The problem with the Bible alone!

[Truther]

The "waters" the whore sits on is her doctrinal influence on Christianity around the world...even on most protestants.

 

[Truther]

Protestants merely modify the whore's doctrines, not abandoning them.

Therefore the churches are filled with lying commentaries originating from the RCC.

 

[Paul Christensen]

It is mind blowing that there are any Catholics at all these days, but the great whore of Rev was foretold 2000 years ago, and it is happening just like the Bible said it would.

When we link it with the prophecy of Daniel concerning the iron legs of the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream being pagan Rome, and then a small horn coming out of it speaking blasphemies as identified as the Holy Roman Empire and then it suffering a fatal wound (1798 when the king of France kidnapped the pope and abolished the papacy), and the wound being healed with the pact between Mussolini and the Vatican effectively restoring the papacy. Interestingly, Revelation talks about a small beast arising out of the earth with two horns like a lamb, depicting a Christian nation, but with the voice of a dragon, who gives power to the beast. This has been interpreted as the United States, who will in the near future align itself with Rome. There is the picture of an American president and past presidents kneeling before the casket of Pope John Paul II. Because the United States is a dominant power in the world, it is easy to see how this can happen in the future. What this shows us is that the Beast is the Papal system, and the AntiChrist will be the pope of Rome who will gather all churches, and countries under his charismatic sway with attractive promises of peace and harmony, but with the snake bite of persecution and death for those who refuse the mark of the Beast. The mark won't be a physical mark. It will be the oath of allegiance to the pope's authority and those who refuse to give that oath will be the ones persecuted and killed. If the posttribs are correct, then it will be the Bible believing Christians who will be alive during those days who will bear the brunt of the persecution. This will signal the imminent return of Christ to defeat and destroy the Beast and AntiChrist and set up His kingdom. We are living in interesting times!

 

[Paul Christensen]

and Isa 22:21-22
Matt 16:18 18:18 28:19
Jn 20:21-23
Eph 2:20

?????????

first popes Peter, Linus, Clement!

I had a Mormon missionary give me a whole list of Bible references like that just to swamp me with references to stop me giving a reasponable reply to him.

Peter, Linus, and Clement were leaders of the early Christian church, but never popes of the Roman Catholic Church which did not exist during their time.

 

[robert derrick]

For example:

Lk 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Or
1 cor 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

these are divine revelation!
Inspired by the Holy Spirit!
And the word of God!

why do some only accept them after they are written down?

they are divine revelation and the inspired word of God when they were received, and when they were taught to the people, and when they were written down! Why only accept them in the written form or “Bible alone”???

Why do you want me to? And even insist I ought? What is it to you? Why should sticking to Scripture for the Word of the God of Scripture be a problem for anyone?

All visions and words from God to man have been written down, else we would never know of them, because oral traditions never make it accurately beyond the first telling or two.

And the writer didn't even need to hear the report from another. Luke wrote by inspiration of God what really happened with Paul's companions on the road to Damascus, because the Lord was also there and knew what they did and did not hear. Paul believed their lie, that they heard no man's voice. He knew they had seen the bright light by seeing their reaction, but how would he know what they heard or not, except he had asked them.

I stick to Scripture as the sole authority for God's Word, because it's the only Word of God worth reading. All those outside traditions are a pathetic waste of time, without even any literary merit to them. They're just a bunch of 'Sacred' talk painted white. And if I did not stick to Scripture, then I could start believing that ridiculous trash, idolatry, and phoney righteousness of man.

You want to believe something and practise it, without Scriptural confirmation, go ahead. Just don't then pretend you are believing and doing the Word of God according to the Scriptures.

Everything written in Scripture was by divine revelation when recieved, preached, and then written. You outside tradition lovers seem to have a problem with people who refuse to go outside Scripture for tradition and commandment and gospel of God.

Why is that? Does our unbelief make your belief in outside things less important to you?

I could care less how many do not believe Scripture. It matters absolutely nothing to me. That's their problem. Why are you so insistent that all people believe your outside stuff?

Because your outside stuff is more important to you than Scripture, and you only play with Scripture in order to justify yourself.

Cain slew Abel, after having a 'talk' with him about some outside sacrifices to make, and Abel refused to hear him.

The beast of outside sources rages at the believers of the Lamb, who hear Him according to Scripture only, because the traditions of men are born of the devil, who rages at any that refuse to believe his lies.

