A Simple Yet Irrefutable Reason The Catholic church Is Not Rooted In Christ's Church

[Phoneman777]

A "remnant sale" is where many craft enthusiasts go to purchase the last portion that remains on a bolt of carpet or a bolt of clothing material -- and while the size and price of the leftovers will vary, one thing remains constant: the last portion is IDENTICAL to that which was there in the beginning.

Revelation 12:17 KJV clearly defines God's end time "remnant" church - symbolized as a "woman" - as a church which will faithfully "keep the commandments of God" -- which means the church Christ founded in the beginning ALSO kept the commandments of God.

The Catholic church arrogantly boasts "the pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ" and by Papal Encyclical has claimed to have changed many aspects of God's commandments including their change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to Sunday.

Since the 1st century church Jesus Christ founded kept the commandments of God, and the Roman Catholic church admittedly rebels against the same and presumptuously claims to have replaced them with her own commandments, by her own words she makes any attempt to trace her roots back to the church Jesus Christ founded impossible.

"But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matthew 15:9 KJV​

 

[BreadOfLife]

A "remnant sale" is where many craft enthusiasts go to purchase the last portion that remains on a bolt of carpet or a bolt of clothing material -- and while the size and price of the leftovers will vary, one thing remains constant: the last portion is IDENTICAL to that which was there in the beginning.

Revelation 12:17 KJV clearly defines God's end time "remnant" church - symbolized as a "woman" - as a church which will faithfully "keep the commandments of God" -- which means the church Christ founded in the beginning ALSO kept the commandments of God.
The Catholic church arrogantly boasts "the pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ" and by Papal Encyclical has claimed to have changed many aspects of God's commandments including their change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to Sunday.
Since the 1st century church Jesus Christ founded kept the commandments of God, and the Roman Catholic church admittedly rebels against the same and presumptuously claims to have replaced them with her own commandments, by her own words she makes any attempt to trace her roots back to the church Jesus Christ founded impossible.
"But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matthew 15:9 KJV

And it’s because of manure like this that you’ve garnered the moniker of “PHONEYman”.

First of all – a Papal decretal; pertains ONLY to matters of discipline – NOT doctrine. Your false goddess, Ellen White claimed that:
“The Decretalia ascribes power to the pope to change God’s law or any other law.”

Secondly – this “quote” is ALL over your SDA literature – but not a SINGLE reference to an actual document.
Please produce the document where this alleged quote was taken from – so we can see if it is “an authoritative work in the Roman ecclesiastical law”, as she asserts - or just somebody's opinion.
I’ll wait right here for your response . . .

 

[Alfredthefifth]

And it’s because of manure like this that you’ve garnered the moniker of “PHONEYman”.

First of all – a Papal decretal; pertains ONLY to matters of discipline – NOT doctrine. Your false goddess, Ellen White claimed that:
“The Decretalia ascribes power to the pope to change God’s law or any other law.”

Secondly – this “quote” is ALL over your SDA literature – but not a SINGLE reference to an actual document.
Please produce the document where this alleged quote was taken from – so we can see if it is “an authoritative work in the Roman ecclesiastical law”, as she asserts - or just somebody's opinion.
I’ll wait right here for your response . . .

In the short time I have been on this message board. I have been in discussion with several that using singular verses and authority of THE CHURCH through it's Bishops in all thing spiritual. Proving the Bishops authority in the twisting of those singular verses and telling me there is no point in looking at the context the verse is written in. Because this singular verse backs up this singular verse in infinitum because the Bishops and only Bishops have authority over the word!

Jesus didn’t teach this, Peter didn’t teach this and Paul most certainly didn't teach this!

"But we have through unbroken succession from the apostles all spiritual authority and over the word also!"

This is so unsound it is laughable to claim it!

But I am retired and have the time hit me with your verses. I will look at the context of each one see if they are used in context or twisted. That is the only sound test of the word that guides us.

Paul taught that we need to test every teaching, even his against the word of God. But when testing the teaching of Bishops against the word and finding it unsound. This Gets an answer of thats OK the Bishops are the infallible arbitrators of Gods word.

That isn't my church and I pray for all the souls effected by this empty teachings.

