Where does the Bible say...

[ReChoired]

soooo when you used Wikipedia today and twice on December 6th and again on November 26th and 27th 2020 and Multiple times all the way back to November of 2019

Was I using wikipedia as an "historical source"? No. I was using it as informational source (like a dictionary, etc). Difference. You stated that you cited historical sources in regards the Reformation. That 'source' was wikipedia, a non historical source. It would be like citing an encyclopedia. Such may use historical sources, but the encyclopedia entry itself is not an historical source.

 

[ReChoired]

Praying for you....Mary

Don't bother, beads and repetition cannot do anything. I know by experience. You might as well 'jump rope', counting the times, while repeating some phrase found in scripture. Mary is deceased anyway and so also most of the 'saints' (except Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Firstfruits & Jesus) - Martin Luther and William Tyndale on the State of the Dead.

Do you care about what Peter really and actually said?

Act_2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,​

Do you care about what Paul really and actually said?

Act_13:36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:​

 

[ReChoired]

... I didn’t even quote/source Wikipedia and YOU did. ...

You 'stated':

"Religious disputes between the Crypto-Calvinists, Philippists, Sacramentarians, Ubiquitarians and Gnesio-Lutherans raged within Lutheranism during the middle of the 16th century." - Where does the Bible say...​

Now copy that and look on this page - Lutheranism - Wikipedia

Now, any place which cites that is citing wikipedia, a non-historical source.

 

[ReChoired]

dishonest people

Hmmmm.

 

[ReChoired]

Not true but ...that’s ok.

Not true, but ...that's ok.

 

[ReChoired]

The Bible says:

Gen 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.
​

Why?

2Pe_1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.​

Why?

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1Pe_4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.​

Isa_28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Isa_28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.​

Daniel:

Dan 2:19 Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

Dan 2:20 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his:

Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

Dan 2:22 He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.

Dan 2:23 I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king's matter.

Dan 2:24 Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.

Dan 2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

Dan 2:29 As for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter: and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what shall come to pass.

Dan 2:30 But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.
​

Daniel didn't come up with any "private interpretation". He merely shewed unto the King what God already revealed. So Daniel didn't make up an interpretation, he shewed what God gave to him to shew. God interpreted, not Daniel. In fact, the very symbols used are already found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc (ie the Law and the Testimony).

Reject this and you reject God's interpretation of His own word, and put in its place someone else's words/interpretation. In effect, anti-christ.

Jesus is the one who interprets here:

Luk_24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

Luk_24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

 

[JunChosen]

The new covenant church has always had a ministerial priesthood offering the propitiatory unbloody sacrifice of Christ !

Where in Scripture does the above is stated? In fact this is a ritual that your church teach but never taught in Scripture. Jesus said: "do this in remembrance of me." Lk. 11:23-30.

Verse 26: "For as often (not daily) as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
Verse 27: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and shall drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Verse 29: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

Do you even know why there's a warning?

It is impossible for the one true church to teach error! For if that was the case then Christ would teach error and God cannot teach error

FYI, there is no perfect church on this earth!!!

For starters, already in the Book of Revelation Jesus spoke ill of the seven churches! Revelation 2:1 - 3:22.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Marymog]

Was I using wikipedia as an "historical source"? No.

Lol....no you didn’t use it as a historical source...Especially on December 6th in post #213.

 

[Marymog]

Was I using wikipedia as an "historical source"? No. I was using it as informational source (like a dictionary, etc). Difference. You stated that you cited historical sources in regards the Reformation. That 'source' was wikipedia, a non historical source. It would be like citing an encyclopedia. Such may use historical sources, but the encyclopedia entry itself is not an historical source.

Lol.....no you didn’t use it as a historical source in this post

Another question for mormons.

You are sooooooooooooooooooo dishonest....that is why I am praying for you even thought you don’t want me to.

 

[Marymog]

Wikipedia is not an historical source.

Lol.....You crack me up.

I never accessed Wikipedia for the facts I quoted. BtW....Wikipedia quotes historical sources. Did you know that?

 

[Marymog]

Was I using wikipedia as an "historical source"? No. I was using it as informational source (like a dictionary, etc). Difference. You stated that you cited historical sources in regards the Reformation. That 'source' was wikipedia, a non historical source. It would be like citing an encyclopedia. Such may use historical sources, but the encyclopedia entry itself is not an historical source.

Age of Earth/Mankind Bible Study Thread - Sacred Chronology

I could go on and on and on but your dishonesty has been exposed enough.

 

[Marymog]

You 'stated':

"Religious disputes between the Crypto-Calvinists, Philippists, Sacramentarians, Ubiquitarians and Gnesio-Lutherans raged within Lutheranism during the middle of the 16th century." - Where does the Bible say...​

Now copy that and look on this page - Lutheranism - Wikipedia

Now, any place which cites that is citing wikipedia, a non-historical source.

