Baptism question that seems unbiblical

[BreadOfLife]

And you read my last sentence.
Contradiction?
Not surprised, are you?

What part of what I wrote is a "contradiction"??

 

[Stranger]

Kung may be a "Romanist" whatever that is - but he's not a faithful Catholic.

Anyway - I never claimed to have "greater" credentials than Kung or anybody else. I trust in Christ's Church more than I do a disobedient dissident.

I do admire your scheming cowardice to a certain extent, however, because you completely derailed this topic into a conversation about Hans Kung when you were losing the original debate.

Bravo . . .

Kung is a Romanist just like you and the pope are. He is faithful to the Roman Church.

See. Because one of the popes comes against Kung, even though Kung is a credited historian of the Church, then someone like you are allowed your opinion but Kung is not, though he is the more learned. Why, because you simply advance what the pope says. And you call me a coward.

What cowardice? I just quoted Kung. You're the one that has made a big deal of it. Not me. He is a member of the Roman Church and has written a history of the Roman Church, and has been very objective. I didn't make a big deal when you quoted protestants who supposedly disagree with me. But my what a fuss you make over one Roman writer who disagrees with you. Anathema.

In your mind everyone loses the debate but you. This is why you have to always remind yourself that you are winning. Because it never appears that way. I have always noticed and said before, the louder and more belligerent one is behind the pulpit, the less he knows.

Now you want to claim I derailed the discussion. It wasn't me. I just quoted your favorite Roman historian.

Stranger

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

What part of what I wrote is a "contradiction"??

Go to school and catch up!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Go to school and catch up!

Translation:
"Oops - I put my foot in my mouth again and you caught me."

That's what I thought . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Kung is a Romanist just like you and the pope are. He is faithful to the Roman Church.

See. Because one of the popes comes against Kung, even though Kung is a credited historian of the Church, then someone like you are allowed your opinion but Kung is not, though he is the more learned. Why, because you simply advance what the pope says. And you call me a coward.

What cowardice? I just quoted Kung. You're the one that has made a big deal of it. Not me. He is a member of the Roman Church and has written a history of the Roman Church, and has been very objective. I didn't make a big deal when you quoted protestants who supposedly disagree with me. But my what a fuss you make over one Roman writer who disagrees with you. Anathema.

In your mind everyone loses the debate but you. This is why you have to always remind yourself that you are winning. Because it never appears that way. I have always noticed and said before, the louder and more belligerent one is behind the pulpit, the less he knows.

Now you want to claim I derailed the discussion. It wasn't me. I just quoted your favorite Roman historian.

Stranger

Kung may be a "Romanist" - but the Pope and I are Catholics.

Kung could be an Atheist or a Buddhist and a Communist for all I know.
One thing for sure is that he is nothing more than a dissident Catholic, as sure as you're just another splintered Protestant.

 

[Stranger]

Kung may be a "Romanist" - but the Pope and I are Catholics.

Kung could be an Atheist or a Buddhist and a Communist for all I know.
One thing for sure is that he is nothing more than a dissident Catholic, as sure as you're just another splintered Protestant.

Kung is a Christian and a member of the Roman Church. He is Catholic because he is Christian, not Roman. Just as I am Catholic, but not Roman. Whether you or the pope like it or not.

It is your Roman church that has caused the splintering and so many divisions. They reject the power grab of Rome.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Kung is a Christian and a member of the Roman Church. He is Catholic because he is Christian, not Roman. Just as I am Catholic, but not Roman. Whether you or the pope like it or not.

It is your Roman church that has caused the splintering and so many divisions. They reject the power grab of Rome.

Stranger

And, as I've told you before - that position is a stupid as saying that I am a Baptist because I feel like making that claim.

I strongly urge you to pick up a history book and read about what caused all of the division.
It wasn't the Catholic Church - it was men like Luther, Zwingili, Calvin, et al - the same men that YOU splintered off from . . .

 

[Stranger]

BreadOfLife

You don't dictate who is a member of your Roman Church, do you? Who has said Kung is not a member of the Roman Church? Was he excommunicated?