Alfredthefifth

 

[BreadOfLife]

In the short time I have been on this message board. I have been in discussion with several that using singular verses and authority of THE CHURCH through it's Bishops in all thing spiritual. Proving the Bishops authority in the twisting of those singular verses and telling me there is no point in looking at the context the verse is written in. Because this singular verse backs up this singular verse in infinitum because the Bishops and only Bishops have authority over the word!

Jesus didn’t teach this, Peter didn’t teach this and Paul most certainly didn't teach this!

"But we have through unbroken succession from the apostles all spiritual authority and

over the word also!"

This is so unsound it is laughable to claim it!

But I am retired and have the time hit me with your verses. I will look at the context of each one see if they are used in context or twisted. That is the only sound test of the word that guides us.

Paul taught that we need to test every teaching, even his against the word of God. But when testing the teaching of Bishops against the word and finding it unsound. This Gets an answer of thats OK the Bishops are the infallible arbitrators of Gods word.

That isn't my church and I pray for all the souls effected by this empty teachings.

Alfredthefifth

There are several things wrong with your post.

First of all – your idea that the Catholic Church teacjes that Bisho9ps are infallible is dead wrong. This teaching is ONLY extended to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. And it is ONLY when he is speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit guides him in his teaching – not on everything.

Secondly – your claim that the Church teaches that ONLY the Bishops have Authority is also wrong.
The Scriptures and Sacred Tradition are authoritative, as are the Priests. As overseers, the Bishops have authority over the priests.

Finally - you claim that this is “unsound” and “laughable”. Yet, in the very next breath, you claim that YOUR personal interpretation of Scripture is the “the only sound test of the word that guides us”.

IF this were the case – you would NOT have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions that ALL teach different doctrines and ALL claim that they were “led” to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

Because of this – YOU need to explain why –
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

ALL of this confusion was cause by what YOU claim is "sound" teaching . . .

 

[Alfredthefifth]

There are several things wrong with your post.

First of all – your idea that the Catholic Church teacjes that Bisho9ps are infallible is dead wrong. This teaching is ONLY extended to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. And it is ONLY when he is speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Holy Spirit guides him in his teaching – not on everything.

Secondly – your claim that the Church teaches that ONLY the Bishops have Authority is also wrong.
The Scriptures and Sacred Tradition are authoritative, as are the Priests. As overseers, the Bishops have authority over the priests.

Finally - you claim that this is “unsound” and “laughable”. Yet, in the very next breath, you claim that YOUR personal interpretation of Scripture is the “the only sound test of the word that guides us”.

IF this were the case – you would NOT have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions that ALL teach different doctrines and ALL claim that they were “led” to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

Because of this – YOU need to explain why –
Some Protestant denominations believe in baptismal regeneration, while others do not.
Some believe in soul-sleep, while others do not.
Some believe in the total depravity of man, while others do not.
Some believe in the Holy Trinity, while others do not.
Some believe in doctrine of “once saved, always saved”, while others do not.
Some believe in a pre-tribulation “Rapture”, while others do not.
Some believe that only those who were predestined will make it to heaven, while others do not.
Some believe that some were predestined for hell, while others do not.
Some believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion, while others do not.
Some believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, while others do not.
Most believe in contraception, while others do not – and the list goes on . . .

ALL of this confusion was cause by what YOU claim is "sound" teaching . . .

When it comes right down to it the infallible Bishop of Rome is as human as any other human.

In the Bible, the only apostle, the apostle to the gentiles was ever recorded as being in Rome.
Paul using his Roman citizenship got sent to Rome to be tried as a Roman.

Peter, the apostle to the church of the circumcision, the Jews, isn't recorded in the canonical books of the Bible as going to or being in Rome. The proof is a letter from around 150 years after the fact.

The Bishop of Rome, or his representative never explained why Luther was a heretic through the Bible.
I hear all the automatic things that will happen to priests and Bishops in THE CHURCH but despite the claims of child sexual abuse as automatic Excommunication there is no proof of Excommunication happening. Quite the contrary there is excessive proof of the church was protecting and hiding those priests and Bishops.

I really want to only pray for those poor souls that get lead astray by teachings and traditions of men. But when untruths are continously paraded as above reproach because of the HOLY c. I find the Holy Spirit will not let me back away.
Scriptures I will agree are Holy.
Traditions of men though? Jesus taught how those get in the way of Scripture. Not only get in the way of scripture but to take over from Scriptures to the death of all that get caught in traditions of men!

