The Doctrine of Purgatory in Catholic Biblical Perspective

[reformed1689]

No - it's the one established by Christ with an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession.
NONE of your Protestant sects can make this claim as their origins only go as far back as the 16th century . . .

Yeah Apostolic succession is a farce as well considering you think Peter was Bishop of Rome and it is likely he never even made it to Rome.

 

[Philip James]

as opposed to orthodox.

Hello David,

Which orthodox communuty do you belong to?

Peace be with you!

 

[epostle]

Yeah Apostolic succession is a farce as well considering you think Peter was Bishop of Rome and it is likely he never even made it to Rome.

That means you are unable, or unwilling, to admit that Rome had a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th.....40th bishop. It is IMPOSSIBLE to write early church history based on the Bible Alone, but you don't care, you do it anyway. That way you can falsify the historical record.

Jesus commissioned 11 men to "teach all nations". No jet planes, no helicopters but to go to all nations on foot? Either Jesus gave an impossible directive, or the Apostles were disobedient. Apostolic succession solves that problem. Denial of Apostolic succession is one thing, calling it a farce is a whole new level of STUPID.

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death. An office is not a farce.

2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles. It is not a farce.

Here are over 50 verses related to apostolic succession, and you have the audacity to claim WE fell from Scripture.

So they can call themselves what they like, I don't care, but that doesn't change the fact they are RCC as opposed to orthodox.

Pitting "rites" against the Orthodox schism proves you are an uneducated preacher. Initially, the eastern churches were excommunicated 5 times, and each time they reconciled, they admitted they were wrong.
In another thread, I asked you at least 5 times what the true gospel is, and you refused to answer me, and here you are making the same LIE about a false gospel, post #756.
Stop accusing Catholicism of a false gospel, it's stupid and absurd and you can't or won't back it up.

BoL has more patience that I do to reply to each of your childish zingers, lies based on blind prejudice.

 

[epostle]

No, I don't. But you are dodging some questions and keeping with generalities. So what DOCUMENTS guide your doctrine that you all agree on? Be specific. Not sure why you can't just answer this.

Doctrine is not guided by documents, but flows from what has been divinely revealed by word both/and letter, not "either/or". Using a different meaning for the same word (doctrine) is standard anti-Catholic methodology. They do the same thing with one, holy, catholic and apostolic. And a list of other words. Each sect with a different language, just like the confusion in the Tower of Babel story.

Calvin’s theology and ecclesiology ultimately war against and undermine this strong desire for profound unity, (Institutes IV, 1:3-5) and the sad thing is that he never seems to have seen the irony or to have recognized the causal relationship between his teaching (where it departs from Catholic, apostolic tradition) and the fruits of the so-called “Reformation.” Luther was the same way.

I suppose it was too painful to acknowledge that their false teachings led to so much social uproar and doctrinal and ecclesiological chaos. Luther hints at times at this (and in the Peasants’ Revolt, the connection is undeniably obvious), but never directly acknowledges it.

"Reply to Calvin" #2: Infallible Church Authority

 

[reformed1689]

Doctrine is not guided by documents, but flows from what has been divinely revealed by word both/and letter, not "either/or". Using a different meaning for the same word (doctrine) is standard anti-Catholic methodology. They do the same thing with one, holy, catholic and apostolic. And a list of other words. Each sect with a different language, just like the confusion in the Tower of Babel story.

Calvin’s theology and ecclesiology ultimately war against and undermine this strong desire for profound unity, (Institutes IV, 1:3-5) and the sad thing is that he never seems to have seen the irony or to have recognized the causal relationship between his teaching (where it departs from Catholic, apostolic tradition) and the fruits of the so-called “Reformation.” Luther was the same way.

I suppose it was too painful to acknowledge that their false teachings led to so much social uproar and doctrinal and ecclesiological chaos. Luther hints at times at this (and in the Peasants’ Revolt, the connection is undeniably obvious), but never directly acknowledges it.