I do pick up history books. That is why you disagree with me. I already showed you that Rome cause the first splinter in the church in trying to force their rule on all the Church. Remember.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

BreadOfLife
You don't dictate who is a member of your Roman Church, do you? Who has said Kung is not a member of the Roman Church? Was he excommunicated?

I do pick up history books. That is why you disagree with me. I already showed you that Rome cause the first splinter in the church in trying to force their rule on all the Church. Remember.

Stranger

I don't know if Kung is a member of the "Roman" Church.
He is, however, a dissident member of the Catholic Church.

As to the last part of your post - if you're referring to the East-West Split - you really don't know your history . . .

 

[Stranger]

I don't know if Kung is a member of the "Roman" Church.
He is, however, a dissident member of the Catholic Church.

As to the last part of your post - if you're referring to the East-West Split - you really don't know your history . . .

Kung is a member of your Roman Church that you want to call 'Catholic'.

The split between East and West and the Reformation was always about the power and authority of Rome being threatened. The only history you know and are forced to believe is what the Roman Church tells you. You can't read history, or anything else for that matter on your own. Which means what you call 'history' is really not 'history'. It's what has been made up so as to support the Roman foundation.

Kung says, (The Catholic Church A Short History, Kung, Modern Library, 2003, p. 82-83)

"The split between the church of the East and the church of the West was prepared for over long centuries by a progressive alienation. It was increasingly driven on by a progressive development of papal authority, which for Eastern Christianity was in complete contradiction with its own tradition, that of the early church....To the present day, for the Orthodox Church, the church of the 'seven councils' (Nicaea I, in 325, to Nicaea II, in 787), the papal claim to primacy is the only serious obstacle to the restoration of church communion. We should remember that for the East, 'church' has primarily remained koinonia, communio; a 'fellowship' of believers, of local churches and their bishops, a federation of churches with a collegial order, which is based on common sacraments, liturgical order, and confessions of faith. It is the opposite of a uniform church, understood above all in legal terms, monarchical, absolutist, and centralist, predominantly based on Roman church law and on Roman decrees which were completely unknown in the East.

"In short,such a pope-centered uniform church was an unacceptable innovation for the whole of the East. People there had never asked for papal decreta and responsa, had never asked for a papal exemption to be bestowed on monasteries, had never had bishops nominated by the pope forced on them, had never recognized an absolute and direct authority of the bishop of Rome over all bishops and believers."

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Kung is a member of your Roman Church that you want to call 'Catholic'.

The split between East and West and the Reformation was always about the power and authority of Rome being threatened. The only history you know and are forced to believe is what the Roman Church tells you. You can't read history, or anything else for that matter on your own. Which means what you call 'history' is really not 'history'. It's what has been made up so as to support the Roman foundation.

Kung says, (The Catholic Church A Short History, Kung, Modern Library, 2003, p. 82-83)

"The split between the church of the East and the church of the West was prepared for over long centuries by a progressive alienation. It was increasingly driven on by a progressive development of papal authority, which for Eastern Christianity was in complete contradiction with its own tradition, that of the early church....To the present day, for the Orthodox Church, the church of the 'seven councils' (Nicaea I, in 325, to Nicaea II, in 787), the papal claim to primacy is the only serious obstacle to the restoration of church communion. We should remember that for the East, 'church' has primarily remained koinonia, communio; a 'fellowship' of believers, of local churches and their bishops, a federation of churches with a collegial order, which is based on common sacraments, liturgical order, and confessions of faith. It is the opposite of a uniform church, understood above all in legal terms, monarchical, absolutist, and centralist, predominantly based on Roman church law and on Roman decrees which were completely unknown in the East.

"In short,such a pope-centered uniform church wasd an unacceptable innovation for the whole of the East. People there had never asked for papal decreta and responsa, had never asked fore a papal exemption to be bestowed on monasteries, had never had bishops nominated by the pope forced on them, had never recognized an absolute and direct authority of the bishop of Rome over all bishops and believers."

Stranger

Funny how Kung left out the fact that Eastern Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage considered the Pope the earthy Head of the Church centuries PRIOR to the split.

But, what can you expect from an angry little anti-Catholic tirade called "The Catholic Church A Short History"?
As if 2000 years can be considered "short" . . .

 

[Stranger]

Funny how Kung left out the fact that Eastern Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage considered the Pope the earthy Head of the Church centuries PRIOR to the split.