I am not a perfect student but the Holy Spirit is a perfect teacher. Only someone pretending is able to say that a tradition of men is more or better than the Holy Spirit!

The confusion is caused by holding fast to traditions of man!
Liars getting caught in a lie throw the lie back "as catching the liar, makes me or any other catcher, the source of confusion!"

Just like the accusation that I hate Catholics because I fight the lie! The fact is I we feel sorry for and pray for those caught in the lie. The hate again comes from those desperate to protect lie!
As was the case for Martin Luther, Souls caught in the lie are something to fight for, but that is solely out Christian LOVE, with no room left to hate with. The Holy Spirit returns your hate with love, that is the only reason I am here at all!

Alfredthefifth

 

[BreadOfLife]

When it comes right down to it the infallible Bishop of Rome is as human as any other human.

But the Holy Spirit is GOD – and that’s who is guiding the Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

In the Bible, the only apostle, the apostle to the gentiles was ever recorded as being in Rome.
Paul using his Roman citizenship got sent to Rome to be tried as a Roman.
Peter, the apostle to the church of the circumcision, the Jews, isn't recorded in the canonical books of the Bible as going to or being in Rome. The proof is a letter from around 150 years after the fact.

Hogwash.
First of all – in 1 Pet. 5:13, Peter alludes to being in Rome (Babylon).
Secondly – I’m not sure which letter you’re referring to as “proof” that he wasn’t in Rome – the UNANIMOUS testimony of the Early Church is that he WAS in Rome with Paul – and was crucified there. St. Peter’s Basilica is built on the very spot where he was crucified.
One more thing – in the book, The Bone of St. Peter the forensic evidence is overwhelming.
Not ONLY were the remains found in the catacombs underneath Rome of an aged man – probably a fisherman – he had all of the wounds that wounds consistent with a person who was CRUCIFIED.

ALL around the ossuary that held his bones is FIRST and second century graffiti that reads:
“PETER IS HERE”.

The Bible says absolutely NOTHING about the Revolutionary War. Does that mean that it “never happened”??
Get serious . . .

The Bishop of Rome, or his representative never explained why Luther was a heretic through the Bible. I hear all the automatic things that will happen to priests and Bishops in THE CHURCH but despite the claims of child sexual abuse as automatic Excommunication there is no proof of Excommunication happening. Quite the contrary there is excessive proof of the church was protecting and hiding those priests and Bishops.
I really want to only pray for those poor souls that get lead astray by teachings and traditions of men. But when untruths are continously paraded as above reproach because of the HOLY c. I find the Holy Spirit will not let me back away.

The sex scandal was a scandal of MEN – and NOT because perverted doctrines of the Church.

EVERY group has bad players within it – even Jesus had Judas. The Bible WARNS us about these types of wolves among the flock – but that does NOT negate Christ’s Church. God will deal with those people. Apparently, you don’t know how to differentiate personal sin from doctrine . . .

The very SAME types of sexual perversion and the hiding of the truth has been going on in Protestant groups for DECADES.

Scriptures I will agree are Holy.
Traditions of men though? Jesus taught how those get in the way of Scripture. Not only get in the way ofscripture but to take over from Scriptures to the death of all that get caught in traditions of men!

I am not a perfect student but the Holy Spirit is a perfect teacher. Only someone pretending is able to say that a tradition of men is more or better than the Holy Spirit!
The confusion is caused by holding fast to traditions of man!
Liars getting caught in a lie throw the lie back "as catching the liar, makes me or any other catcher, the source of confusion!"
Just like the accusation that I hate Catholics because I fight the lie! The fact is I we feel sorry for and pray for those caught in the lie. The hate again comes from those desperate to protect lie!

Jesus did NOT condemn Tradition.

He condemned the Pharisees for placing THEIR invented traditions ABOVE the Word of God. And He dis NOT differentiate Sa cred Tradition from the “Word” of God because Tradition is PART of the Word. The Scriptures are the other part. The bible itself EXPLICITLY states this:
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 the only “Lie” that you’re fighting are those invented by your fellow anti-Catholics.
If you did some actual homework – you would discover that virtually EVERYTHING you believe about the Catholic Church is nonsense.