"Reply to Calvin" #2: Infallible Church Authority

See that's the thing, your doctrine should come from Scripture alone. But it doesn't.

 

[reformed1689]

Hello David,

Which orthodox communuty do you belong to?

Peace be with you!

I'm not talking about "Orthodox" but orthodox. Big O vs little o.

 

[Taken]

I guess you really ARE that dense.

LOL, yet AGAIN trying to badmouth me Because YOU cannot not forthright answer a question.

Conceived, has "multiply" meanings?? Uhhh, no it doesn't.

LOL

When a woman conceives - it means that she becomes pregnant.

And?
The conceiving, is effected, when a woman's egg is fertilized, which does NOT happen in the woman's Womb.

And?
When the woman's Fertilized Egg Goes To HER womb...
The woman Is "conceiv-ed" in her womb!

When a person is conceived, it means that they were created in the womb.

When a human woman's SEED is Fertalized, {By} a HUMAN mans SEED, and the Woman's Fertalized SEED Goes to HER Womb, it means;
1) a HUMAN Baby IS CONCEIVED
2) the Woman IS NATURALLY CONCEIVED "IN" HER WOMB.

(TWO examples of CONCEIVED, with Different MEANINGS, applicable to Different persons, just as I said, and you disagreed with.) lol

3) after approx 9 months, "The Baby" IS BORN...IN SIN.

When a human mans SEED IS UNNATURALLY "PUT" IN a woman's WOMB...
1) It is called an ARTIFICIAL insemenation and Conception.
2) after approx 9 months, "The Baby" IS BORN...IN SIN.

When GODS SEED IS "PUT" IN a Woman's WOMB, It is called:
A SuperNATURAL Conception,
An Act of God,
A Miracle.

Gods SEED IS Untainted, Holy and Pure, without Sin or Corruption.

Gods SEED Does NOT Fertalize a Human Woman's Corrupt Egg!

(And AGAIN, Learn the TRUTH. A human woman's Egg IS NOT Fertalized IN HER WOMB.)

Mary was sinless from HER conception.

HER conception?
Uh...WHICH Conception?
In her Mother, or of her own pregnancy?

Why are you afraid to answer?

1) A baby was CONCEIVED, By a human mans SEED, which Fertalized a human woman's Egg...and approx nine months later a Baby was NATURALLY Born IN SIN, called; Mary.

Why are you Afraid to Explain Yourself and SAY, This is or is not the Mary, "You" are calling "SINLESS" ?

The Baby, called Mary, Naturally Born IN SIN, became a Woman, and Became Betrothed (engaged) To a man named Joseph. Before their Marriage, the Woman, Mary, had not had sexual intercourse with a man, and thus called a VIRGIN. SHE became Supernaturally "CONCEIVED" (Pregnant IN "HER" Womb);
WHEN the SEED of God Entered {was SENT and PUT} IN HER WOMB".

Between the TIME, of Mary's Betrothal TO Joseph, (and she becoming Conceived IN HER WOMB) and the BABY's Birth, Mary and Joseph BECAME "MARRIED".

Approx nine months later, A BABY came forth OUT FROM MARY'S Womb.
The BABY was called BORN,
The BABY was called JESUS.
The BABY was called the only Begotten SON of God.
Joseph was called the Baby's supposed father.
Mary was called Baby's mother.

Is THIS the Mary YOU are calling "SINLESS"?

And at WHAT POINT "EXACTLY" are YOU CLAIMING....THIS MARY "IS, WAS, or BECAME"........SINLESS...?

WHY are YOU afraid to give an EXACT answer?

Was this MARY...(according to YOU)...
SINLESS in HER OWN Mothers WOMB, when SHE was "CONCEIVED"...and Naturally BORN from her own Mothers WOMB.

OR

Was DID this MARY...(according to YOU]...
BECOME "SINLESS", the moment the SEED of God entered Her WOMB, and SHE became CONCEIVED (Pregnant) ?

