WHERE ARE ALL THE PROTESTANT PEDOPHILES?

[BreadOfLife]

Try opening your eyes.

Unlike YOU - I never come here with closed eyes.
However, sometimes I have to pinch my nose before reading YOUR moronic posts.

Closed sinuses - but never closed eyes . . .

 

[Phoneman777]

Soooo - you think that you're proving something by quoting an ANTI-Catholic source like "www.Romeschallenge.com"??

BOL, what you're claiming as "anti-catholic" is an excerpt from the "Catholic Mirror, September 16, 1893...where your church officially opposes your claim that Acts 20 establishes Sunday sacredness:

Catholic Mirror, September 16, 1893:

"Once more, the Biblical apologists for the change of (the Sabbath) day call our attention to the Acts, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7; "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." etc. To all appearances the above text should furnish some consolation to our disgruntled Biblical friends, but being a Marplot, we cannot allow them even this crumb of comfort. We reply by the axiom: "Quod probat nimis, probat nihil"--"What proves too much, proves nothing." Let us call attention to the same, Acts 2:46; "And they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," etc. Who does not see at a glance that the text produced to prove the exclusive prerogative of Sunday, vanishes into thin air--an ignis fatuus--when placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the same chapter? What the Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone the same authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day of the week; "and they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house."​

 

[Phoneman777]

Unlike YOU - I never come here with closed eyes.
However, sometimes I have to pinch my nose before reading YOUR moronic posts.

Closed sinuses - but never closed eyes . . .

Dead Bread, if you don't like being proven wrong, then don't make fraudulent claims about Acts 20 establishing Sunday sacredness - especially when your own beloved papacy publicly opposed your foolish idea in the Catholic Mirror, September 16, 1893. It's a matter of catholic record.

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL, what you're claiming as "anti-catholic" is an excerpt from the "Catholic Mirror, September 16, 1893...where your church officially opposes your claim that Acts 20 establishes Sunday sacredness:

Catholic Mirror, September 16, 1893:

"Once more, the Biblical apologists for the change of (the Sabbath) day call our attention to the Acts, chapter 20, verses 6 and 7; "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread." etc. To all appearances the above text should furnish some consolation to our disgruntled Biblical friends, but being a Marplot, we cannot allow them even this crumb of comfort. We reply by the axiom: "Quod probat nimis, probat nihil"--"What proves too much, proves nothing." Let us call attention to the same, Acts 2:46; "And they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house," etc. Who does not see at a glance that the text produced to prove the exclusive prerogative of Sunday, vanishes into thin air--an ignis fatuus--when placed in juxtaposition with the 46th verse of the same chapter? What the Biblical Christian claims by this text for Sunday alone the same authority, St. Luke, informs us was common to every day of the week; "and they, continuing daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house."​

No, Einstein - your link was an Anti-Catholic one because it takes the quote completely OUT of context.

As I already explained to you - the caveat is that there is no EXPLICIT Scriptural mandate - but there are several IMPLICIT ones. Many doctrines are based on implicit Scriptural proof - like the Trinity and the Incarnation.

NEITHER is explicitly mentioned in Scripture - but BOTH are basic tenets of Christianity.

Do your homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Dead Bread, if you don't like being proven wrong, then don't make fraudulent claims about Acts 20 establishing Sunday sacredness - especially when your own beloved papacy publicly opposed your foolish idea in the Catholic Mirror, September 16, 1893. It's a matter of catholic record.

Read post #384, Einstein . . .

 

[Phoneman777]

No, Einstein - your link was an Anti-Catholic one because it takes the quote completely OUT of context.

As I already explained to you - the caveat is that there is no EXPLICIT Scriptural mandate - but there are several IMPLICIT ones. Many doctrines are based on implicit Scriptural proof - like the Trinity and the Incarnation.

NEITHER is explicitly mentioned in Scripture - but BOTH are basic tenets of Christianity.

Do your homework . . .

If there was any Biblical proof at all of Sunday sacredness, implicit or otherwise, then why does the papacy so emphatically insist the change was "not from ANY direction given in the Scriptures, but from the church's sense of its own divine authority"?

Can you find me at least on papal authority who agrees with you? I really don't think you can, but I'm interested to read anything.

Besides, I've shown you that Acts 20 is an account of a meeting that began as the Sabbath sun set and the first day of the week commenced, where Paul preached through the night to those of whom he thought he'd never see again, and when the dawn broke - which we refer to as "Sunday morning" - he departed for Troas. Absolutely no Sunday morning church service anywhere in the chapter.

 

[Phoneman777]

Read post #384, Einstein . . .

Why? The papacy says if you're going to go by the evidence of Scripture alone, you should keep Saturday holy.

"People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority should logically become Seventh-day Adventists and keep Saturday holy." St. Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995​

Dead Bread, any thinking person understands that a reference to "the Scriptures" includes both the implicit and explicit teachings of it. Therefore, when the papacy insists that those who make "the Scriptures" their sole authority - both the implicit and explicit teachings of it - they should ignore Sunday and keep the 7th day Sabbath because Sunday sacredness is no where to be found in Scripture, implicit or otherwise. Even a blind man can see this.