As was the case forMartin Luther, Souls caught in the lie are something to fight for, but that is solely out Christian LOVE, with no room left to hate with. The Holy Spirit returns your hate with love, that is the only reason I am here at all!
Alfredthefifth

REALLY??
Do your homework.
Martin Luther was an arrogant, self-absorbed narcissist who cared very LITTLE about ANYBODY who didn’t see things HIS way:
“If I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German.”
('The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 199.)

“If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing’.”
('The Facts About Luther,' O'Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p. 201.)

"There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams." - Martin Luther, Christians at Antwerp, 1525

 

[Illuminator]

When it comes right down to it the infallible Bishop of Rome is as human as any other human.

A non-sequitur and a straw man fallacy. The Bishop of Rome, by himself, as a man, is not infallible.
Your biggest mistake is equating traditions of men with Sacred Tradition. They are not the same.

Many Protestants (especially anti-Catholic ones) hold, by and large, the view that Scripture and sacred, apostolic tradition are somehow unalterably opposed to each other and, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. This is yet another example of a false dichotomy which Protestantism often (unfortunately) tends to create (e.g., faith vs. works, matter vs. spirit). The Bible, however, presupposes tradition as an entity prior to and larger than itself, from which it is derived, not as some sort of “dirty word.”

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical. It is quite another to think that the very concept of tradition is contrary to the outlook of the Bible and pure, essential Christianity. This is, broadly speaking, a popular and widespread variant of the distinctive Protestant viewpoint of sola Scriptura, or “Scripture Alone,” which was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant Revolt in the 16th century. It remains the supreme principle of authority, or “rule of faith” for evangelical Protestants today. Sola Scriptura by its very nature tends to pit tradition against the Bible.

First of all, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices. Christianity, like Judaism before it, is fundamentally grounded in history: in the earth-shattering historical events in the life of Jesus Christ (the incarnation, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, etc.). Eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1-2, Acts 1:1-3, 2 Pet 1:16-18) communicated these true stories to the first Christians, who in turn passed them on to other Christians (under the guidance of the Church’s authority) down through the ages. Therefore, Christian tradition, defined as authentic Church history, is unavoidable.

Many Protestants read the accounts of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees and get the idea that He was utterly opposed to all tradition whatsoever. This is false. A close reading of passages such as Matthew 15:3-9 and Mark 7: 8-13 will reveal that He only condemned corrupt traditions of men, not tradition per se. He uses qualifying phrases like “your tradition,” “commandments of men,” “tradition of men,” as opposed to “the commandment of God.” St. Paul draws precisely the same contrast in Colossians 2:8: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.”

The New Testament explicitly teaches that traditions can be either good (from God) or bad (from men, when against God’s true traditions). Corrupt pharisaic teachings were a bad tradition (but many of their legitimate teachings were recognized by Jesus; see, e.g., Matthew 23:3). The spoken gospel and the apostolic writings which eventually were formulated as Holy Scripture (authoritatively recognized by the Church in 397 A. D. at the council of Carthage) were altogether good: the authentic Christian tradition as revealed by the incarnate God to the apostles.

The Greek word for “tradition” in the New Testament is paradosis. It occurs in Colossians 2:8, and in the following three passages:

1 Corinthians 11:2 (RSV) . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (NRSV, NEB, REB, NKJV, NASB all use “tradition”).

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

Note that St. Paul draws no qualitative distinction between written and oral tradition. He doesn’t regard oral Christian tradition as bad and undesirable. Rather, this false belief is, ironically, itself an unbiblical “tradition of men.”

When the first Christians went out and preached the Good News of Jesus Christ after Pentecost, this was an oral tradition proclaimed by “word of mouth.” Some of it got recorded in the Bible (e.g., in Acts 2) but most did not, and could not (see John 20:30; 21:25). It was primarily this oral Christian tradition that turned the world upside down, not the text of the New Testament (many if not most people couldn’t read then anyway). Accordingly, when the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” occur in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to the written word of the Bible. A perusal of the context in each case will make this abundantly clear.
read more here

 

[Taken]

A "remnant sale" is where many craft enthusiasts go to purchase the last portion that remains on a bolt of carpet or a bolt of clothing material -- and while the size and price of the leftovers will vary, one thing remains constant: the last portion is IDENTICAL to that which was there in the beginning.

