Why do they hate being called Christians

[BreadOfLife]

Insult me and then scold me for not asking a stupid question....

And that is a pretty stupid question.

It's not a "stupid" question.
It will either show that you ARE a Sola Scripturist - or that you're totally confused by the ramifications of this false doctrine.

 

[FHII]

It's not a "stupid" question.
It will either show that you ARE a Sola Scripturist - or that you're totally confused by the ramifications of this false doctrine.

It is a stupid question in that it is easily answered by the Bible. Furthermore you are just using it as a detraction because you can't answer any charges I have put on your plate.


Why don't you huddle up with Kelpha and try to figure out how long Peter preached in Rome?

inI'd rather believe what the Bible says than a hodge podge of guys who you call church fathers who couldn't get their story staight and contradict each other.

 

[FHII]

Because the Bible says so (1 Pet. 5:13).
As for your being a Sola Scripturist - you CLAIM that you're not but you're doing a pretty good impersonation . . .


PS - you never answered my question:
When was the expiration date for 2 Thess. 2:15?

Listen up slick. I am fed up with you.... I have said countless times I believe Peter was in Rome. Not because of 1 Oeter 5:13. That verse NEVER says he was! It implies that he was. That in itself is good enough for me.

But I also believe he was in Rome because of several other secondary sources. But you folks FAIL to acknowledge my confessing that Peter was in Rome. You keep hammering on the belief that I don't believe Peter was in Rome when i have said countless times he was!

I don't believe he was there 25 years and you folks can't even agree on that. You say your secondary source doesn't say that but it does and kelpha agrees with me.

I am not going to engage in an argument about what I believe. I am going to tell you what I believe and that's the end of it. You can disagree with my beliefs and Thats fine. But don't tell me what I believe or suggest I am sola scripura when I not only tell you I am not, but prove it!

And like I said... I would rather base my beliefs on proven God inspied scripture than a bunch of philosophers who contradict themselves and the Bible!

And they do. And no amount of spin you put on it can make it right. No amiunt of hijacking history you do can change the truth.

Now I am done with you. Bother me no more with your vain philosophy, wives tales and traditions of men.

 

[BreadOfLife]

It is a stupid question in that it is easily answered by the Bible. Furthermore you are just using it as a detraction because you can't answer any charges I have put on your plate.


Why don't you huddle up with Kelpha and try to figure out how long Peter preached in Rome?

inI'd rather believe what the Bible says than a hodge podge of guys who you call church fathers who couldn't get their story staight and contradict each other.

You can't answer the question because not matter HOW you answer it - you lose.
Allow me to answer it FOR you . . .

There is NO expiration date on the following message from Paul:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT - OR by a letter from us."

And there you have it. The Bible itself puts Sacred Tradition ON PAR with Scripture.

That's the problem with Protestantism.
Sooner or later, you'll fall FLAT on your face when presented with the truth . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Listen up slick. I am fed up with you.... I have said countless times I believe Peter was in Rome. Not because of 1 Oeter 5:13. That verse NEVER says he was! It implies that he was. That in itself is good enough for me.

But I also believe he was in Rome because of several other secondary sources. But you folks FAIL to acknowledge my confessing that Peter was in Rome. You keep hammering on the belief that I don't believe Peter was in Rome when i have said countless times he was!

I don't believe he was there 25 years and you folks can't even agree on that. You say your secondary source doesn't say that but it does and kelpha agrees with me.

I am not going to engage in an argument about what I believe. I am going to tell you what I believe and that's the end of it. You can disagree with my beliefs and Thats fine. But don't tell me what I believe or suggest I am sola scripura when I not only tell you I am not, but prove it!

And like I said... I would rather base my beliefs on proven God inspied scripture than a bunch of philosophers who contradict themselves and the Bible!

And they do. And no amount of spin you put on it can make it right. No amiunt of hijacking history you do can change the truth.

Now I am done with you. Bother me no more with your vain philosophy, wives tales and traditions of men.