Next time you want to argue about a Catholic doctrine - do your homework first . . .

There is NO ARGUMENT!
What is there to ARGUE, When the Best you can do is GIVE half-baked circle jerk answers, and deflect to other topics?

When are you going to STAND UP for what you believe and ANSWER the Questions about your "SINLESS" Mary?

YOU Claim to BE THE "CATHOLIC EDUCATOR"...Answer the questions..
AT WHAT POINT, was "your" Mary SINLESS?

When "SHE" was "CONCEIVED" IN HER MOTHER?
OR
When "SHE" was Supernaturally "CONCEIVED" WITH a Baby IN HER WOMB?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't care if they take issue. The fact is, they follow the church that is headquartered in Rome. Pure and simple. They align themselves with the bishop of Rome. So they can call themselves what they like, I don't care, but that doesn't change the fact they are RCC as opposed to orthodox.

That statement is as mind-numbingly stupid as claiming that all Baptists are Lutherans because they align themselves with Protestantism. The same would be true for all Presbyterians and Methodists and "Non-denominational" Evangelicals, and take your pick.

If you want to have intelligent discourse - at least TRY to behave intelligently . . .

 

[Taken]

Yeah Apostolic succession is a farce as well considering you think Peter was Bishop of Rome and it is likely he never even made it to Rome.

It's an ODD thing, the Catholics do.

It is not uncommon for family members to ACCEPT, "on behalf" of their DEAD family member, Posthumously AWARDED;
Medals, Certificates, Trophies, Pardons, etc.

The Catholic Church, basically posthumously AWARDED "Peter" a "TITLE" (of Pope), and then posthumously "ACCEPTED" that "TITLE" "FOR HIM".

Weird. The Awarder and Accepter is one in the same. And Peter is none the wiser, to accept or reject the Title.

It is WEIRD to Award a person with a TITLE, without their Knowledge.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

LOL, yet AGAIN trying to badmouth me Because YOU cannot not forthright answer a question.

LOL

LOL, yet AGAIN trying to badmouth me Because YOU cannot not forthright answer a question.
LOL
And?
The conceiving, is effected, when a woman's egg is fertilized, which does NOT happen in the woman's Womb.

And?
When the woman's Fertilized Egg Goes To HER womb...
The woman Is "conceiv-ed" in her womb!
When a human woman's SEED is Fertalized, {By} a HUMAN mans SEED, and the Woman's Fertalized SEED Goes to HER Womb, it means;
1) a HUMAN Baby IS CONCEIVED
2) the Woman IS NATURALLY CONCEIVED "IN" HER WOMB.

(TWO examples of CONCEIVED, with Different MEANINGS, applicable to Different persons, just as I said, and you disagreed with.) lol

3) after approx 9 months, "The Baby" IS BORN...IN SIN.

When a human mans SEED IS UNNATURALLY "PUT" IN a woman's WOMB...
1) It is called an ARTIFICIAL insemenation and Conception.
2) after approx 9 months, "The Baby" IS BORN...IN SIN.

When GODS SEED IS "PUT" IN a Woman's WOMB, It is called:
A SuperNATURAL Conception,
An Act of God,
A Miracle.

Gods SEED IS Untainted, Holy and Pure, without Sin or Corruption.

Gods SEED Does NOT Fertalize a Human Woman's Corrupt Egg!

(And AGAIN, Learn the TRUTH. A human woman's Egg IS NOT Fertalized IN HER WOMB.)
HER conception?
Uh...WHICH Conception?
In her Mother, or of her own pregnancy?

Why are you afraid to answer?

1) A baby was CONCEIVED, By a human mans SEED, which Fertalized a human woman's Egg...and approx nine months later a Baby was NATURALLY Born IN SIN, called; Mary.

Why are you Afraid to Explain Yourself and SAY, This is or is not the Mary, "You" are calling "SINLESS" ?