But, what can you expect from an angry little anti-Catholic tirade called "The Catholic Church A Short History"?
As if 2000 years can be considered "short" . . .

Whats funny is I just quoted you a few phrases and you claim Kung left out the Eastern Fathers in his book. Are you that stupid? Or are you just up to your wordsmithing again. I am thinking both are true. Everyone who disagrees with you is an 'angry little someone'. As though your are some 'great large something'. But it is clear that if there is any 'angry someone' it is you.

The title of Kung's book, 'The Catholic Church A Short History' is an excellent book. Because Kung is knowledgeable in his field of study, then he can condense the history of the Church into brief but extremely pregnant chapters. That is the sign of one who knows what he is talking about. Just like the sign of one who does not know what he is talking about is voluminous writings which are meant to impress but are more of a smoke screen to further some agenda.

I recommend Kung's book to all who want to see that not all Romanists agree with the Church of Rome in much of their false doctrines. And that there are people who are in the Church of Rome who are Christian and born-again despite the Church of Rome and not because of it. This doesn't mean I agree with all that Kung says doctrinally. Of course I don't. Just like I don't agree with all Luther believed either. But Kung is a Christian and wanting to be faithful to God and to his fellowship in the Roman Church. Though the Roman Church, like BreadOfLife, want to disown him.

Kung did not say 2000 years can be considered short. But he has given an excellent history of those years in the Church. To which you would be wise to read. Oh, but I forgot, the pope probably has forbidden you to read it. Right? Of course he has. Wouldn't want anyone to see there is another and more faithful and accurate view of history than the one Rome projects. No wonder you are so angry. All you can read is what is spoon fed to you. Don't get any on you. Don't let it dribble down your chin.

"After the death of the apostle Paul a degree of institutionalization was unavoidable, even in his communities....And every community, indeed every member of a community, had to stand in the 'apostolic succession'--in accordance with the message and action of the apostles. Not just a few people, but the whole church was an apostolic church, as it would be called in the creed.

"It cannot be verified that the bishops are successors of the apostles in the direct and exclusive sense. It is historically impossible to find in the initial phase of Christianity an unbroken chain of laying on of hands from the apostles to the present-day bishops.....

"...even Ignatius, this defender and ideologue of the monarchial episcopoate, did not address a bishop in his letter to the Roman community, any more than Paul did. And there was no mention of a bishop in Rome in any other of the earliest sources, like the 'Letter of Clement (around 90).....

"However, the earliest list of bishops, in Irenaeus of Lyons, according to which Peter and Paul transferred the ministry of episkopos to a certain Linus, is a second-century forgery. A monarchical episcopate can be demonstrated for Rome only from around the middle of the second century (Bishop Anicetus)." (The Catholic Church A Short History, Kung, A Modern Library, 2003, p. 21-22)

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

Whats funny is I just quoted you a few phrases and you claim Kung left out the Eastern Fathers in his book. Are you that stupid? Or are you just up to your wordsmithing again. I am thinking both are true. Everyone who disagrees with you is an 'angry little someone'. As though your are some 'great large something'. But it is clear that if there is any 'angry someone' it is you.

The title of Kung's book, 'The Catholic Church A Short History' is an excellent book. Because Kung is knowledgeable in his field of study, then he can condense the history of the Church into brief but extremely pregnant chapters. That is the sign of one who knows what he is talking about. Just like the sign of one who does not know what he is talking about is voluminous writings which are meant to impress but are more of a smoke screen to further some agenda.

I recommend Kung's book to all who want to see that not all Romanists agree with the Church of Rome in much of their false doctrines. And that there are people who are in the Church of Rome who are Christian and born-again despite the Church of Rome and not because of it. This doesn't mean I agree with all that Kung says doctrinally. Of course I don't. Just like I don't agree with all Luther believed either. But Kung is a Christian and wanting to be faithful to God and to his fellowship in the Roman Church. Though the Roman Church, like BreadOfLife, want to disown him.

Kung did not say 2000 years can be considered short. But he has given an excellent history of those years in the Church. To which you would be wise to read. Oh, but I forgot, the pope probably has forbidden you to read it. Right? Of course he has. Wouldn't want anyone to see there is another and more faithful and accurate view of history than the one Rome projects. No wonder you are so angry. All you can read is what is spoon fed to you. Don't get any on you. Don't let it dribble down your chin.