And you haven't presented ONE SINGLE contradiction.

You keep whining about them - but you haven't been able to produce ANY irrefutable evidence. You tried to - but I exposed you.
You even tried telling me that Mark was an Apostle and not a disciple of Peter, which you were never able to prove.

You wanna whine about the fact that I exposed you, sparky?? Go right ahead.

Thank God the posts speak for themselves . . .

 

[epostle1]

Now when Peter was in Rome is somewheres around 42 to 67 AD. Guess what? With the possible exception of Ignatius (and even this is doubtful) NONE OF THESE WRITERS WERE ALIVE WHEN IT HAPPENED!!!! They didn't write what they wrote when it happened. You can't produce a primary source if you weren't even born yet.

I am a civil war buff. I have read countless civil war books and watched many documentaries. I can write some great and truthful essays on the civil war, but I can't be a primary source. None of the church fathers we are discussing are primary sources.

The only primary source in this discussion is the Bible... And you folks blast me for sticking to it and not wavering on it.

The Bible is a primary source, but by definition, it is not the ONLY primary source. The ECF are primary sources, ask your pastor. You turn a blind eye to standard dictionary definitions to make it fit your agenda. Your definition amounts to bible worship.
Eusebius lived until 340 AD. Do you think he "wasn't born yet" ???
It must get strenuous having your foot in your mouth all the time.

 

[FHII]

The Bible is a primary source, but by definition, it is not the ONLY primary source. The ECF are primary sources, ask your pastor. You turn a blind eye to standard dictionary definitions to make it fit your agenda. Your definition amounts to bible worship.
Eusebius lived until 340 AD. Do you think he "wasn't born yet" ???
It must get strenuous having your foot in your mouth all the time.

You still have no clue what a primary source is. Eusebias lived until 340 AD. Ok. If he lived to be 80 years old, when would he have been born. Go ahead... Get yoyr calculator. Yes... 260 AD. When did Peter die? 64 AD. Peter died 196 years before Eusabius was born. They did not live at the same time.

To qualify as a primary source as a writer you must be alive when an event happens. Eusabius was not alive when Peter was in Rome. Eusabius was not a primary source to the life of Peter.

 

[epostle1]

You still have no clue what a primary source is. Eusebias lived until 340 AD. Ok. If he lived to be 80 years old, when would he have been born. Go ahead... Get yoyr calculator. Yes... 260 AD. When did Peter die? 64 AD. Peter died 196 years before Eusabius was born. They did not live at the same time.

To qualify as a primary source as a writer you must be alive when an event happens. Eusabius was not alive when Peter was in Rome. Eusabius was not a primary source to the life of Peter.

You go off on these red herrings because you have repeatedly been refuted.
First you say Eusebias wasn't born yet,
then you say he was born too late.
According to your opinion, the canon the Bible is invalid because it wasn't completed until the 4th century, when none of the Apostles were alive. You are being ridiculous.

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Primary sources are the raw materials of historical research - they are the documents or artifacts closest to the topic of investigation. Often they are created during the time period which is being studied (correspondence, diaries, newspapers, government documents, art) but they can also be produced later by eyewitnesses or participants (memoirs, oral histories). You may find primary sources in their original format (usually in an archive) or reproduced in a variety of ways: books, microfilm, digital, etc. http://research.library.gsu.edu/primaryhistory

A definition of primary source
If you are seeking to learn about the past, primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types).
To give just one example of a primary source for a particular research question: If you were interested in learning about how the Freshman Rhetoric course at UIUC was taught in the late 19th century, the papers students wrote for that course would be considered primary sources for this research project, because they were created at the time of the institutional practices in question by direct participants in those practices.
Primary sources also include first-hand accounts that were documented later, such as autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories. However, the most useful primary sources are usually considered to be those that were created closest to the time period you’re researching.http://www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg1.htm

You still have no clue what a primary source is.