The Baby, called Mary, Naturally Born IN SIN, became a Woman, and Became Betrothed (engaged) To a man named Joseph. Before their Marriage, the Woman, Mary, had not had sexual intercourse with a man, and thus called a VIRGIN. SHE became Supernaturally "CONCEIVED" (Pregnant IN "HER" Womb);
WHEN the SEED of God Entered {was SENT and PUT} IN HER WOMB".

Between the TIME, of Mary's Betrothal TO Joseph, (and she becoming Conceived IN HER WOMB) and the BABY's Birth, Mary and Joseph BECAME "MARRIED".

Approx nine months later, A BABY came forth OUT FROM MARY'S Womb.
The BABY was called BORN,
The BABY was called JESUS.
The BABY was called the only Begotten SON of God.
Joseph was called the Baby's supposed father.
Mary was called Baby's mother.

Is THIS the Mary YOU are calling "SINLESS"?

And at WHAT POINT "EXACTLY" are YOU CLAIMING....THIS MARY "IS, WAS, or BECAME"........SINLESS...?
WHY are YOU afraid to give an EXACT answer?
Was this MARY...(according to YOU)...
SINLESS in HER OWN Mothers WOMB, when SHE was "CONCEIVED"...and Naturally BORN from her own Mothers WOMB.
OR
Was DID this MARY...(according to YOU]...
BECOME "SINLESS", the moment the SEED of God entered Her WOMB, and SHE became CONCEIVED (Pregnant) ?

There is NO ARGUMENT!
What is there to ARGUE, When the Best you can do is GIVE half-baked circle jerk answers, and deflect to other topics?

When are you going to STAND UP for what you believe and ANSWER the Questions about your "SINLESS" Mary?

YOU Claim to BE THE "CATHOLIC EDUCATOR"...Answer the questions..
AT WHAT POINT, was "your" Mary SINLESS?

When "SHE" was "CONCEIVED" IN HER MOTHER?
OR
When "SHE" was Supernaturally "CONCEIVED" WITH a Baby IN HER WOMB?

Glory to God,
Taken

And?
The conceiving, is effected, when a woman's egg is fertilized, which does NOT happen in the woman's Womb.

And?
When the woman's Fertilized Egg Goes To HER womb...
The woman Is "conceiv-ed" in her womb!

When a human woman's SEED is Fertalized, {By} a HUMAN mans SEED, and the Woman's Fertalized SEED Goes to HER Womb, it means;
1) a HUMAN Baby IS CONCEIVED
2) the Woman IS NATURALLY CONCEIVED "IN" HER WOMB.

(TWO examples of CONCEIVED, with Different MEANINGS, applicable to Different persons, just as I said, and you disagreed with.) lol

3) after approx 9 months, "The Baby" IS BORN...IN SIN.

When a human mans SEED IS UNNATURALLY "PUT" IN a woman's WOMB...
1) It is called an ARTIFICIAL insemenation and Conception.
2) after approx 9 months, "The Baby" IS BORN...IN SIN.

When GODS SEED IS "PUT" IN a Woman's WOMB, It is called:
A SuperNATURAL Conception,
An Act of God,
A Miracle.

Gods SEED IS Untainted, Holy and Pure, without Sin or Corruption.

Gods SEED Does NOT Fertalize a Human Woman's Corrupt Egg!

(And AGAIN, Learn the TRUTH. A human woman's Egg IS NOT Fertalized IN HER WOMB.)

HER conception?
Uh...WHICH Conception?
In her Mother, or of her own pregnancy?

Why are you afraid to answer?

1) A baby was CONCEIVED, By a human mans SEED, which Fertalized a human woman's Egg...and approx nine months later a Baby was NATURALLY Born IN SIN, called; Mary.

Why are you Afraid to Explain Yourself and SAY, This is or is not the Mary, "You" are calling "SINLESS" ?