"After the death of the apostle Paul a degree of institutionalization was unavoidable, even in his communities....And every community, indeed every member of a community, had to stand in the 'apostolic succession'--in accordance with the message and action of the apostles. Not just a few people, but the whole church was an apostolic church, as it would be called in the creed.

"It cannot be verified that the bishops are successors of the apostles in the direct and exclusive sense. It is historically impossible to find in the initial phase of Christianity an unbroken chain of laying on of hands from the apostles to the present-day bishops.....

"...even Ignatius, this defender and ideologue of the monarchial episcopoate, did not address a bishop in his letter to the Roman community, any more than Paul did. And there was no mention of a bishop in Rome in any other of the earliest sources, like the 'Letter of Clement (around 90).....

"However, the earliest list of bishops, in Irenaeus of Lyons, according to which Peter and Paul transferred the ministry of episkopos to a certain Linus, is a second-century forgery. A monarchical episcopate can be demonstrated for Rome only from around the middle of the second century (Bishop Anicetus)." (The Catholic Church A Short History, Kung, A Modern Library, 2003, p. 21-22)

Stranger

Funny how you keep trying to jam Hans Kung down my throat as if HE is the top "expert" on the Church, although I have repeatedly shown him to be just another dissident Catholic with an ax to grind. Ever wonder WHY he wrote his book - AFTER he was censured and forbidden to teach?.

And - why is it that completely ignore the DOZENS of Protestant Scripture scholars , historians and professors I presented who AGREE with the Catholic position on the Primacy of Peter.
They all disagree with YOUR position on the matter. WHY is that?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hey Breadman, I heard the real reason for the split between east and west was that east called Saint Nicholas the real Santa Claus but the pope claimed his own Saint Nicholas as the real Santa Claus.
So that's when the east dumped the west and moved on with their lives.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hey Breadman, I heard the real reason for the split between east and west was that east called Saint Nicholas the real Santa Claus but the pope claimed his own Saint Nicholas as the real Santa Claus.
So that's when the east dumped the west and moved on with their lives.

As gullible as YOU are - you probably believe this asinine tale . . .

 

[Stranger]

Funny how you keep trying to jam Hans Kung down my throat as if HE is the top "expert" on the Church, although I have repeatedly shown him to be just another dissident Catholic with an ax to grind. Ever wonder WHY he wrote his book - AFTER he was censured and forbidden to teach?.

And - why is it that completely ignore the DOZENS of Protestant Scripture scholars , historians and professors I presented who AGREE with the Catholic position on the Primacy of Peter.
They all disagree with YOUR position on the matter. WHY is that?

You haven't shown that Kung has an ax to grind. You just said it. This is what you do. You say things and in your mind you have proved to all that it is so. Sorry, but you just saying it doesn't get it. And Kung had his credentials in the Roman Church long before he wrote the history.

I don't have to wonder why Kung wrote 'The Catholic Church A Short History', he says so in his book. "So, while some Catholic theologians are busy writing church history in a triumphalistic vein, anti-Catholic criminologists eager for scandal are exploiting it in order to put down the Catholic Church by any means possible." (p. XXI)

"In the disciplined Catholic hierarchy it is often depressingly evident that there is a body of functionaries constantly with an eye on Rome, servile toward superiors and arrogant toward inferiors." (p. XXII)

"I am convinced that any theology and any council--however much it is to be understood in terms of its time and the time preceding it--must, insofar as it claims to be Christian,ultimately be judged by the criterion of what is Christian. And the criterion of what is Christian--also according to the view of the councils and the popes--is the original Christian message, the gospel, indeed the original figure of Christianity: the concrete, historical Jesus of Nazareth,who for Christians is the Messiah, that Jesus Christ from whom any Christian church derives its existence. And of course, this point of view has consequences for any account of the history of the Catholic Church. At any rate it does for mine." (p. XXIII)

"A distinguishing mark of my history will be the way in which tacitly,and indeed at crucial junctures explicitly and without compromise and harmonization, it will face up to the original Christian message, the gospel, indeed to Jesus Christ himself." (p. XXIII)

I disagree with a lot of Protestants. Some of whom are Christians.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You haven't shown that Kung has an ax to grind. You just said it. This is what you do. You say things and in your mind you have proved to all that it is so. Sorry, but you just saying it doesn't get it. And Kung had his credentials in the Roman Church long before he wrote the history.

