“Bible alone” is the cos of confusion!

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong applies to you.
Knowledge, intellectual knowledge, relational knowledge, enlightenment, OF anything,
DOES NOT MEAN Born AGAIN.
Having FAITH, Having Belief...
DOES NOT MEAN Born AGAIN.
Face it...your catholic education has failed you, blinded you, deafened you.......you do not KNOW what Born Again means...

WRONG.

First of all - mere "Belief" is NOT true faith.
Even the DEMONS "believe" in the truth about God but they don't have faith (James 2:19).

To be born again is to be justified.
A person is justified (born again) by faith (Rom. 3:28).
Ergo, those who have true faith in Christ are born again.

Game.
SET.
MATCH.

 

[Taken]

WRONG.

First of all - mere "Belief" is NOT true faith.
Even the DEMONS "believe" in the truth about God but they don't have faith (James 2:19).

To be born again is to be justified.
A person is justified (born again) by faith (Rom. 3:28).
Ergo, those who have true faith in Christ are born again.

Game.
SET.
MATCH.

I already KNOW what BORN AGAIN means, and KNOW YOU DO NOT, by your ranting, gaslighting, past personal testimonies, scrambling, posting irrelevant commentaries, and Scriptures that ARE NOT what Born Again means.

Must be disappointing and embarrassing passing yourself off as a teacher and expert in catholicism, when you do not know what Born Again means.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I already KNOW what BORN AGAIN means, and KNOW YOU DO NOT, by your ranting, gaslighting, past personal testimonies, scrambling, posting irrelevant commentaries, and Scriptures that ARE NOT what Born Again means.

Must be disappointing and embarrassing passing yourself off as a teacher and expert in catholicism, when you do not know what Born Again means.

To be justified is the very definition of being born again – and this is precisely what having “Epignosis” of Christ means. It is a full, experiential and relational knowledge – not just intellectual knowledge as YOU falsely believe.

You’re just angry because you LOST another argument . . .

 

[Taken]

To be justified is the very definition of being born again – and this is precisely what having “Epignosis” of Christ means. It is a full, experiential and relational knowledge – not just intellectual knowledge as YOU falsely believe.

You’re just angry because you LOST another argument . . .

LOL, I lost nothing, and you continuing to show your ignorance of FACTS, remains laughable.

Even a 5 yr old knows anger is not displayed by Laughing...ha, ha, ha.
Even a 5 yr old knows anger is displayed by repetitious name calling and attacking.

Everyone knows you are indoctrinated and a rude, crude, snarky gaslighter and think your bully tactics are immature and laughable...

 

[theefaith]

Pray tell us what it means?

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL, I lost nothing, and you continuing to show your ignorance of FACTS, remains laughable.

Even a 5 yr old knows anger is not displayed by Laughing...ha, ha, ha.
Even a 5 yr old knows anger is displayed by repetitious name calling and attacking.
Everyone knows you are indoctrinated and a rude, crude, snarky gaslighter and think your bully tactics are immature and laughable...

And more importantly – everyone knows I proved you wrong . . .

 

[Taken]

And more importantly – everyone knows I proved you wrong . . .

Nope, you didn’t.

Having Knowledge, being enlightened, Does NOT MEAN BORN AGAIN, no matter how many times you falsely make that claim, (and everyone else you speak for, in your own mind) <—- LOL

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nope, you didn’t.
Having Knowledge, being enlightened, Does NOT MEAN BORN AGAIN, no matter how many times you falsely make that claim, (and everyone else you speak for, in your own mind) <—- LOL

Said the woefully-ignorant Catholic-hater.

Your denial of the definitions of Epignosis doesn’t make it “untrue”.
It just makes you look desperate and pathetic . . .

ONE more time, Einstein –
To be born again is to be justified.
A person is justified (born again) by faith (Rom. 3:28).
Ergo, those who have true faith in Christ are born again.

There ends the leson . . .

 

[theefaith]

Does the “Bible alone” exclude the ministry of prophets and teachers? Isa 53:1. Lk 1:4. Matt 28:19
Ministry of angels acts 8:21
Ministry of the Holy Spirit Jn 16:13
Or of Christ?

 

[Taken]

Said the woefully-ignorant Catholic-hater.

Your denial of the definitions of Epignosis doesn’t make it “untrue”.
It just makes you look desperate and pathetic . . .

ONE more time, Einstein –
To be born again is to be justified.
A person is justified (born again) by faith (Rom. 3:28).
Ergo, those who have true faith in Christ are born again.

There ends the leson . . .

Yet again you simply show your own arrogance, faulty teaching,
And immature thuggery name-Calling.


A man is NOT BORN AGAIN because he has KNOWLEDGE!

A man IS BORN AGAIN because he has Received the SEED OF God!

 

[Illuminator]

I already showed you the relevant Scripture of how Lord Jesus chose Apostle PAUL to be His "chosen vessel" to preach The Gospel to the Gentiles, and to the children of Israel, and to the kings. There is NO MENTION OF A pope in Rome about that! The Roman Catholic Church has simply ASSUMED... more authority than it actually has.