The Baby, called Mary, Naturally Born IN SIN, became a Woman, and Became Betrothed (engaged) To a man named Joseph. Before their Marriage, the Woman, Mary, had not had sexual intercourse with a man, and thus called a VIRGIN. SHE became Supernaturally "CONCEIVED" (Pregnant IN "HER" Womb);
WHEN the SEED of God Entered {was SENT and PUT} IN HER WOMB".

Between the TIME, of Mary's Betrothal TO Joseph, (and she becoming Conceived IN HER WOMB) and the BABY's Birth, Mary and Joseph BECAME "MARRIED".

Approx nine months later, A BABY came forth OUT FROM MARY'S Womb.
The BABY was called BORN,
The BABY was called JESUS.
The BABY was called the only Begotten SON of God.
Joseph was called the Baby's supposed father.
Mary was called Baby's mother.

Is THIS the Mary YOU are calling "SINLESS"?

And at WHAT POINT "EXACTLY" are YOU CLAIMING....THIS MARY "IS, WAS, or BECAME"........SINLESS...?

WHY are YOU afraid to give an EXACT answer?

Was this MARY...(according to YOU)...
SINLESS in HER OWN Mothers WOMB, when SHE was "CONCEIVED"...and Naturally BORN from her own Mothers WOMB.

OR

Was DID this MARY...(according to YOU]...
BECOME "SINLESS", the moment the SEED of God entered Her WOMB, and SHE became CONCEIVED (Pregnant) ?

There is NO ARGUMENT!
What is there to ARGUE, When the Best you can do is GIVE half-baked circle jerk answers, and deflect to other topics?

When are you going to STAND UP for what you believe and ANSWER the Questions about your "SINLESS" Mary?

YOU Claim to BE THE "CATHOLIC EDUCATOR"...Answer the questions..
AT WHAT POINT, was "your" Mary SINLESS?

When "SHE" was "CONCEIVED" IN HER MOTHER?
OR
When "SHE" was Supernaturally "CONCEIVED" WITH a Baby IN HER WOMB?

Glory to God,
Taken

Just for grins, I did a word count on this latest psychotic rant of yours: 1132 words of the usual mindless drivel.
YIKES . . .

The problem here is NOT that you don't understand what the Immaculate Conception is - it's that you simply want to TRY to win an argument about biology because you can't win the argument about Mary's title of "Kecharitomene" after the last THIRTY or so posts.

Now - regardless of the actual scientific explanation of how a child is conceived - according to YOUR KJV, it says the following:
Luke 1:31
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

Now, hopefully - you get the general idea.

As to Mary - she was conceived in the normal way from her mother's fertilized egg - but she was conceived without sin.
Mary then grew up - and one day and Angel of God came and told her that she would conceive and bear a child that was to be the Son of the Most High (God, in case you don't know). She conceived Jesus in her body by the power of the Holy Spirit. Her fertilized egg, after 9 months of gestation brought forth Jesus, who is GOD.
She is therefore, the Mother of GOD - not the Trinity - but God the Son.

That ends the Bible lesson for the day.

Now - YOUR homework is to give me a solid refutation of "Kecharitomene" - or simply admit defeat . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yeah Apostolic succession is a farce as well considering you think Peter was Bishop of Rome and it is likely he never even made it to Rome.

Sure - that's what a Scripturally-Bankrupt person would say.
But a person who knows his Bible would never make an idiotic claim like that . . .

In Acts 1, we see the Apostles gather for a meeting to choose a SUCCESSOR to Judas's office. Here is what it says in verse 20:
Acts 1:20
“For it is written in the Book of Psalms, “‘May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it’; and “‘Let another take his office.’

The Greek word used here for "office is "Episkopay" (BISHOPRIC).
Now - WHY would they have to choose a "SUCCESSOR" for Judas?? Why not just go with the eleven remaining Apostles??

Also - WHY were the Apostles replaced after they died?? Why not just let let the Holy Spirit guide the Church without earthly leadership? WHY did they go around appointing other Bishops??
Answer: Because God is NOT an idiot. He fully understands that we are humans and, therefore need leadership.
If you knew your Old Testament - you would WHY this is necessary.