Very funny. Your claim that the ECF's quotes contradict scripture IS FALSE. A definition of "contradiction" has already been given but you ignore that too. You haven't proven anything. Note: ECF are not at par with the inspired word of God, but both are primary sources re: historical portraits.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You go off on these red herrings because you have repeatedly been refuted. According to your opinion, the canon the Bible is invalid because it wasn't completed until the 4th century, when none of the Apostles were alive.

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, a recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Primary sources are the raw materials of historical research - they are the documents or artifacts closest to the topic of investigation. Often they are created during the time period which is being studied (correspondence, diaries, newspapers, government documents, art) but they can also be produced later by eyewitnesses or participants (memoirs, oral histories). You may find primary sources in their original format (usually in an archive) or reproduced in a variety of ways: books, microfilm, digital, etc. http://research.library.gsu.edu/primaryhistory

A definition of primary source
If you are seeking to learn about the past, primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types).
To give just one example of a primary source for a particular research question: If you were interested in learning about how the Freshman Rhetoric course at UIUC was taught in the late 19th century, the papers students wrote for that course would be considered primary sources for this research project, because they were created at the time of the institutional practices in question by direct participants in those practices.
Primary sources also include first-hand accounts that were documented later, such as autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories. However, the most useful primary sources are usually considered to be those that were created closest to the time period you’re researching.http://www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg1.htm

Retract your false claim the ECF's quotes contradict scripture. A definition of "contradiction" has already been given but you ignore that too. You haven't proven anything. Note: ECF are not at par with the inspired word of God, but both are primary sources re: historical portraits.

Our angry friend FHII has been exposed more times than a topless dancer - but he has too much invested in his lies to quit now . . .

 

[Marymog]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
There is ONE Church. The Judaizers, Gnostics, Donatists, Arians, Nestorians and the rest were heretics - not Catholics. They were teaching perverted doctrines and fell away from the Church and from the Truth.

And you're right - this continues to this day because of the spiritual pride of mere men who refuse to submit to the God-given authority of His Church (Matt. 16:18-19, 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

I think we are KIND OF agreeing sir.

They "fell away" from The Church but they probably started their own churches....in houses, in caves, by the river or wherever they met.

I am not saying they weren't teaching "perverted doctrines" I am just saying they probably started their own churches when they were kicked out of The Church for being heretics.

There may have been only 5, 10, 50 or 100 of them meeting (holding a church service) after they were kicked out of The Church but that is not to say they didn't start their own church in the first century.

Does that make sense?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Point A: not true! I believe Peter may have been in Rome NOT because of 1 pete5:13, but because of other testimonies. If I was going by the Bible alone I -- as well as any other reasinable person -- would never conclude Peter was in Rome.

Point B: give me a list of any Church father's testimonies I have rejected. Did I reject Ignatius's? No! I read it and it was nothing you folks make it out to be!

If I reject any testimony it'll be because it doesn't line up with the Bible. So now I turn the table and ask if you teject the Bible over their testimony?

And if you are going to claim that anyone said Peter did this and did that and had supremacy over all... It better be a prime source or line up with the Bible. Because no... I am not going to believe someone who testifies 100, 200 or 300 years after Peter's death if it counters the Bible.

People believe that Lincoln wrote the Ghettysburg address on an envelope a mere 150 years after the incident. But guess what? Its a fairy tale. So I am not going to be so quick to believe someone telling about Peter when they are 200 years removed from the event, or even 50 years.

If it don't cobtradict the Bible... I will consider it.

Hi FHII,

I have never understood this "bible alone" (sola scriptura) teaching. (If I was going by the Bible alone I -- as well as any other reasinable person)

I don't think it is reasonable to believe in the "bible alone" teaching since the bible does not give us a list of books that should be in the bible.

Since the bible does not give us a list of books that are to be in our bible then the bible alone teaching is self defeating. The men of the early church gave us what books are to be in the bible. The Church gave us the bible since the bible does not tell us what books are to be in the bible.

Does that make sense?

