Who? Are they still alive, these people you're so against, and angry with?
Sent from Get lost
The Trinity
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Sent from Get lost
Jesus! Respect that He did what He said He'd do, and built His Church upon Peter, and unless He's a lying liar, then that means this Church must still be here. Somewhere. Somewhere around . . . this region . . . of the world . . . .
Well you know it must be everywhere by now, if it's Jesus' actual Church. Two thousand years is plenty of time for Jesus Christ's Church to go all the way around the world, you would think, right? I would think that, anyway. This Church He said He'd build upon Peter, must by now be all the way around the world, in 2000 years, in almost 2000 years.
If we knew your sins, Popsthebuilder, how would you feel if we called you names based upon what your sins are?
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Respect the elders of the Church. That's in the Bible.
Rosenritter
New member
Objecting to the first sentence... I think it says that it is impossible to be reconciled to God, if, after we have truly known Him, we turn away. Not that it is impossible to turn away at all.
Hebrews 6:4-8 KJV
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
(6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(7) For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
(8) But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
lain: OK. You read whatever you want. Or, read whatever God wants you to read, you being a Calvinist? No wonder we can't get through to Muslims, you think you're right because you're unconvinced, and if God wanted you to see it a different way, He could convince you to change your mind, that's how God would exercise His sovereign influence over your life. If you remain unconvinced, then obviously God did not want you to change your mind.In the meantime, you're a punching bag. You can change. You don't have to be convinced, you are free to change your mind.
Peter was the Church's first pope, of course he had the authority to tell the Church that we should consider all of Paul's epistles, as Sacred Scripture. And we do, proving his authority is true. Who are they who reject Paul's epistles? Islam, for one, rejects all of Paul's letters. They also reject the RESURRECTION, and the papacy.
So no; not "kudos" to Peter, Peter was the Boss of the elders. First among equals. If you differed with Peter, then you were out of the club. That's why it's a big deal for Peter to say that Paul's letters are Sacred Scripture, because people had heard that Paul had a fight with Peter, so Peter had to clear the air, and he did.
:noid: So, I guess, you're right then. "Kudos to Peter."
The Church that corresponds to Matthew 16:18 (KJV) is still here. Where is she?
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against" Jesus' Church, where is she?
God's Truth
New member
You cauterized your own mind and do not even know you are insulting.
You also keep asking me if I sold everything I have, but you fail to give the scripture where Jesus commands all to do that.
Why not ask me other questions about obedience?
Why not ask me if I fear God, if I humbled myself and repented of my sins, if I forgave all who have sinned against me?
Why not ask if I obey any of the other teachings of Jesus Christ?
You ask me if I have done something which Jesus never asked us all to do.
God's Truth
New member
Why does the name God's Truth hurt you so much?
What do you think you preach Satan's lies?
Maybe your user name is smug and proud while you proclaim your life is good, while other lives are poor and full of pain?
Try to prove me wrong and show that you really are the one who speaks God's Truth.
You just contradicted yourself. You do that because you do not have understanding.
Notice you are the one with the foul names for others.
Rosenritter
New member
The Trinity is not a Roman Catholic invention. Tertullian is generally given credit for being the first to write about Trinity in the 3rd century.
The opening questions for this thread included whether Trinity was biblical and if it can be proved from the bible. The fact is that Trinity isn't defined by the Bible. It isn't defined in Moses and the prophets, it wasn't taught by Jesus, and it wasn't explained by the apostles, and in the book called the Revelation it remains unrevealed. If you want to know what Trinity means you have to ask someone else other than the Bible. As such I answered the poll that it wasn't biblical and/or wasn't biblical.
Even if you ask someone else, you get different definitions and ideas, and the people who have conflicting definitions and explanations will also condemn those who don't accept their definition. Jesus never condemned anyone for not believing in a Trinity, and neither did the apostles.
Can you agree on a definition? If so, it can be discussed. To the degree that such a "Trinity" definition can be accepted as a model for explaining an attribute of God, it can have positive value. The danger is when people start to worship the model of a thing, and give more honor to an image of God of their own making, without listening to what the supposed subject of their worship asks them to do with relation to Himself and others.
When someone creates in image of God (let's say "Trinity") and then persecutes or condemns others for not accepting this image, they are missing the actual words and intent of God that we should love each other. Jesus didn't teach Trinity, but he did give us a new commandment, that we should love one another. If Jesus is our God, should the Trinity be worshiped above God? No, which is why I say this approached idolatry.
In proper application, an image or model is kept in its proper place, as an analogy or teaching tool, and we do not claim dogmatism where Jesus himself or the Holy Spirit in scripture was not dogmatic.