Got it......You can't debunk the history so you attack the source.

Thank you for your time.

 

[JunChosen]

You are sooooooooooooooooooo dishonest....that is why I am praying for you even thought you don’t want me to.

The above is my prayer for you also, from the leader and to all the members of your church.

If you want to accuse someone of dishonesty just look in the mirror!

To God Be The Glory

 

[theefaith]

Then pray tell what is the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the a and their successors? Matt 16:18

 

[JunChosen]

Then pray tell what is the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the a and their successors? Matt 16:18

You and your church do not have the correct knowledge and understanding of Mt. 16:18.

You and the CC are not spiritual for the things of God are spiritually discerned. 2 Corinthians 2:14.

Psalms 18:31
"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Verse 4 - And did all drink of that spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

In fact, so that there are no confusion, Jesus declared in John 1:42: "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."

To God Be The Glory

 

[Marymog]

The above is my prayer for you also, from the leader and to all the members of your church.

If you want to accuse someone of dishonesty just look in the mirror!

To God Be The Glory

Hi trollman,

Sooooo you are Protestant. Some of your Protestant brothers/sisters hold to, believe, practice, the same doctrines as The Church does. Are they dishonest? Or are only the people that agree with you honest??

Curious Mary

 

[Illuminator]

You and your church do not have the correct knowledge and understanding of Mt. 16:18.

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.
More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock.
Donald Hagner
Contemporary Evangelical
“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] 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” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).
John Broadus
Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].
Craig L. Blomberg
Contemporary Baptist
“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].
J. Knox Chamblin
Contemporary Presbyterian
“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” [“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].
R. T. France
Contemporary Anglican
“The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied” (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).
Herman Ridderbos
Contemporary Dutch Reformed
“It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

further reading: Refuting Papal Myths — "Peter Was Not a Pope" | Catholic Answers

 

[Brakelite]

That 'source' was wikipedia, a non historical source. It would be like citing an encyclopedia. Such may use historical sources, but the encyclopedia entry itself is not an historical source.

Wikipedia quotes historical sources. Did you know that?

I guess he did .

 

[Brakelite]

Hi Backlit,


Sooooo when you said to me "That's not correct." to my statement "Every original Reformer had a man who reformed him and then another man reformed him etc. etc" why are you now agreeing with me "that the reformers certainly disagreed with one another"?

Am I correct or not that the reformers disagreed with each other and reformed each others teachings? It seems from this posting you agree with me that I was correct...

Patient Mary

They weren't reforming one another, despite their disagreements. As I explained clearly in the post, they were all on a very big learning curve. And every one of them had a greater understanding of the issues involved than either you or I, and none of them were ignorant uninformed unlearned peasants that your church would try to present them as. The church they loved and had been raised in had 1200 years of turbulent violent blood-stained religio/political history bound up in its canons, and teachings and no-one, be it Luther or anyone else, was ever going to shed all that baggage in one generation. Even today the cry of the book of Revelation for these last days is for God's people to come out of her My people, and this includes much of the Protestant world who still cling to many of the old Catholic errors. Why? Because they are actively upholding tradition above scripture and following Papal practice in doing so.

Thank you. I have never heard that term before. (Speaking of progressive knowledge as I mentioned above) That term leads me to one big question: When does this "progressive revelation" end?

That progressive revelation will never end. Throughout all eternity God's people will be growing in intimate knowledge and understanding of Who God is. This increase in understanding will continue throughout all eternity because God Himself is infinite.
But I know that is not going to satisfy you. You wanted, as always, to steer the conversation toward you own agenda...promoting Catholicism as the already perfect infallible source of all truth. It isn't. Jesus is the only Way. The only Truth. The only Life. What truth that can be found in the church, His body, is only directly proportionate to the degree in which the church reflects its Master. By their fruit ye shall know them.

 

[JunChosen]

But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.

Are you now saying that there are those of the protestant persuasion who are changing and agreeing with the Catholic interpretation?

But who are these protestants? Did they write a book/letter that became part of the Bible? Or, are they saying their word carries more weight than Jesus who declared that Cephas (Peter) by interpretation denotes A stone? I would rather believe Jesus. Let God be true and all men liars!!!

More recent Protestants have been able to back away from the position that early Protestants felt forced to make and have been able to admit that Peter is, indeed, the rock.

Scripture is replete with passages that God is the only Rock!!! Otherwise, you are taking the glory away from God.

Jesus is the one who went to the cross and paid for the sins of His people. What did Peter do to merit the honor of being the head of a church? He can't even save himself let alone a church! Why, even the Pharisees knew only God can forgive sins. You're not saying Peter is equal with God, are you?

To God Be The Glory