And this proves what? That they are different from one another as well as being different from Catholicism! It does not prove Catholicism is right and that they are all wrong. I believe that all of them and Catholicism are wrong when it comes to not having it all. God isn't missing anything. But you and I are also wrong and missing in a measure. We also still see through a glass darkly. We are also liars along with everyone else who at any time is still coming up short of what God has for us.
WRONG.
Scripture tells us the Church is the
FULLNESS of Christ
(Eph. 1:22-23) and the
Pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Jesus is not a
partial truth and
neither can His Body be.
If your sect
doesn’t espouse the
fullness of the Gospel – then it’s part of the
incomplete quagmire of Protestantism.
I understand them in part as you do and as do others on this forum. This means that all of us in part as I have already said are wrong. But... if we are keeping our eyes on Jesus and following Him closely will He not bring us all to where He wants us to be?
No – not if we are
disobeying Him by
rejecting His Body.
This is open
rebellion against Him.
Oh my friend, it was Martin Luther who wanted to have parts of the Bible removed, yet now you would join him in throwing out that which does not fit what you believe. When you were speaking here with
@bbyrd009 you were arguing that the written Bible was the Word of God at least in part. Now you would throw out a part that the Catholic Church has included in one of their own translations?
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven." John 3:13 [Douay Rheims 1899]
Are you saying that the Catholic Church changed their belief since they translated the Douay Rheims version of 1899?
The
Douay Rheims Bible was translated from the
Latin Vulgate.
The
KJV was translated from the
Greek. This phrase is
NOT in the Greek.
There is, as per the verse I cited and you denounced, more than one heaven. I believe in not less than three. The unclean and impure, that which has sin cannot enter into third heaven. Second heaven and first heaven are not so strict. [Consider that unclean beasts were on the bottom of the ark Noah built and clean beasts were on the second level.]
Jesus came down to a lower [not lower as in altitude but rather from the Father] heaven when he became a man of flesh in order to be tempted and in order to the mediator than men needed to reconnect with God. Indeed with a lot of work no man may ever see the Father face to face. God told Moses that [Exodus 33:20]. The apostle Paul also wrote about that in I Cor 13:12.
Jesus made it all a possibility now, but who has had the cleansing and renewing process completed in them? That you and I cannot testify definitely to having seen one may simply be proof that neither one of us has had our spiritual renewed to that point as yet. That is, we would not recognize for certain someone who has already overcome as Jesus overcame if we saw one. But... if God is still working on us and we are still surrendering to Him, there may still be enough time for us.
And whether you believe there is
ONE Heaven or
10,000 Heavens –
NOTHING unclean or impure can enter it, per
Rev. 21:27.
Is Jesus not the Word of God?
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14
If we eat the raw scripture and it is quickened in us by the Holy Spirit, will it not be the Word of God Alive in us? You deny this in favor of pursuing the type and shadow of a piece of unleavened wheat bread and a sip of fruit of grapes. Type and shadows of God's truth are very useful, but the real thing is always better than a type or a shadow. The OT is full of type and shadows but recall here Paul's words with regard to what the type and shadows would do:
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal 3:24-25
You want to stick with or even return to the old schoolmaster? Jesus is no type or shadow.
And if
YOU want to stick with the relatively
new man made invention that Jesus did
NOT institute the Eucharist – then you are living in
open rebellion against Him – just like His
ex-followers in
John 6:66.
Jesus is
not a type or shadow – but the
FULFILLMENT.
You are still calling me a Protestant, but very few, if any, Protestant churches would have me once I opened my mouth for many [most?] of them would have some of the same difficulties with what I say that you do. That doesn't bother me if I am validated by God and His Son.
If you are a
baptized Trinitarian Christian – then you are a
Protestant.
With tens of thousands of
disjointed and
perpetually-splintering Protestant sects out there – you would
definitely fit into one or more of them. And, even if you
didn’t – all you would have to do is
break off into your
own splinter sect.
After all – this is the
Fruit of Protestantism . . .
As to your problem with Peter, consider:
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock." Matt 7:24-25
Do you really believe that Peter is the foundation for the Church rather than Jesus? Was it Peter whom Moses struck here?
"And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also." Num 20:10-11 [Moses was rebuked and punished for smiting the Rock instead of speaking to it. Could it be that it was Jesus he was not supposed to smite? Certainly it was not Peter.]
The water came out of the rock, another one of those types and shadows:
"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water." John 4:10
"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." Rev 21:6
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Rev 22:17
When exactly would you say that the "rock" Peter provided the Living Water freely to the thirsty?
First of all – I
don‘t have a
“problem” with Peter –
YOU do.
Secondly –
YOU have a problem with Peter being
the Rock upon which Jesus built His Church because you believe that there is only
ONE Scriptural
“Rock.” That’s why I told you that you
don’t know the Word of God.
In
Isaiah 51:1-2, we read that
Abraham is also called the
“Rock.” Nobody is saying that
HE is the
cornerstone – nor is anybody saying that
Peter is the cornerstone. A
“cornerstone” is a corner building stone that joins 2 walls together.
Rev. 21:14 tells us that Heaven is built on
TWELVE foundations Guess whose
names are on those foundations? The
APOSTLES. In the NT, Peter is referred to as
“Protos” (First) – the
FIRST foundation. This
doesn’t negate the Fact that
Jesus is the Cornerstone.