Revelation 12:17 KJV clearly defines God's end time "remnant" church - symbolized as a "woman" - as a church which will faithfully "keep the commandments of God" -- which means the church Christ founded in the beginning ALSO kept the commandments of God.

The Catholic church arrogantly boasts "the pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ" and by Papal Encyclical has claimed to have changed many aspects of God's commandments including their change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to Sunday.

Since the 1st century church Jesus Christ founded kept the commandments of God, and the Roman Catholic church admittedly rebels against the same and presumptuously claims to have replaced them with her own commandments, by her own words she makes any attempt to trace her roots back to the church Jesus Christ founded impossible.

"But in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matthew 15:9 KJV​

How long did men HEAR preaching before men could READ and have AVAILABILITY to the Scriptures to Verify what they HEARD?
...Centuries!

How long does BRAINWASHING take?
...Months!

 

[Taken]

I am not a perfect student but the Holy Spirit is a perfect teacher. Only someone pretending is able to say that a tradition of men is more or better than the Holy Spirit!

The confusion is caused by holding fast to traditions of man!

Alfredthefifth

Spot on!

 

[Phoneman777]

How long did men HEAR preaching before men could READ and have AVAILABILITY to the Scriptures to Verify what they HEARD?
...Centuries!

How long does BRAINWASHING take?
...Months!

Interesting. Tell me, if the infant church kept God's commandments and the Catholic church claims to have changed and teaches those changes to God's commandments, can the Catholic church be the "remnant" church of the end times which is supposed to "keep the commandments of God"?

 

[Taken]

Interesting. Tell me, if the infant church kept God's commandments and the Catholic church claims to have changed and teaches those changes to God's commandments, can the Catholic church be the "remnant" church of the end times which is supposed to "keep the commandments of God"?

The “infant” church were Jews. They were expressly sent to Jews, beginning with them going to established “synagogues”, and sure along the way-sides as they met individuals along their travels they spoke the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And true, Gentiles along the way-sides also heard this and that.
Gentiles were curious, listening, observing, and no doubt, some following along, becoming involved.

Reviewing History, shortly after the Apostles died, Apostles obviously stopped communicating, sending letters, sending their own disciples to follow up, keep in contact with the Synagogues/ Jews.
We see a DIVISION.
Gentiles all into establishing “churches”...and the “continued” communication with the Jews in the “synagogues”? Not so much.
Gentiles and Gentiles in the “churches”.
Jews and Jews in their “synagogues”.
Neither teaching or preaching to or with the other.

Jews revert to teaching what they DID KNOW, from their 4,000 years of their Historical Father.
Gentiles teaching Jesus’ Gospel...with a twist, within A hundred years, after the deaths of the Apostles.

Christ’s Church, (by Gentile men) is NAMED, the “Catholic Church”.
Christ’s the Head of His Church, is REPLACED, (by Gentile Catholic men) called “a Pope”, exalted as that Church’s “holy father”.
* ON and ON...the introduction of Gentile Catholic mens’ Doctrines, Teaching methods, New “traditions”, New “rituals”, New “statues”, New “trinkets”, “gesturing”, “gimmicks”, blah, blah, blah...
* And the poor ‘ole illiterate common Gentile, THIRSTY to KNOW about this gospel of Jesus the Christ and the Hebrew God...
* At the mercy to HEAR it from GENTILE men who promoted themselves AS having KNOWN the Apostles and Learned from the Apostles.
(The early on “name dropping clout factor to garner Trust”...and continues to this day.)

We have LONG passed the day of reliance TO HEAR (without ability to Verify)... Men can read. Complied Scriptures are available.
Men can cipher and reason the difference of what they Hear, is or is not according to Scripture.

* Not a Big Secret For eons, the Catholic Church gave Sermons in a Language, men did not know.
* Not a Big Secret, men see and mimic what they see.
* Not a Big Secret, men bowing, praying, kissing, laying trinkets before a Statue, and then “saying”, oh, we are NOT REALLY “praying TO a statue”, I suppose was clear as a bell, for generations of men to mimic doing the same!
* Not a Big Secret, The Bible is the Most, sold, given away, owned BOOK in the World.
* Not a Big Secret, men are Lazy. The Bible being the most owned BOOK in the World, is also one of the LEAST READ BOOKS in the World!
* Thousands of men routinely Gather in Churches, waiting to be told WHAT to Believe, and NEVER verify IF what they ARE told, IS True or Not.
* And throw in a dash of...anti-(sola)-Scripture...And you a Heretic...
For breaking alway from centuries of man-made nonsense...
... Whelp...there we be, DIVIDED.
* And nothing new...

