1. 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!

Featured BABYLON CATHOLIC CHURCH

Discussion in 'Christian Debate Forum' started by epostle1, Mar 12, 2017.

  1. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    The thread title, which is heavily used in the thread "Why do they hate being called Christians" is not in violation of the rules, so it seems. I am critiquing a book, not a denomination, unlike certain members who mindlessly bash and insult with rule immunity.

    Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

    Hunt argues that the Whore "is a city built on seven hills," which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.

    Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

    [​IMG]
    It's not even close.

    #2: "Babylon"—What’s in a Name?
    Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city "known as Babylon." This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is "Babylon the Great."

    The phrase "Babylon the great" (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as "the great city" seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to "the great city." That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses "will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified."

    "The great city" is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called "Sodom" in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the "the great city" of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was "where [the] Lord was crucified."

    Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one "great city" ("the great city"), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.

    This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon," but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.

    #3: Commits Fornication
    Hunt tells us, "The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome."
    Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with "the kings of the earth" (those nations it conquered).

    To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged "unholy alliances" forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are "unholy."
    He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had "unholy alliances" with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

    #4: Clothed in Purple and Red
    Hunt states, "She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy." He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

    Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

    Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.
    The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons:

    (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally;
    (b the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation ("the righteous acts of the saints;" 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and
    (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

    Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.
    It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

    Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

    #5: Possesses Great Wealth
    Hunt states, "[The Whore’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4]." The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers.
     
  2. FHII

    FHII Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,349
    Likes Received:
    1,152
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Once again Kelpha, you are going off half-cocked.

    Everyone knows who started that phrase: me. I am the one! But even though I have explained why I used the term, you haven't understood or perhaps missed my explanation.

    It is in reference to 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter says the church at Babylon salutes you.

    Catholics use this sole verse as Biblical proof that Peter was in Rome. The verse doesn't say that, but it is inferred. Frankly, I agree. It is an acknowledgement he may have been in Rome. And for the upteenth time... I do believe he was in Rome at some point.

    So the point I was making is that the guy you call your first pope referred to your church as the Church at Babylon. Not that I agree that he was the first pope OR that he established a church in Rome. In fact, i also refer to you folks hijacking history. That is taking former history and claiming as part of yours.

    Peter, Linus and everyone else who may have been in Rome or may have been a bishop in Rome were not Popes any more than the 1964 Cleveland Browns were Superbowl Champs. What we have come to know as the Catholic Church wad not started by Jesus or Peter or even Paul. At best, it elvolved into that. Thats "at best".

    But by all means... Have fun feeling persecuted. Don't let the facts stand in your way.
     
  3. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    #6: A Golden Cup

    Hunt states that the Whore "has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’" This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he states that the "Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world."
    To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word "chalice" in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated "cup."

    He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25);
    he ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.

    #7: The Mother of Harlots
    Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: "John’s attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5, [Hunt’s emphasis]). Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy," which has "made sinners of the clergy and harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit."


    Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline—a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church—and even this rite has not always been mandatory. This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, since Hunt himself says, "The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ."

    Hunt has again lurched to an absurdly literal interpretation. He should interpret the harlotry of the Whore’s daughters as the same as their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place. This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Instead, Hunt gives the interpretation of the daughters as literal, earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly fornication.
    If Hunt did not have a fixation on the King James Version, he would notice another point that identifies the daughters’ harlotries with that of their mother: The same Greek word (porna) is used for both mother and daughters. The King James Version translates this word as "whore" whenever it refers to the mother, but as "harlot" when it refers to the daughters. Modern translations render it consistently. John sees the "great harlot" (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is "the mother of harlots" (17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s, which Hunt admits is not literal sex!

    #8: Sheds the Blood of Saints

    Hunt states, "John next notices that the woman is drunk—not with alcohol but with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . [cf. verse 6]." He then advances charges of brutality and killing by the Inquisitions, supposed forced conversions of nations, and even the Nazi holocaust!