You are dreaming. The Scripture I quoted about Christ having chosen Apostle Paul and Scripture where Paul reveals His given authority over the Churches by Christ, proves what you are saying is nothing but religious hype.

Some folks just don't know how to read, what a sad state for the education of some...

Apostle Paul speaking:

2 Cor 11:28
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
KJV


Lord Jesus Christ speaking about Apostle Paul:

Acts 9:15
15 But the Lord said unto him, "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:"
KJV

The Roman Catholic Church is primarily a GENTILE Church, so where did Jesus say He chose Apostle Peter to be the Apostle to the Gentiles??? Lord Jesus instead said He chose Apostle Paul to bear His name before the Gentiles. He did NOT say He chose Peter to be the Apostle to the Gentiles (even though Peter did preach to 'some' Gentiles also, per Acts 10).

This is why Apostle Paul would write the MAJORITY of the Books of The New Testament! Apostle Paul was overseer of the churches.

I rest my case folks, this person above just made the idiotic and FALSE CLAIM that understanding God's Word does NOT come by READING IT!?!

That just goes to show how far 'some'... men will go to defend their idiotic false 'traditions' devised by men and their organizations!

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.

• In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf. 9:17).
• 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 (Acts 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).

The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

if you agree that Paul was commissioned as an apostle “by Jesus Himself” then does he derive his apostleship from Jesus or from Peter?

Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It’s the usual Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly.

There is also the interesting incident in Gal. 2 where Paul rebukes Peter “to his face” for his “hypocrisy” because he was “not walking in line with the gospel” (Gal. 2:11-15).

So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites (Matt 23:2 ff.).

You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. I’ve already given the example of the Jerusalem Council, which plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?

 

[Davy]

Beware brethren, of listening to these pope-ish types that come here trying to denounce The Word of God about the Ministry of Christ's Apostles. Apostle Paul was not the only... Apostle that preached The Gospel and was sent unto the Gentiles.

But Christ did make Apostle Paul overseer of the Gentile Churches, as I have already shown from Bible Scripture. And there is NO MENTION of a pope anywhere in that.

The office of the Pope never even existed until the 3rd century A.D., and it happened because of bishops that were competing for authority between the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. So it was agreed to create the office of a "bishop of bishops", that is what that office was originally called. Then came all the man-made titles and traditions they could figure to attach to that man-made office.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yet again you simply show your own arrogance, faulty teaching,

And immature thuggery name-Calling.
A man is NOT BORN AGAIN because he has KNOWLEDGE!
A man IS BORN AGAIN because he has Received the SEED OF God!

And Epignosis isn’t simply “knowledge” - but I’ve already educated you about that.

I’ve given you the Greek definition as well as over a DOZEN scholarly interpretations of that definition from Protestant linguists. ONLY those who are born again have an “Epignosis” of Christ, per Heb. 10:26-27 and 2 Pet. 2:20-22 – and they are WARNED not to fall back into darkness lest they LOSE their salvation.

You’re trying desperately to win an argument that you’ve already LOST . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Beware brethren, of listening to these pope-ish types that come here trying to denounce The Word of God about the Ministry of Christ's Apostles. Apostle Paul was not the only... Apostle that preached The Gospel and was sent unto the Gentiles.

But Christ did make Apostle Paul overseer of the Gentile Churches, as I have already shown from Bible Scripture. And there is NO MENTION of a pope anywhere in that.

The office of the Pope never even existed until the 3rd century A.D., and it happened because of bishops that were competing for authority between the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. So it was agreed to create the office of a "bishop of bishops", that is what that office was originally called. Then came all the man-made titles and traditions they could figure to attach to that man-made office.

And, as usual – your asinine charge comes with NO dates, NO names and NO documentation.

If there was a FIRST false Pope – then NAME him.
Give me the YEAR – or eveb a decade when this happened.
And most importantly - gibe me the name of the DOCUMET that promulgated the office of the papacy.

If you don’t have this information, ALL you have is the usual manure – FALSE accusations with ZERO evidence. False charges without proof are a violation of God’s Commandment against bearing FALSE Witness (Exod. 20:19) . . .

 

[theefaith]

Beware brethren, of listening to these pope-ish types that come here trying to denounce The Word of God about the Ministry of Christ's Apostles. Apostle Paul was not the only... Apostle that preached The Gospel and was sent unto the Gentiles.

But Christ did make Apostle Paul overseer of the Gentile Churches, as I have already shown from Bible Scripture. And there is NO MENTION of a pope anywhere in that.

The office of the Pope never even existed until the 3rd century A.D., and it happened because of bishops that were competing for authority between the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. So it was agreed to create the office of a "bishop of bishops", that is what that office was originally called. Then came all the man-made titles and traditions they could figure to attach to that man-made office.

isa 22:21-22
Father
Has the key of the kingdom
Matt 16:18-19

Matt 16:17-19

did Christ give the keys of jurisdictional authority to govern his church and administer his kingdom to a confession? Or to the person of the apostle Peter?