Luke 12:
[51] Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

can the Catholic church be the "remnant" church of the end times which is supposed to "keep the commandments of God"?

No.
Christ did not establish “the Gentile Catholic Church”.
Christ established “His Church”, for ISRAEL (Tribesmen) and Gentiles.

ISRAEL, primarily (not all) are outside of the of Christ’s Church, still waiting (so to speak) to be birthed, and gathered together.

Not a MYSTERY, God has prepared:
* His Reprimands, (Gods Tribulation, the Lambs Wrath),
* His Servants, (Two Witnesses, 144,000 Tribesmen, Holy Angels)
* A Time for His Servants to Bring ISRAEL into THEIR place, WITH the “Lord God Almighty”.

ISRAEL is the remnant.
Some of ISRAEL is also the saints.
Some Gentiles are also the saints.
Holy Angels are also the saints.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[mailmandan]

 

[Alfredthefifth]

I would rather be Sola Scriptura being all scriptures

Then solo being Scriptura, which is taking one verse out many and proving all things one verse at a time.

The way one verse at a time, some posts 30 times some posts 100 times, are being used by several here. Is the best showing of how many non-Christians learn the attitude and fully fits the attitude "that you, YOU CHRISTIANS TAKE ONE VERSE AND JUST RUN PEOPLE OVER WITH IT!"

Any one verse is easily changed by taking it alone. More so when it is more verses out of context. Because of several here arguing how wrong I am as Sola Scriptura, are
using Solo Scriptura even Uno Scriptura .
I have new terms to identify some believers I know and some churches through those individuals.

All I can do is pray

Alfredthefifth

 

[Illuminator]

Interesting. Tell me, if the infant church kept God's commandments and the Catholic church claims to have changed and teaches those changes to God's commandments, can the Catholic church be the "remnant" church of the end times which is supposed to "keep the commandments of God"?

• Special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament. Christ rose from the dead on Sunday,
• and he first appeared to his disciples that Easter Sunday evening (John 20:19).
• One week later—and from the context we can see that this meant the following Sunday—Jesus appeared to them again when Thomas was present (John 20:26).
• Luke records that Sunday was observed by the Christian community from the very beginning: “On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread” (Acts 20:7). To “break bread” refers to the celebration of the Eucharist (Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22).
• Paul ordered the Corinthians to gather their offertory collections on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2); that set the scriptural precedent we follow today of gathering our offerings on Sunday during Mass.
• John records in Rev. 1:10 that he was granted a vision of heaven’s own worship while he was at worship (“caught up in spirit”) on “the Lord’s day.”
• John’s disciple Ignatius of Antioch tells us in his Letter to the Magnesians that “the Lord’s day” is not the ancient Sabbath; therefore, “the Lord’s day” must refer to Sunday.

Jesus, being God, knew whether or not his Church would apostatize by changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. If Adventists are correct that Christians are still obliged to keep Saturday as their day of corporate worship, isn’t it strange that Jesus underscored exactly the opposite by appearing to his disciples after his Resurrection nearly exclusively on Sunday?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I would rather be Sola Scriptura being all scriptures
Then solo being Scriptura, which is taking one verse out many and proving all things one verse at a time.
The way one verse at a time, some posts 30 times some posts 100 times, are being used by several here. Is the best showing of how many non-Christians learn the attitude and fully fits the attitude "that you, YOU CHRISTIANS TAKE ONE VERSE AND JUST RUN PEOPLE OVER WITH IT!"
Any one verse is easily changed by taking it alone. More so when it is more verses out of context. Because of several here arguing how wrong I am as Sola Scriptura, are using Solo Scriptura even Uno Scriptura .
I have new terms to identify some believers I know and some churches through those individuals.
All I can do is pray
Alfredthefifth

I read this rant 3 times before I decided to respond – and I STILL don’t know WHAT the heck you’re talking about . . .

 

[Alfredthefifth]

I read this rant 3 times before I decided to respond – and I STILL don’t know WHAT the heck you’re talking about . . .

