If We Protestants Truly Hated Catholics...

[Heb 13:8]

go ahead and deflect if it makes you feel better Heb. Have a nice day

bbyrd has no excuse, he's heard the truth but has not received it,

 

[bbyrd009]

bbyrd has no excuse, he's heard the truth but has not received it,

why are you quoting me, Heb, if all you want to do is give a sermon?

the subject there was "deflection," and the subject in the post before was "beliefs as contrasted with faith" ok. bye

 

[Heb 13:8]

why are you quoting me, Heb, if all you want to do is give a sermon?

God has mercy on nonbelievers and the silly beliefs they hold.

 

[Triumph1300]

At least non believers are known to turn into believers.
Followers of silly beliefs have a more difficult time finding the truth.

Btw, there are no unbelievers in hell.
Oh, hold on....hell does not exist....

 

[bbyrd009]

Gehenna sure does though; and i can find it in the Lex

 

[Phoneman777]

Which church does oppose error?

You have either twisted what The Church teaches or you are ignorant of what it teaches to your question about finding it in scripture is illogical.

You said the PAPACY began in 538 A.D.!! I may be misunderstanding what you are saying so I would like to clarify before I respond.

If the Papacy began in 538 AD, when did the Catholic Church begin??

Respectfully, Mary

The question is difficult to answer without being offensive. Nevertheless, the papacy is the union of the Catholic church and the secular state, where the church calls the shots and the state enforces them. This union could not exist while the state was still controlled by the Caesars. In 538, the Bishop of Rome stepped forward to take the scepter of the Caesars and became the leader of the barbarian nations at their behest, with the Francs the most prominent enforcer of papal will. The Francs evolved into the nation of France and continued to support the papacy until the time of Napoleon.

By definition, the "Catholic church" cannot but predate the papacy - but it was (and continues to be) so unlike the church of the Bible that it cannot be the church that dates back to the time of Christ. The warnings of Jesus and others that we should step correct lest we be overcome by Satan are proliferate. Paul warned that a great apostasy would take place after his death. Peter warned for the church to be sober, watchful, and diligent. John's warning that church members "keep yourselves from idols" was at that time totally unnecessary to such a pure, devout, Biblically based church, but hindsight is crystal clear on why he gave such a warning: all these God-fearing men understood what was soon to creep into the church of Jesus Christ, and though apostasy gradually crept into the church ever so slightly but steadily, it seems the defining moment came when Constantine legalized Christianity and threw open the floodgates to it. The church of Jesus Christ ceased to be such and the Catholic church stood in its place. The great "falling away" apostasy came to pass, while the church of Jesus Christ fled into the wilderness, as predicted she would by John the Revelator.

 

[Phoneman777]

I don't know where you get your stupid "facts" - and I don't really care.
I DO know that you are wrong because you never seem to be able to present any evidence for your moronic claims.

First of all - "Papacy" does NOT mean "Church and state", Einstein. Whoever told you that was lying and was too stupid to realize the "Papacy" is derived from the Latin word "Father" (Papa). That's all it means.

As I educated you earlier - we have historically-documented evidence from the 2nd century regarding the office of the Pope:
- Irenaeus's "Against Heresies", wherein, he lists ALL of the Popes from Peter to his tim.
- Tertullian's "Di Pudicitia", wherein, he speaks about the office of the Papacy and even calls the Pope "Bishop of Bishops" and "Pontifex Maximus".
- Cyprian of Carthage writes about the office of the Papacy - "The Chair of Peter" in AD 252.
- Opatus wrote about the "Episcopal Chair of Peter" and all of the subsequent Popes who have sat on it (AD 367).

The fact is that you are OUT-GUNNED by the testimonies of the Early Church.
You don't have an historical leg to stand on . . .

Your emotionalism that is so evident in your posts both exposes your extreme lack of self control and blinds you to the fact that is so easily seen by the rest of us - the fact the "papacy" - the "the union of church and state" - could not and did not exist before 538 A.D. The Caesars reigned all the way up to the 5th century A.D.

I don't care that delusional popes - who were (and are) so completely blinded and exploited by the spirit of Satan - considered themselves "kings of heaven, earth, and purgatory". The facts are that no pope had any political backing whatsoever before 538 A.D. Did not the Pagan Roman Empire considered Christianity to be public enemy #1 while they yet reigned? The authority of the Bishop of Rome over both the religious and secular affairs of men did not commence until 538. You should stop relying on the "authority" of Catholic church revisionist historians who have so often been exposed as such and examine reputable historical accounts to see that you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Philip James]

By definition, the "Catholic church" cannot but predate the papacy - but it was (and continues to be) so unlike the church of the Bible that it cannot be the church that dates back to the time of Christ.