Did Christ give the apostolic authority to bind and loose to a confession? Or to the apostle Peter?

did a confession miraculously catch a fish with a coin in its mouth to pay the temple tax for both Christ and Peter identifying them as one in Matt 17:27 Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

Did a confession stand up in acts 1 and quote the Old Testament and appoint Mathias as an apostle? Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

Did a confession give the first sermon in acts 2? Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

did a man in acts 3:6 receive a miracle thru a confession? Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

Did a man in acts 5:5 fall dead at the feet of a confession? Or to the person of the apostle Peter?

did a confession preach the necessity of baptismal regeneration in acts 2:38-39 and 1 pet 3:20-21?
Or did the person of the apostle Peter?

 

[theefaith]

Beware brethren, of listening to these pope-ish types that come here trying to denounce The Word of God about the Ministry of Christ's Apostles. Apostle Paul was not the only... Apostle that preached The Gospel and was sent unto the Gentiles.

But Christ did make Apostle Paul overseer of the Gentile Churches, as I have already shown from Bible Scripture. And there is NO MENTION of a pope anywhere in that.

The office of the Pope never even existed until the 3rd century A.D., and it happened because of bishops that were competing for authority between the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. So it was agreed to create the office of a "bishop of bishops", that is what that office was originally called. Then came all the man-made titles and traditions they could figure to attach to that man-made office.

you’re saying Christ is not king???

 

[theefaith]

Yet again you simply show your own arrogance, faulty teaching,
And immature thuggery name-Calling.


A man is NOT BORN AGAIN because he has KNOWLEDGE!

A man IS BORN AGAIN because he has Received the SEED OF God!

how does one receive this seed

 

[Illuminator]

Beware brethren, of listening to these pope-ish types that come here trying to denounce The Word of God about the Ministry of Christ's Apostles. Apostle Paul was not the only... Apostle that preached The Gospel and was sent unto the Gentiles.

But Christ did make Apostle Paul overseer of the Gentile Churches, as I have already shown from Bible Scripture. And there is NO MENTION of a pope anywhere in that.

The office of the Pope never even existed until the 3rd century A.D., and it happened because of bishops that were competing for authority between the Roman Church and the Byzantine Church. So it was agreed to create the office of a "bishop of bishops", that is what that office was originally called. Then came all the man-made titles and traditions they could figure to attach to that man-made office.

The pagan Romans knew who the pope was, they killed the first 39 of them.

OFFICE OF POPE IN THE BIBLE

Isaiha 22: 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station.

Shebna is described as having an "office" and a "station." An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.

This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

Isaiha 22:20 In that day I will call my servant Eli'akim the son of Hilki'ah,

Isaiha 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

Isaiha 22:21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God's people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church "Pope." The Pope is the father of God's people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ's representative on earth.

Acts 7:2; Acts 22:1,1 John 2:13 – elders of the Church are called “fathers.” 1 Cor. 4:15 – Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.” The "call no man father" charge often levied against Catholics just proves biblical illiteracy.

Isaiha 22:22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. (revealed in Matthew 16:19, Rev. 3:7)

Isaiha 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ's kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

23: And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. (another word for throne is chair)

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus' "keys" undeniably represent authority. By using the word "keys," Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant revolt 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens. (see Isa. 22:22, key, shut/open)

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This "binding and loosing" authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish "halakah," or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves. Jesus sanctifies the Seat of Moses, who had binding and loosing authority, and transfers it to Peter, the Apostles and their successors.

Jeremiah 33:17 For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut off from David a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.

Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Daniel 2:44 But in the days of those kingdoms the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, and his kingdom shall not be delivered up to another people, and it shall break in pieces, and shall consume all these kingdoms, and itself shall stand for ever.

Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

 

[Illuminator]

The office of the Pope never even existed until the 3rd century A.D., BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...

Was Leo the Great the First Pope?

The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.

The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a 3rd century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.
Read more at The Early Papacy - 3 - Fr. Dwight Longenecker

 

[Taken]

And Epignosis isn’t simply “knowledge” - but I’ve already educated you about that.

I’ve given you the Greek definition as well as over a DOZEN scholarly interpretations of that definition from Protestant linguists. ONLY those who are born again have an “Epignosis” of Christ, per Heb. 10:26-27 and 2 Pet. 2:20-22 – and they are WARNED not to fall back into darkness lest they LOSE their salvation.

You’re trying desperately to win an argument that you’ve already LOST . . .

Knowledge, or as you repeatedly like to SPEAK Greek, epignosis...
IS NOT HOW one becomes BORN AGAIN...
DOES NOT MEAN BORN AGAIN...

How many years have you been exalting your catholic church, and STILL have not LEARNED HOW a man BECOMES born again.

Pitiful!