The biggest critics of Sola Scriptura.

Are only taking one, UNO or Solo verses to run down the use of All scripture as it is written, in context.

I am coming to that, SOLO or UNO(Spanish for the numeral 1) SCRIPTURE, should be the name for very singular scripture use and users.

In one argument verse 13 was advanced before verse 2 in the same CHAPTER in the one verse at a time argument, So why not all of the chapter? Because the entire chapter takes away the meaning of both verse as they are being used away. Verse 2 in the proper order with verse 13 takes away any fit to the argument.

But this Solo Scriptura is a problem that many non-Christians see and feel so clearly. The non-Christians have seen and felt the use of one verse to run over any and anything thatgets in the way of thatThat those Non-Christians freely bash all Christians with it.

Another poster wrote about breaking scripture down into singular verse allows the one verses to become a thousand daggers. A thousand little knifes to inflict spiritual injury to anyone that doesn't believe the same verse the sameway.

Sola Scriptura, staying in the same book, the same chapter, gives a clear view of what the intent of A VERSE is.
Solo Scriptura (a singular verse used out of context) allows total corruption of the one verse used and the other one verse verses used to support the corruption.

But us Sola (all) Scriptura users are worst don't you know!

Alfredthefifth

 

[atpollard]

IF this were the case – you would NOT have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant factions that ALL teach different doctrines and ALL claim that they were “led” to this confusion by the Holy Spirit.

Could you list even 500 of the “tens of thousands” of Protestant factions?
(It will reveal the innate fallacy of the claim.)

 

[atpollard]

I read this rant 3 times before I decided to respond – and I STILL don’t know WHAT the heck you’re talking about . . .

He advocates reading scripture verses within their surrounding context, rather than removing verses from context as stand-alone points.
(Just offering translation).

 

[Alfredthefifth]

One of the verses I have been hit with is Psalm 106 v3q
Bless3d are those who act justly, who always do what is right.

This was put forwards as being an order to live a sinless life.

But when you read more than that one verse, let alone the chapter.

It becomes God bless those sinless men because the is certainly not myself or my people. And yet you God are still faithful to your word.

Alfredthefifth

 

[BreadOfLife]

The biggest critics of Sola Scriptura.

Are only taking one, UNO or Solo verses to run down the use of All scripture as it is written, in context.

I am coming to that, SOLO or UNO(Spanish for the numeral 1) SCRIPTURE, should be the name for very singular scripture use and users.

In one argument verse 13 was advanced before verse 2 in the same CHAPTER in the one verse at a time argument, So why not all of the chapter? Because the entire chapter takes away the meaning of both verse as they are being used away. Verse 2 in the proper order with verse 13 takes away any fit to the argument.

But this Solo Scriptura is a problem that many non-Christians see and feel so clearly. The non-Christians have seen and felt the use of one verse to run over any and anything thatgets in the way of thatThat those Non-Christians freely bash all Christians with it.

Another poster wrote about breaking scripture down into singular verse allows the one verses to become a thousand daggers. A thousand little knifes to inflict spiritual injury to anyone that doesn't believe the same verse the sameway.

Sola Scriptura, staying in the same book, the same chapter, gives a clear view of what the intent of A VERSE is.
Solo Scriptura (a singular verse used out of context) allows total corruption of the one verse used and the other one verse verses used to support the corruption.

But us Sola (all) Scriptura users are worst don't you know!

Alfredthefifth

Although your post above doesn’t make much grammatical sense – I THINK I know what you’re trying to say.

Suffice it to say that Sola Scriptura – in ALL of its definitions and examples that you showed is a man-made invention and NOT a Biblical teaching.
To put it plainly – the idea that the Bible is our SOLE Authority simply isn’t taught by the Bible itself because it completely negates Sacred Tradition, which the Bible explicitly endorses (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Cor. 11:2).

This false doctrine was promoted by your Protestant Fathers in an effort to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.
Of the “5 Solas” of the Protestant Revolt – the Catholic Church pretty much agrees with THREE of them:
Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)
Sola De Gloria (Glory of God Alone)
Sola Christus (Christ Alone)

However, Sole Scriptura (Scripture Alone) and Sola Fide (Faith Alone) which were invented during this time – are rejected by the Scriptures.