Just my two cents worth.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Point A: not true! I believe Peter may have been in Rome NOT because of 1 pete5:13, but because of other testimonies. If I was going by the Bible alone I -- as well as any other reasinable person -- would never conclude Peter was in Rome.

Point B: give me a list of any Church father's testimonies I have rejected. Did I reject Ignatius's? No! I read it and it was nothing you folks make it out to be!

If I reject any testimony it'll be because it doesn't line up with the Bible. So now I turn the table and ask if you teject the Bible over their testimony?

And if you are going to claim that anyone said Peter did this and did that and had supremacy over all... It better be a prime source or line up with the Bible. Because no... I am not going to believe someone who testifies 100, 200 or 300 years after Peter's death if it counters the Bible.

People believe that Lincoln wrote the Ghettysburg address on an envelope a mere 150 years after the incident. But guess what? Its a fairy tale. So I am not going to be so quick to believe someone telling about Peter when they are 200 years removed from the event, or even 50 years.

If it don't cobtradict the Bible... I will consider it.

In regards to point A:

I have researched what BreadOfLife repeated in post #129 and he is right.

The earliest writings that us Christians have state that Peter was in fact in Rome NOT like you stated that Peter "may have been in Rome". There is no "may" about it.

My two cents worth.

Mary

PS...I just noticed your post #153 where you said "I DO NOT DENY PETER WAS IN ROME!" so I am editing this post.

I apologize for missing the post that you agree that Peter was in Rome. However, Since you have said two different things in two different post I don't know what you believe.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think we are KIND OF agreeing sir.

They "fell away" from The Church but they probably started their own churches....in houses, in caves, by the river or wherever they met.

I am not saying they weren't teaching "perverted doctrines" I am just saying they probably started their own churches when they were kicked out of The Church for being heretics.

There may have been only 5, 10, 50 or 100 of them meeting (holding a church service) after they were kicked out of The Church but that is not to say they didn't start their own church in the first century.

Does that make sense?

Mary

The point is that there is only ONE Church created by Jesus - not 2 or 20 or 50,000.
There is ONE and ONLY one.

The rest aren't "churches" in the full sense of the word but splinter groups.
As the Protestant historian Ken Samples stated:
[SIZE=12pt]"Catholicism . . . is the largest body within Christendom, having almost a two‐thousand‐year history (it has historical continuity with apostolic, first century Christianity), and is the ecclesiastical tree from which Protestantism originally splintered."[/SIZE]

 

[mjrhealth]

The point is that there is only ONE Church created by Jesus - not 2 or 20 or 50,000.
There is ONE and ONLY one.

Yes its Just not yours. All the evidence is stacked against you, unless your God is a child molester your church is not His.


Can we get back to teh things of God or are you going to spend the rest of your lives arguing over all your churches problems.???

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yes its Just not yours. All the evidence is stacked against you, unless your God is a child molester your church is not His.


Can we get back to teh things of God or are you going to spend the rest of your lives arguing over all your churches problems.???

Ummmm, I'm not the not arguing about the problems in the Church - YOU are.

I fully acknowledge the flawed human beings in the Church. YOU on the other had refuse to see that there are just as many flawed people in your Protestant sects - including YOUR little cult.

Nope - the weight of Scripture, history and archaeology rests on the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church started by Jesus.
YOUR cult was created in the early 1980s. It's not even as old as the Rolling Stones . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

I fully acknowledge the flawed human beings in the Church. YOU on the other had refuse to see that there are just as many flawed people in your Protestant sects - including YOUR little cult.

Actually I have. how many times have I said that the other churches are your brothers and sisters all have the same genes, your church being there mother.??

Nope - the weight of Scripture, history and archaeology rests on the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church started by Jesus.
YOUR cult was created in the early 1980s. It's not even as old as the Rolling Stones . . .

And Jesus Said,


John 8:44-45
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.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Now since your church has done these things, it is how it wil be judged, how can it be from God, is God teh devil???

And Jesus is not a cult, thats a church thing. The blind following the blind....