 

[Triumph1300]

Sunday sacredness is no where to be found in Scripture

You are wrong.
There are at least 6 verses in regards to the Sunday in scripture.
Here's just one of them.

Acts 20:7: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."

If you want the other 5 or 6, just let me know.
To save time you could google them yourself.

 

[Phoneman777]

As I said I let the truth speak for itself....we hate the sin but not the sinner.

The Bible says if you fail to warn your neighbor of his sins (or, by extension, oppose others attempting to warn him), you...hate... that... neighbor.

 

[Phoneman777]

You are wrong.
There are at least 6 verses in regards to the Sunday in scripture.
Here's just one of them.

Acts 20:7: "Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight."

If you want the other 5 or 6, just let me know.
To save time you could google them yourself.

Triumph1300, are not Biblical days counted from sunset to sunset with the beginning of a Biblical day commencing as the sun goes down?

Since the meeting took place during the "dark part" of the first day - because "there were many lights burning in the chamber" - that means the meeting began right after the Sabbath sun had set and the first day of the week (Sunday) began. Paul preached through the night and as soon as the dawn broke Sunday morning, Paul left on a 30 mile hike. Absolutely no Sunday morning service in Acts 20.

Do you have another verse you'd like to discuss?

 

[Heart2Soul]

The Bible says if you fail to warn your neighbor of his sins (or, by extension, oppose others attempting to warn him), you...hate... that... neighbor.

Well, okay brother, then let me warn you in love that you do not preach the gospel of Christ in truth but rather are subjecting it to your own interpretation and leading those who are not skilled in it astray through your ignorance of it......repent of your sin and ask God to forgive you and ask Him to teach you through His Holy Spirit how to rightly divide the truth.

 

[Triumph1300]

Do you have another verse you'd like to discuss?

Not really because I don't like the "tone of your responses".
You can simply google the other verses if you want.

I'm already sorry I posted on this thread.
I should know better.

Have a great day.

 

[BreadOfLife]

If there was any Biblical proof at all of Sunday sacredness, implicit or otherwise, then why does the papacy so emphatically insist the change was "not from ANY direction given in the Scriptures, but from the church's sense of its own divine authority"?

Can you find me at least on papal authority who agrees with you? I really don't think you can, but I'm interested to read anything.

Besides, I've shown you that Acts 20 is an account of a meeting that began as the Sabbath sun set and the first day of the week commenced, where Paul preached through the night to those of whom he thought he'd never see again, and when the dawn broke - which we refer to as "Sunday morning" - he departed for Troas. Absolutely no Sunday morning church service anywhere in the chapter.

Because the Church, which already existed in Acts 2 didn’t rely on Scripture to make the Lord’s Day our day of rest and worship. It relied on its God-given Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23) led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

As for Paul departing for Troas on the FIRST day of the week (Sunday) – that is a big fat LIE on your part.

Acts 20:7 states explicitly:
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

Paul left for Troas on MONDAY – and he DID celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday. Enough with the lies already . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why? The papacy says if you're going to go by the evidence of Scripture alone, you should keep Saturday holy.

"People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority should logically become Seventh-day Adventists and keep Saturday holy." St. Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, May 21, 1995​

Dead Bread, any thinking person understands that a reference to "the Scriptures" includes both the implicit and explicit teachings of it. Therefore, when the papacy insists that those who make "the Scriptures" their sole authority - both the implicit and explicit teachings of it - they should ignore Sunday and keep the 7th day Sabbath because Sunday sacredness is no where to be found in Scripture, implicit or otherwise. Even a blind man can see this.

FIRST of all, Einstein – this is a quote from the St. Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel – NOT from the Pope. It was written by a parish priest from the parish of St. Catherine’s in Algonac, MI.

Can’t you post ANYTHING without lying??

Secondly – it states that only those who believe in the FALSE doctrine of Sola Scriptura (like YOU) should think that the Sabbath should remain unchanged.

Ergo – since Sola Scriptura is FALSE - then YOUR perverted understanding of the Sabbath vs. Sunday worship is ALSO false.

 

[Phoneman777]

Not really because I don't like the "tone of your responses".
You can simply google the other verses if you want.

I'm already sorry I posted on this thread.
I should know better.

Have a great day.

Some of the newer Bible versions read "On Saturday evening, the disciples came together..." which proves which of us right?

BTW, you spelled solid Biblical exegesis "T-O-N-E".

 

[Phoneman777]

FIRST of all, Einstein – this is a quote from the St. Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel – NOT from the Pope. It was written by a parish priest from the parish of St. Catherine’s in Algonac, MI.

"On receipt of one of these (resolutions opposing actions by the United States Supreme Court), the editor of the Catholic Mirror of Baltimore, Maryland, published a series of four editorials, which appeared in that paper September 2, 9, 16, and 23, 1893. The Catholic Mirror was the official organ of Cardinal Gibbons and the Papacy in the United States. These articles, therefore, although not written by the Cardinal's own hand, appeared under his official sanction, and as the expression of the Papacy on this subject, are the open challenge of the Papacy to Protestantism, and the demand of the Papacy that Protestants shall render to the Papacy an account of why they keep Sunday and also of how they keep it."