    This section of the book abounds with historical errors, not the least of which is his implication that the Church endorses the forced conversion of nations. The Church emphatically does not do so. It has condemned forced conversions as early as the third century (before then they were scarcely even possible), and has formally condemned them on repeated occasions, as in theCatechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 160, 1738, 1782, 2106–7).
    But pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem do fit the description of a city drunk with the blood of saints and the martyrs of Jesus. And since they were notorious persecutors of Christians, the original audience would have automatically thought of one of these two as the city that persecutes Christians, not an undreamed-of Christian Rome that was centuries in the future.

    #9: Reigns over Kings

    For his last argument, Hunt states, "Finally, the angel reveals that the woman ‘is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth’ (verse 18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only one: Vatican City."
    This is a joke. Vatican City has no power over other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican’s very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian nationalism.

    Hunt appeals to power the popes once had over Christian political rulers (neglecting the fact that this was always a limited authority, by the popes’ own admission), but at that time there was no Vatican City. The Vatican only became a separate city in 1929, when the Holy See and Italy signed the Lateran Treaty.
    Hunt seems to understand this passage to be talking about Vatican City, since the modern city of Rome is only a very minor political force. If the reign is a literal, political one, then pagan Rome fulfills the requirement far better than Christian Rome ever did.
    Hunting the Whore of Babylon
     
  4. Mungo

    Mungo Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,828
    Likes Received:
    102
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Thank you kepha,

    Very helkpful.
     
  5. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST
    This is something you don't see, if ever, in the Profit$ of Doom media: what the Bible says about the spirit of the anti-christ.

    In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too). THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF ANTI-CHRIST.

    There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom.

    • The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
    • and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
    • The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon.
    These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies.

    An Overview of Development of Doctrine: Is it a Corruption of Biblical Teaching?
    The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

    This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.
    Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).
    Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.
    In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

    The Trinity can be demonstrated from Scripture, but that didn't stop heretics from using the Bible to teach false doctrines. (Arius, Nestorius, Apollinaris, Sabellius) That's why councils were necessary. The Trinity was a development of what was already there, without making any changes to It's essence, in order to rule out the heretics. (i.e. Jesus wasn't God, or Jesus was 2 entities, or no trinity etc.)

    It's wrong to jump to the conclusion that development = traditions of men because such a person doesn't understand development.
     
  6. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    982
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    That's funny - YOU, a bitter anti-Catholic poster on an obscure little forum want us to take YOUR word for it when we have much more respected minds who agree with the Catholic Church.

    Eminent Protestant historian, J.N.D. Kelly comes to mind. Besides being a prominent academic within the theological faculty of Oxford University and Principal of St Edmund Hall, Oxford In his Oxford Dictionary of Popes - he lists all of the Popes, going ALL the way back to PETER.

    Kenneth Samples, the Senior Research scholar and Protestant at writes in his treatise on the Catholic Church (What Think Ye of Rome?):
    [SIZE=12pt]"Catholicism, on the other hand, is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]thousand[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]‐[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."[/SIZE]

    William Hendriksen, member of the Reformed Christian Church and Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary :
    The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, And I say to you, you are KEPHA, and on this KEPHA I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I ACCEPT THIS VIEW.
    New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647 JPK page 14​)

    Donald A. Hagner of Fuller Theological Seminary​:
    The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built.... The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
    Matthew 14-28
    Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470, JPK pages 36-37​

    Shall I go on??

    I'm sorry - other than being an angry little poster on an obscure little forum - what is YOUR academic and historical pedigree??
    Yeah - that's what I thought . . .
     
  7. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Actually it doesnt because Jesus was demonstrating, teaching Peter about Revelation, but teh whole thing taken out of context because without it teh church has no foundation and it is crumbling.

    Jesus told Peter that He was building His church upon revelation, your church has none.
     
  8. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    982
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    And if I has a dollar for every Protestant who said the Catholic Church is "crumbling" - I'd be rich!!
    Hasn't crumbled for 2000 years because it has Jesus' guarantee that even the gates of HELL - or angry little impotent posters would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18).
     
  9. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Peter didn't mean a Babylonian Catholic Church, there never was any such thing. Had anyone been caught by the Romans carrying a letter that said, "...church at Rome..." it would have been a death sentence, so Peter used it as a code name. Babylon always refers to pagan Rome, only ignorant bigots use it to refer to the Catholic Church. Early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as "Babylon," but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.