And your pope has admiited to it all

Everything that is hidden will be revealed

 

[epostle1]

I don't believe he was there 25 years and you folks can't even agree on that. You say your secondary source doesn't say that but it does and kelpha agrees with me.

I did no such thing.
The only one who states the number of years Peter preached the gospel is Eusebius. He is counting from 42 using Roman chronology, not biblical measurement that often uses the Gregorian calender that was not introduced untill 1582 AD.

"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

42 AD is an estimate of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad. An Olympiad is not 365 days. It is an event by which every 4 years were measured. I could find no fixed date.The 699th Olympiad begins this summer. The cut the confusion, 42 (if that us accurate) and add 25, you get 67. Note Peter was sent from Antioch in the second year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad, making his execution in close proximity to 64 AD. Eusebius is correct.
Ignoring this the second time isn't going to help you. The dishonesty of your posts is glaring.

I am not going to engage in an argument about what I believe. I am going to tell you what I believe and that's the end of it. You can disagree with my beliefs and Thats fine. But don't tell me what I believe or suggest I am sola scripura when I not only tell you I am not, but prove it!

And like I said... I would rather base my beliefs on proven God inspied scripture than a bunch of philosophers who contradict themselves and the Bible!

You still haven't proven anything. You could strain gnats out of the ECF after months of research, but so what? They were not all correct 100% of the time. But you would miss their general consensus, and end up swallowing a camel.

And they do. And no amount of spin you put on it can make it right. No amiunt of hijacking history you do can change the truth.

Babylonian Catholic Church is accurate history?

Now I am done with you. Bother me no more with your vain philosophy, wives tales and traditions of men.

Ignoring 70+ verses on Peter's primacy is a tradition of men.

 

[mjrhealth]

Ignoring 70+ verses on Peter's primacy is a tradition of men.

Peters Primacy he has none,

Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Luk 22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Because Jesus said it will not be so

Your church is built upon lies and the foundation of an empty tomb of a dead man. It cannot stand. already the cracks are appearing.

Ant catholism, you should learn Anti christ for you and your church have being persecuting Him since its beggining even to this day. You would not know persecution, think of teh Jews in the land that God had given them, suddenly having "christians" sent by "your Pope" running up teh street shouting "kill teh Jews they killed our Jesus". many tears must of being shed in Heaven on that day and so teh cry is

Act 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Act 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

IS Christ divied is Christ a molester of children those innocent souls that belong to Him,, is Jesus a murder of His lambs His people,

and so

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev 18:5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
Rev 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

Go tell God how perrsecuted you feel and let Him show you the tens of thousands of souls that your "church" murdered in His name

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually I have. how many times have I said that the other churches are your brothers and sisters all have the same genes, your church being there mother.??

Ummmm, I included YOUR little cult . . .

And Jesus Said,
John 8:44-45
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.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Now since your church has done these things, it is how it wil be judged, how can it be from God, is God teh devil???

And Jesus is not a cult, thats a church thing. The blind following the blind....

And your pope has admiited to it all

Everything that is hidden will be revealed

I LOVE it when you repeatedly ignorantly post John 8:44-46 - as if Jesus was talking to Christians.
He wasn't.

Stop quoting the Bible until you actually LEARN what it means, my Scripturally-bankrupt friend . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Peters Primacy he has none,

Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Luk 22:27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Because Jesus said it will not be so

Look, Einstein - let me explain something that is obvious to everybody reading this except for YOU:

The Apostles were fighting among themselves to see who was the greatest.
Jesus told them they this is not for THEM to decide and that the one who serves the others is the REAL leader.

4 verses later - Jesus let's Peter know that HE is the chosen earthly leader when He tells him:

Luke 22:31
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of YOU (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed that YOUR (singular) own faith may not fail; and once YOU (singular) have turned back, YOU (singular) must strengthen YOUR (singular) brothers.”

Your ignorance of Scripture is ASTOUNDING . . .


PS - One of the Pope's official titles is: "The SERVANT of the Servants of God"