Search results

But was he talking about the Babylonian Catholic Church? Again.... A hijack of history.

Thanks... Very interesting. I would agree that Augustine probably used the term that was already in use. Either well established or out of wanting to establish it. It seems that the term probably came up in the 300's then.

I actually brought this up in another thread. The Catholic Church claims it started with Jesus an Peter. That has been a big dispute lately. But whether they want to admit it or not, the Catholic Church hijacked a few centuries of history. I likened it to calling the Cleveland Browns...

I saw post 4. I was asking for confirmation.

So Weber... Are you saying that Jesus's crucifixion was on a Thursday? My understanding is that it was on Wednesday.

Rev 7:5-8 states it was 12000 from each tribe of Israel. The 24 elders, i believe (and i am not prepared to defend this belief) are the 12 Apostles and 12 Patriarchs. They would not be included in the 144K. Have a look at verse 9 of that chapter. It speaks of a multitude that are washed...

Ahh, it looks like the catholics are celebrating! How cute.. So BoL provided your version of 1 cor 4:15. Not sure which version but it looks close to the ESV. I'm not debating versions, but here it is again from the KJV: 1 Corinthians 4:15 KJV For though ye have ten thousand instructors in...

1 Cor 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. No....

This is all easy to refute except for one thing. First off. Yes... people are called "father" in the Bible. Who??? Paternal men. Obviously, that is not what Jesus was talking about then. He was talking about calling a person "father" in a spiritual sense. In other words, don't call...

Not buying any of your spin Bread of life... It's the same garbage your fellow Babylonians have tried to peddle before... YOU are trying to give me Bible lessons?!?! You couldn't teach a school of fish to swim!

No.. The burden of proof is on you! There is NO Biblical evidence fot the Catholic Church. Thats why when we ask for such you go to outside soucres.

Call no man father... Need I say more?

Bad popes good popes... This is a made up controversy. No one ever brought it up except for you Babylonians. But I will bring it up now. If a Pope doesn't preach the truth, he is not a good Pope. Thus, there hasn't been a good pope if they preach lies. And Peter got his name long before Mat 16.

As opposed to your opinion? Hey... A broken line is a broken line. I even said it wasn't a big deal. I even have Bible to prove it isn't a big deal and offered it to you. And you rejected it.

As opposed to your opinion? Hey... A broken line is a broken line. I even said it wasn't a big deal. I even have Bible to prove it isn't a big deal and offered it to you. And you rejected it.

Aww heck. Just can't let this go... So is it the Babylonian Chuches stance that Israel, Jerusalem and the Jews who are the whore of Babylon? I mean... I didn't even go there but that is what bread of life took it to. Israel is the whore of Babylon. So saith the Church of Babylon!

The mods have called for concluding comments. I have given mine. The Church of Babylon have abused that call as they have continuously posted their say afterwards. Not my say... If the mods are ok with Babylonians running amok, fine.

I agree with your overall scope, but not the details. Well now that explains it clearly, doesn't it?!?! I believe in "good works". I believe they are necessary. But the question is what are good works? I believe (with Biblical reference) they are things rhat pertain to God's will. That is...

My faith in Christ isn't shaken, nor is my faith in God's chosen men shaken.

1. I do believe that when there is no one in office for a year to 3 years that the line of succession has been broken. 2. Its not that big of a deal unless someone claims it wasn't broken. And Catholic claim that. 3. Its not that big of a deal because of the time and political situation of...