    We don't claim sole possession of the truth because the truth cannot be possessed.

    A list of Popes can be found in any encyclopedia. Because you don't see the word "Pope" you assume it didn't exist. I've told you before, 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. But because you don't see the term "pope" for this period, you make false assumptions, and accuse me of hijacking history.
    I already showed you where "Catholic" originated in scripture, and you ignored it.
    I showed you where Ignatius first recorded the term in 106 AD, and you ignored it.
    We barely touched on Catholic distinctives from the 1st century, and you ran from it.
    Now you tell me the CC evolved after Peter and Paul. You ignore scripture and all outside evidence, and invent nonsense about the CC evolving, WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

    But by all means... Have fun feeling persecuted. Don't let the facts stand in your way


    You have repeatedly been exposed as a persecutor, a historical revisionist, and parrot the same lies in every post. You are a waste of time.
     
  10. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    [​IMG]
     
  11. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Why would teh devil destroy something he is a part of. and it is Revelation that Hell will not prevail against, we have already firmly established he has being a part of your church since the beginning. what part does God have to do with Murder???
     
  12. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    Since the Bible repeatedly tells us the Church is infallible and indefectable, you are going against the Bible. It's impossible for the Church to fall away because of God's promises, if you believe all the Bible, not just the parts you like. No one has ever given a date for when this big event allegedly happened, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.. You have no evidence of "murder". A just was is not "murder". The state executed people, not the Church. Your charge is phony and hateful.

    You persecute us with your lies, which is against the rules. But we know how the rules work around here.
     
  13. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
  14. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    Yes we know that, just not mens church ie yours and all teh other denominations, your church and His church are not one and teh same, the history of your church is testament to that.
     
    Job likes this.
  15. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    982
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Then, why did YOU say that the Church is "crumbling"??
    Can YOU say, "Hypocrite"??

    The only thing we have "firmly established" is that YOUR cult was created by a man in the early 1980's.
    That, and the fact that the Catholic Church can trace its unbroken line of Apostolic Succession all the way back to the FIRST century.
     
  16. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    982
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Like YOUR cult - "aggressivechristianity.net"??
     
  17. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    I find that quiet humourous, sine

    1 I am not the one doing the shouting
    2, Im not the one demening everyonethat disagrees with me
    3 i only give you teh truth, cant help it that you deny it
    4 If Jesus is a cult than what is your chruch

    Jesus never asked us to follow any man for perfectly good reason, just take a look at all your angry posting, you should read it some day.

    Mat 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
    Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

    YEs so few wil go to Jesus have to many men between Him and them, what are you afraid of, your pope cant kick you out of our Lords church he has no authortiy to do so.
     
    Job likes this.
  18. BreadOfLife

    BreadOfLife Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,957
    Likes Received:
    982
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Wanna BET??

    Your problem is that you're a cherry-picker of Scripture and you ignore all of the verses where Jesus gives SUPREME Authority to His Church.
    Allow me to educate you, yet again . . .

    Matt 16:18-19
    I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

    Matt. 18:18
    Amen, I say to you, whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    John 16:12-15
    “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
    But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
    He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
    Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

    Luke 10:16
    Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."


    PS - Don't talk to me about "following men" because YOU follow the idiots at "aggressivechristianit.net" who invented their sect in 1980.
     
  19. mjrhealth

    mjrhealth Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,624
    Likes Received:
    2,243
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Australia
    No I dont, you just get mixed up with His, teh one spotless and without blemish and yours the one stained with teh blood of teh innocent, teh saints teh people of God, teh children those who refused to join etc etc Like Jesus said

    Joh_8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    Yet here you are telling us they are one and teh same?? What has Jesus got to do with murder??


    Yes you really are an aggressive person that is why few will respond they dont want to get talked down to as you do, you are teh sum of your religion despising the truth and twisting scripture, and still continue to do,
     
  20. epostle1

    epostle1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,326
    Likes Received:
    499
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    Canada
    IF you were smart, you would stop embarrassing yourself and leave us alone. Your constant "murder" charge is a lie, based on hate. Not once have you produced any proof for the 25 times you have made this falsehood.
     
Loading...