Nimrod was the first maker of outside religion from an outside source, and he hunted down any soul that would not join the great sounding 'one voice world' he had created.

 

[Truther]

When we link it with the prophecy of Daniel concerning the iron legs of the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream being pagan Rome, and then a small horn coming out of it speaking blasphemies as identified as the Holy Roman Empire and then it suffering a fatal wound (1798 when the king of France kidnapped the pope and abolished the papacy), and the wound being healed with the pact between Mussolini and the Vatican effectively restoring the papacy. Interestingly, Revelation talks about a small beast arising out of the earth with two horns like a lamb, depicting a Christian nation, but with the voice of a dragon, who gives power to the beast. This has been interpreted as the United States, who will in the near future align itself with Rome. There is the picture of an American president and past presidents kneeling before the casket of Pope John Paul II. Because the United States is a dominant power in the world, it is easy to see how this can happen in the future. What this shows us is that the Beast is the Papal system, and the AntiChrist will be the pope of Rome who will gather all churches, and countries under his charismatic sway with attractive promises of peace and harmony, but with the snake bite of persecution and death for those who refuse the mark of the Beast. The mark won't be a physical mark. It will be the oath of allegiance to the pope's authority and those who refuse to give that oath will be the ones persecuted and killed. If the posttribs are correct, then it will be the Bible believing Christians who will be alive during those days who will bear the brunt of the persecution. This will signal the imminent return of Christ to defeat and destroy the Beast and AntiChrist and set up His kingdom. We are living in interesting times!

Yes indeed.

The political powerhouse developed into the ecumenical powerhouse. Daniel's prophecy of the image is spot on throughout the ages.

Notice Rome get's decimated at the point right at the return of Christ per Rev 18-19.

 

[Truther]

The destruction of the 4th kingdom per Daniel is Rev 18.

 

[robert derrick]

Why do 'great leaders' of outside traditions go on and on about 'Sacred' and "Sacredness?

I read of holy, hallowed, and holiness in Scripture, but no 'Sacred' stuff.

There's the holy Scriptures, but no 'Sacred' traditions.

Sacred is a pseudo-holiness word, that is supposed to prevent people from mocking them as rubbish.

"Hey, that's my Sacred tradition you're talking about!!"

"Hey, those bones are Sacred!!

It's like talking about having such 'Strong traditions'. Ok, so you got a bunch of traditions. Big whoop.

Scripture speaks of being mighty in the scriptures, and the young men being strong in the Word of God.

Men always have to use impressive words to try and convince others of how important they are.

But Paul said we use great plainness of speech. If something is true and holy and pure and powerful, then it will make itself known, without all the flourishing metaphors and superlatives. It will also be confirmed by Scripture as such.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Here is Isaiah 22:20-24 in its right context.
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat[a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

The reference has no relation to the RCC or any of its popes. It is a prophecy about Eliakim, the finance minister to King Hezekiah.

The John 20:21-23 reference is about the risen Jesus indicating what will happen when the promised Holy Spirit will come. He actually came as a rushing mighty wind. Jesus was commissioning His Apostles to go out into all the world to preach the Gospel. This has nothing to do with the RCC or any of its popes. This is another example of quoting the Bible out of context to make it say what people want it to say.

So, if I have revealed two of the references to be shonky in the attempt to show them as authorities for the popes of the RCC, then the other references have to be suspect as well. So much for piling up references which turn out to mean nothing like what was intended.

 

[robert derrick]

Preaching against the Bible only is preaching against the Bible. It is necessary to do so, in order to have outside traditions believed as equal to the Bible, though the Bible does not agree with them.

To forbid going to the Bible to prove all things, is to forbid going to the Bible as authority of God.

The Bible becomes the enemy of all outside traditions of men.

They honor the Bible with their lips, while forbidding the Bible be read with authority.

The more the Bible is read, then the more obvious such outside traditions are not found in it.

Therefore, the Bible must either be banned altogether, or severely limited in reading, or taught as above the believers' ability to understand, and so must be left for the great leaders to explain all things, and be believed in all things explained, whether the Bible agrees or not.

The only thing such blind followers know of the Bible is what they are told. And then when they become advanced, the only things that matter to them from the Bible is how to twist it, so that the Bible is actually teaching how not to believe in the Bible, as the sole authority of the God of the Bible.

Yes. That is twisted thinking indeed.