Thank you, Cardinal Gibbons', for your stamp of approval on a document that both proves that the official position of the papacy is that not a single text of Scripture establishes Sunday sacredness, and that Dead Bread is a heretic who insists that you, the pope, and the Bible all teach otherwise to what the Bible actually teaches.

 

[Phoneman777]

Because the Church, which already existed in Acts 2 didn’t rely on Scripture to make the Lord’s Day our day of rest and worship. It relied on its God-given Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23) led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

None of these texts establish Sunday sacredness.

As for Paul departing for Troas on the FIRST day of the week (Sunday) – that is a big fat LIE on your part. Acts 20:7 states explicitly: On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
Paul left for Troas on MONDAY – and he DID celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday. Enough with the lies already . . .

Dead Bread...(sigh)...perhaps you'll believe your own catholic church's bible: Good News Translation Catholic Edition, aka Good News Bible:

"On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day." - Good News Bible

So, according to your own catholic bible, Paul left for Troas at first light on what we call Sunday morning...no Sunday morning church service, no Sunday morning Communion service, and certainly no Sunday morning Eucharist service.

 

[brakelite]

Please provide evidence that this so-called authority included altering one or any of God''s explicit commandments? This evidence you provide must include a specific God given direction that the church, as recipient of this authority, is now equal to God having the power to change the law of God. Thinking also that this authority must provide for the church's power to denounce anyone who disagrees with the law change as a heretic right? And because the church has been given spiritual authority, it is higher than temporal authority, so the church has power to punish those heretics using the power of the state to do so, of course under the supervision of the church. Right? Something you cannot deny because had been the practice and teaching of the Roman church for over 1500 years. In fact it was because of the various punishments and persecutions inflicted upon Sabbath keepers, labelled by the church as judaisers, that forced or coerced others into obeying the church instead of God. Sunday sacredness is a forgery of the church and it's only foundation lies in the power of the church to convince the state to prosecute all who refuse to keep it. BTW, it wasn't just the Roman church who did this. The Puritans persecuted those who refused to honour Sunday in early America.
Sorry, but your entire take on church authority denies religious liberty and freedom of conscience. It denies the right and power of the holy spirit to give understanding of scripture. It denies Jesus His right to reign over the church and be true Lord in the lives of his followers.

Because the Church, which already existed in Acts 2 didn’t rely on Scripture to make the Lord’s Day our day of rest and worship. It relied on its God-given Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 20:21-23) led by the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

the church which already existed in Acts 2 had no issue with keeping the true 7th day Sabbath. The Jews, for over 1000 years, had kept the Sabbath. And since the captivity in Babylon, the Sabbath was do stringently kept that so many numerous additional requirements had been added to it by the legalists and lawyers, that Jesus had to free the Sabbath from all those things. Yet despite all that history, not one discordant word arose from any of the Jews when the church in the first centuries supposedly ignored the Sabbath to keep Sunday!!! They complained about circumcision, but not the Sabbath? The truth is BoL that the church didn't change the day of meeting until the 4th century... i think the council of Laodicea...And it wasn't as a result of God given holy spirit endowed inspiration our authority.

 

[brakelite]

@BreadOfLife after his third missionary journey, Paul went to Jerusalem. Although some of the disciples meet him gladly, there was no small amount of controversy over Paul's ministry and teaching to the gentiles. He was charged with teaching converted Jews to disregard the laws of Moses, and bringing an Ephesian gentile into the temple. Both accusations of course were patently false, as Paul himself declared. See Acts 21-23 for details of the debate, arguments, speeches, and even rioting that attended Paul's visit. At one stage the Sadducees and Pharisees almost tore Paul in pieces... The Sadducees to kill him, the Pharisees to protect him. But think about this. Not once, in all the controversy that surrounded the new faith and the radical changes that came upon the religious world as a result of the gospel, was there a hint, not the remotest suggestion that Christians gathered together on any day other than the ancient 7 th day Sabbath. There was controversy over many other aspects of the new way, but are we to believe that the legalistic Jews, the new Christian Jewish converts, and even the new gentile believers, simply accepted the new day of convocation without any protest, debate, argument whatsoever???? This fact need to be addressed by everyone claiming that Sunday was instigated by the first century church. That is utterly false. Not only is it patently false, but obviously so, and anyone denying it seriously need to re-examine their commitment to truth.

 

[brakelite]

Soooo - you think that you're proving something by quoting an ANTI-Catholic source like "www.Romeschallenge.com"??
This makes as much sense as a Nazi trying to prove how useless Jews are by quoting their own propaganda.

Unbelievably moronic . . .

I thought that nothing more from your pen could surprise me, but lo and behold, here comes this absolute doozy. You owe phoneman an apology. It is your own post that is utterly moronic. As phoneman pointed out, I might add with no little amount of grace, that Rome's challenge is a Catholic sourced work, available on their own website, all inspired by Catholic Bible scholars, all with whom we seventh day Adventists heartily agree, at least on this topic.