I don't have to wonder why Kung wrote 'The Catholic Church A Short History', he says so in his book. "So, while some Catholic theologians are busy writing church history in a triumphalistic vein, anti-Catholic criminologists eager for scandal are exploiting it in order to put down the Catholic Church by any means possible." (p. XXI)

"In the disciplined Catholic hierarchy it is often depressingly evident that there is a body of functionaries constantly with an eye on Rome, servile toward superiors and arrogant toward inferiors." (p. XXII)

"I am convinced that any theology and any council--however much it is to be understood in terms of its time and the time preceding it--must, insofar as it claims to be Christian,ultimately be judged by the criterion of what is Christian. And the criterion of what is Christian--also according to the view of the councils and the popes--is the original Christian message, the gospel, indeed the original figure of Christianity: the concrete, historical Jesus of Nazareth,who for Christians is the Messiah, that Jesus Christ from whom any Christian church derives its existence. And of course, this point of view has consequences for any account of the history of the Catholic Church. At any rate it does for mine." (p. XXIII)

"A distinguishing mark of my history will be the way in which tacitly,and indeed at crucial junctures explicitly and without compromise and harmonization, it will face up to the original Christian message, the gospel, indeed to Jesus Christ himself." (p. XXIII)

I disagree with a lot of Protestants. Some of whom are Christians.

Stranger

I absolutely showed you that Kung has an ax to grind when I informed you that he was forbidden to teach Catholic theology.
His book is his revenge.

Anyway - I'm still waiting for your comments on the DOZEN or so quote I gave you from Protestant historians, Scripture scholars and professors who DISAGREE with you about Peter being the "Rock".

I eagerly await your response . . .

 

[Stranger]

I absolutely showed you that Kung has an ax to grind when I informed you that he was forbidden to teach Catholic theology.
His book is his revenge.

Anyway - I'm still waiting for your comments on the DOZEN or so quote I gave you from Protestant historians, Scripture scholars and professors who DISAGREE with you about Peter being the "Rock".

I eagerly await your response . . .

You showed me nothing. You just said it. Show me what judgments the Roman Church has passed against Kung.

I told you I disagree with a lot of Protestants. My argument with you against Peter being the Rock on which the Church is built will be the same with them.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

You showed me nothing. You just said it. Show me what judgments the Roman Church has passed against Kung.

I told you I disagree with a lot of Protestants. My argument with you against Peter being the Rock on which the Church is built will be the same with them.

Stranger

And that is a complete and total LIE.
I showed you these tetimonies back in post #348:
William Hendriksen - member of the Reformed Christian Church - 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

Gerhard Maier - leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text, applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate - Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58 JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III - Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary(two quotations from different works)
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean stone and rock respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (you are kepha and on this kepha), since the word was used both for a name and for a rock. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning rock (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken rock to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary, New Testament, vol. 2(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78

John Peter Lange, German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: Thou art Rock, and upon this rock, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293, JPK page 19

John A. Broadus - Baptist author (two quotations from the same work)
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

J. Knox Chamblin - Presbyterian and New Testament Professor - Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words this rock Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but PETER HIMSELF. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.
Matthew - Evangelical Commentary on the Bible - (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742 - JPK page 30

David Hill - Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies - University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the rock as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.
The Gospel of Matthew - The New Century Bible Commentary - (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261 - PK page 34

Donald A. Hagner - 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

Of COURSE you "disagree" with them.
You're just being a good little Protestant . . .

 

[Stranger]

And that is a complete and total LIE.
I showed you these tetimonies back in post #348:

Of COURSE you "disagree" with them.
You're just being a good little Protestant . . .

You need to pay attention. My first statement, 'you showed me nothing' pertained to your first statement concerning Romes judgment against Kung. See how that works.

Concerning your Protestant quotes, I have already answered in my last two posts.

Stranger