 

[theefaith]

This is a typical Jehovah's Witness tactic to pile up Bible quotes, usually out of context, to control a conversation, so as to make it difficult to make a reasonable reply, then to accuse those who disagree that they are being brainwashed.

puck one and we can take baby steps np

 

[theefaith]

Attacking the great whore(RCC) of Rev is attacking Christ?

I trow not!

accusing the one true church of being the whore when it’s not possible

 

[theefaith]

Satan....the dragon of Rev

the jurisdictional authority of Peter and his successors now comes from Satan

You’re attacking Christ Isa 22:21-22Matt 16:18

 

[theefaith]

Why do you want me to? And even insist I ought? What is it to you? Why should sticking to Scripture for the Word of the God of Scripture be a problem for anyone?

All visions and words from God to man have been written down, else we would never know of them, because oral traditions never make it accurately beyond the first telling or two.

And the writer didn't even need to hear the report from another. Luke wrote by inspiration of God what really happened with Paul's companions on the road to Damascus, because the Lord was also there and knew what they did and did not hear. Paul believed their lie, that they heard no man's voice. He knew they had seen the bright light by seeing their reaction, but how would he know what they heard or not, except he had asked them.

I stick to Scripture as the sole authority for God's Word, because it's the only Word of God worth reading. All those outside traditions are a pathetic waste of time, without even any literary merit to them. They're just a bunch of 'Sacred' talk painted white. And if I did not stick to Scripture, then I could start believing that ridiculous trash, idolatry, and phoney righteousness of man.

You want to believe something and practise it, without Scriptural confirmation, go ahead. Just don't then pretend you are believing and doing the Word of God according to the Scriptures.

Everything written in Scripture was by divine revelation when recieved, preached, and then written. You outside tradition lovers seem to have a problem with people who refuse to go outside Scripture for tradition and commandment and gospel of God.

Why is that? Does our unbelief make your belief in outside things less important to you?

I could care less how many do not believe Scripture. It matters absolutely nothing to me. That's their problem. Why are you so insistent that all people believe your outside stuff?

Because your outside stuff is more important to you than Scripture, and you only play with Scripture in order to justify yourself.

Cain slew Abel, after having a 'talk' with him about some outside sacrifices to make, and Abel refused to hear him.

The beast of outside sources rages at the believers of the Lamb, who hear Him according to Scripture only, because the traditions of men are born of the devil, who rages at any that refuse to believe his lies.

Nimrod was the first maker of outside religion from an outside source, and he hunted down any soul that would not join the great sounding 'one voice world' he had created.

only opposed to the Bible alone
Not scripture and tradition or the teaching authority of the apostles

 

[Wrangler]

It says before being a member

A member of A church, not ‘the one and only true church.’ How you are connecting baptism to church membership is a mystery.

 

[Wrangler]

It says before being a member
So Christians have received Christ in baptism

Definition of catechumen

1: a convert to Christianity receiving training in doctrine and discipline before baptism
2: one receiving instruction in the basic doctrines of Christianity before admission to communicant membership in a church​

Love each other as brothers and sisters and honor others more than you do yourself.
Roman 12:10 CEV

Definition 2 has nothing to do with baptism. Definition 1 has nothing to do with church membership. And you conveniently ignored how you are not living up to Romans 12:10 with your relentless diatribe against those who reject the corrupt RCC.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Scripture matters!


Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Catechumens not yet baptized are believers but not Christians

You get baptized into Christ by being immersed in the Holy Spirit, not water. That may or may not happen in conjunction with a water baptism. Water has zero power to put a person into the body of Christ. These spiritual truths escape you because you do not have the Holy Spirit. You can't see the scriptures spiritually and so you default to legalistic, carnal understandings of scripture.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

why do some only accept them after they are written down?

they are divine revelation and the inspired word of God when they were received, and when they were taught to the people, and when they were written down! Why only accept them in the written form or “Bible alone”???

Because the revelation of the mystery of Christ and faith in God has been fully administered in the pages of the Bible. There's nothing to add to it. It's already been fully revealed. There is no new scripture to be written.

 

[Truther]

accusing the one true church of being the whore when it’s not possible

I did not accuse it. God accuses it. I just post it.

 

[Truther]

the jurisdictional authority of Peter and his successors now comes from Satan

You’re attacking Christ Isa 22:21-22Matt 16:18

No, I am exposing the Roman Catholic Church. It is risen to power through Satanic commentary and bits and pieces of the Bible. You know that’s true.