God's Truth
New member
Why would I pluck out my own eyes if I stopped sinning with my eyes?
Only someone without understanding would tell another to obey by plucking out their own eyes.
Rosenritter
New member
Infallible doctrines? There is One who is infallible. Was the sale of indulgences an infallible doctrine? If Peter was the first Pope (as you claim) then he was certainly not infallible, for Paul himself opposed him as to practice and doctrine concerning his treatment of the Gentiles.
popsthebuilder
New member
And in that is a false dilemma. What if Christ supplies a particular leader or group? If you reject that He can do that, then fine, I guess it's not a false dilemma for you, but if it is possible, and He does provide a real presence on this earth today, then it is a false dilemma.
In contrast to what Matthew 16:18 (KJV) actually says. You're playing hopscotch, jumping from one spot to another, landing on the last square and saying, "See, I'm back at the beginning." But you're not, you're disputing Matthew 16:18 (KJV).
There's nothing wrong with, expecting perfection from the Church's elders, when they are teaching on matters of faith and morals.
The Bible isn't the teacher's edition. Elders talked with each other, the Apostles talked with the elders, and among themselves, all of what was said, wasn't captured in the slim volumes we call the New Testament. The Church was led by the Apostles, what they said mattered, and all of it, and what we know now precisely, is that when they together as a united group teach a thing, in the matters of faith and morals, they teach infallibly. This is displayed for us within the NT in Acts, at the very first Church council, and it is displayed for us by the physical presence of the NT as well, because they all together chose which books would make the Christian Bible. The Church honors the oral tradition, passed down from Jesus and the Apostles.
We're not talking about the Church having "everything 100% right," we're talking about whether or not the Church is correct, or whether she is the whore of babylon, for illicitly raising a mere man up to the level of God.
You're trying to generalize a singularity.
God's Truth
New member
I'm trying to tell you but you keep resorting to insults.
You say 'nice try' and then you do not answer whether or not you ever obeyed your parents, teacher, the Government, your boss, etc.
Rosenritter
New member
The scriptures can be understood by a child, to make him wise unto salvation.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 KJV
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
(16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Rosenritter
New member
Jesus didn't build his church upon Peter. Peter's name means "stone" and in the Greek tongue is used with the masculine Πέτρος (Petros). Jesus acknowledge Peter's name using that term, but then said that he would build his church upon a different Rock, specifically the feminine πέτρα (Petra). Had Jesus been naming Peter, he would have built his church upon Πέτρος (Petros.)
Matthew 16:18 KJV
(18) And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:18 καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν κα
Peter may be Petros, but Jesus builds upon Petra.
1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV
(4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Co 10:4 και παντες το αυτο πομα πνευματικον επιον επινον γαρ εκ πνευματικης ακολουθουσης πετρας η δε πετρα ην ο χριστ
The church is built upon Jesus, not Peter, and that church is the body of saints wherever "little flock" is scattered through the world, as lights set on a hill, as salt that has retained its savor. The church is not an organization that presumes to interpret the law and to set up rules and regulations as the new order of Pharisee. Jesus specifically condemned that approach, and he offered HIMSELF as the way to Salvation, no other priest required.
Yes!
Ah! So, now you don't have to heed what His Apostles' hand-picked teaching office says, huh? Because of something sanctimonious like that?
No. It was an abuse. And indulgences are still a real thing. The Church deals in indulgences, it's like her stock in trade.
Was he the senior pastor of the one Church back then? Do you believe that?
Infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals "from the chair" or ex cathedra in Latin.
Right, which is why it's such a big deal for Peter to write in his epistle that the Church ought to regard Paul's letters as Sacred Scripture, to close down suspicions of any possible lingering bad blood between any of the Apostles.
popsthebuilder
New member
[/QUOTE]
I respect Jesus, and don't understand what it is you are getting at really.
Surely the congregation of the faithful to GOD is ever present and will be until the end. My sins? If you knew them and called me by them openly? I would be even more shamed than I sometimes am still now. Hopefully that shame would bring me to even further repentance.
Really though; I most likely wouldn't mind too much for a couple of reasons; we are all equal/ sinners. We aren't told to respect the opinions of men. I really couldn't care too much if one who is obviously already against me and or my words calls me names anyway; it's standard procedure round these parts.
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
OK. So who is not against the act of murder? Someone in Rome? Someone who's a Catholic bishop somewhere?
Absolutely. He is risen. Mt28:6KJV Mk16:6KJV Lk24:6KJV All done. Ro10:9KJV