Please identify this 'church of the bible' that stands in opposition to the Catholic Church in 100 AD , 200 AD and 300 AD....

Pax!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your emotionalism that is so evident in your posts both exposes your extreme lack of self control and blinds you to the fact that is so easily seen by the rest of us - the fact the "papacy" - the "the union of church and state" - could not and did not exist before 538 A.D. The Caesars reigned all the way up to the 5th century A.D.

This is a moronic and linguistically-bankrupt statement.

You keep making this asinine claim but so far, have utterly FAILED to provide any etymology to substantiate it. WHO told you that "Papacy" meant "union of Church and state". More importantly - WHY didn't you do your fact-checking - BEFORE posting this idiotic claim??

Your ignorant posts are becoming increasingly embarrassing . . .

I don't care that delusional popes - who were (and are) so completely blinded and exploited by the spirit of Satan - considered themselves "kings of heaven, earth, and purgatory". The facts are that no pope had any political backing whatsoever before 538 A.D. Did not the Pagan Roman Empire considered Christianity to be public enemy #1 while they yet reigned? The authority of the Bishop of Rome over both the religious and secular affairs of men did not commence until 538. You should stop relying on the "authority" of Catholic church revisionist historians who have so often been exposed as such and examine reputable historical accounts to see that you are sadly mistaken.

And again - there seems to be an education breakdown here. The ONLY thing fascinating about your first comment above in RED is that it is NOT the most stupid thing you've said . . .

First of all - your claim that the Popes consider themselves "Kings" of "Heaven, earth and Purgatory" came out of your warped little mind and nowhere else. this is a fallacy that YOU hatched - not the Popes.

As to your 2nd comment in RED - you need to provide documented proof that "Papacy" means "union of Church and State". If you can't do that - then your desperate little lies appear ALL the more pathetic . . .

A little advice: DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus Christ is not a created being BOL.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Okay - then show me where Abraham knew Jesus.
Chapter and Verse, please.

The SON always existed.
"Jesus" was His name when He was incarnated into man - and Abraham NEVER met Him until He ascended.

 

[Heb 13:8]

Okay - then show me where Abraham knew Jesus.
Chapter and Verse, please.

The SON always existed.
"Jesus" was His name when He was incarnated into man - and Abraham NEVER met Him until He ascended.

Are you asking me to prove the trinity is biblical? God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. John 10:30

 

[BreadOfLife]

Are you asking me to prove the trinity is biblical? God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. John 10:30

Nope - but that wasn't even a good dodge.

I asked you to show me where the BIBLE tells us that Abraham knew Jesus - like YOU claimed back in posts #739 & 748.
If you can't - then just admit you stuck your foot in your mouth and move on . . .

 

[Heb 13:8]

Nope - but that wasn't even a good dodge.

I asked you to show me where the BIBLE tells us that Abraham knew Jesus - like YOU claimed back in posts #739 & 748.
If you can't - then just admit you stuck your foot in your mouth and move on . . .

Abraham believed God, therefore did he not believe Jesus?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Abraham believed God, therefore did he not believe Jesus?

The Trinity was not revealed to Abraham, Einstein.
Didn't they teach you that in Sunday School??

 

[Heb 13:8]

The Trinity was not revealed to Abraham, Einstein.
Didn't they teach you that in Sunday School??

No, the trinity always existed. Demons are not righteous and considered friends of God Einstein. Better than cable........

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, the trinity always existed. Demons are not righteous and considered friends of God Einstein. Better than cable........

The Trinity always existed but wasn't REVEALED under the Old Covenant. This is why Jews don't accept the Trinity.

Are you seriously trying to debate this??

 

[Heb 13:8]

The Trinity always existed but wasn't REVEALED under the Old Covenant. This is why Jews don't accept the Trinity.

Are you seriously trying to debate this??

I can't believe we are. Are you seriously comparing demons to humans?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I can't believe we are. Are you seriously comparing demons to humans?

Why do you keep changing the subject??
Is it because you know you've lost??

We're talking about the Trinity - NOT about demons.
If you knew your Bible - you would know that the Trinity was NOT revealed under the Old Covenant.

 

[Heb 13:8]

Why do you keep changing the subject??
Is it because you know you've lost??

We're talking about the Trinity - NOT about demons.
If you knew your Bible - you would know that the Trinity was NOT revealed under the Old Covenant.

The original discussion was James 2, rabbit trails are a part of forums dude. The one who has Jesus never loses. God bless.

 

[Marymog]

What you failed to do is tell us from SCRIPTURE that what you believe is true. The rest of it is just hot air. Chapter and verse please.

Dear friend,

The FACT remains that my Church has interpreted scripture different than your church on this issue and many others. We can go verse by verse and have different interpretations. You know this is true.

So, ONCE AGAIN, why is your interpretation right and anyone else wrong?

Mary