nature, Just like your religion. Must be so lonely up in that high tower you built yourself. Im not going to be teyhre when it falls down around you.

In other words, my historically-bankrupt friend - you don't have a clue . . .
I asked you flat-out to tell me which Church today is older than the Catholic Church - and you failed.

Good job . . .