Why do Baptist leaders have successors??
Why do ALL Protestant sects have successors??

No - YOUR problem - IF you are indeed intelligent, is not leadership. It's resentment - plain and simple. You resent the Catholic Church for its UNBROKEN line of Apostolic Succession., which is irrefutable and BIBLICALLY-based.

 

[BreadOfLife]

See that's the thing, your doctrine should come from Scripture alone. But it doesn't.

Can you show me where it says that in Scripture??

I didn't think so . . .

 

[reformed1689]

Can you show me where it says that in Scripture??

I didn't think so . . .

So the church can make up whatever doctrine it so pleases?

 

[Philip James]

So the church can make up whatever doctrine it so pleases?

Actually it can't. It must hold fast to what it had received.

I'm not talking about "Orthodox"

And so i shall ask you again: what orthodox community do you belong to?

Futher, who is your bishop and from whom did he receive his ordination?

Peace!

 

[epostle]

See that's the thing, your doctrine should come from Scripture alone. But it doesn't.

See that's the thing, your doctrine comes from scripture alone, which is nowhere to be found in scripture. Tradition (never properly understood), the Magisterium (never properly understood) all in harmony with Scripture is the Biblical rule of faith, not scripture alone. I challenge you to prove, by scripture alone, that Tradition, (properly understood) and the Magisterium (properly understood) are not needed for the rule of faith.
The notion that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in scripture to be valid is not in scripture. It's a man made tradition. Complaining that results in making up any doctrine reveals a total ignorance of the divinely protected spoken word with/both/and the written word. Doctrine is restricted to come from what has been divinely revealed in word both/and letter. The Bible harmonizes the three-fold rule of faith. To avoid this truth, the sola scripturist is forced into a false dichotomy and a total twisting of the term "doctrine". So you invent your own definitions, in the process of pitting Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium against each other. The Bible never does that. You do it because it is a man made tradition. Period.

a satire on the stupidity of sola scriptura​

 

[reformed1689]

See that's the thing, your doctrine comes from scripture alone, which is nowhere to be found in scripture. Tradition (never properly understood), the Magisterium (never properly understood) all in harmony with Scripture is the Biblical rule of faith, not scripture alone. I challenge you to prove, by scripture alone, that Tradition, (properly understood) and the Magisterium (properly understood) are not needed for the rule of faith.
The notion that all authentic beliefs and practices must be explicitly found in scripture to be valid is not in scripture. It's a man made tradition. Complaining that results in making up any doctrine reveals a total ignorance of the divinely protected spoken word with/both/and the written word. Doctrine is restricted to come from what has been divinely revealed in word both/and letter. To avoid this truth, the sola scripturist is forced into a false dichotomy and a total twisting of the term "doctrine". So you invent your own definition, in the process of pitting Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium against each other. The Bible never does that. You do it because it is a man made tradition. Period.

Then let's talk about papal infallibility. Let's talk about purgatory (not found in Scripture), let's talk about Mary being sinless (not found in Scripture), let's talk about any of the other heresies (relics, praying to dead saints, etc etc.)

 

[reformed1689]

And so i shall ask you again: what orthodox community do you belong to?

I belong to Bible believing Christians.

 

[Philip James]

I belong to Bible believing Christians.

There are lots of 'bible believing Christians' who believe vastly different things belonging to variuos communities begun by many different men.

You charged that the catholic church was unorthodox.
I assume by that , that you assume your paticular community is orthodox.
So then, who is that community, and from whom did they recieve their orthodox faith? Where can I trace that orthodox community back to the apostles and Jesus?
From whence comes their authority to judge what is and is not orthodox?

Peace!

 

[reformed1689]

There are lots of 'bible believing Christians' who believe vastly different things belonging to variuos communities begun by many different men.

You charged that the catholic church was unorthodox.
I assume by that , that you assume your paticular community is orthodox.
So then, who is that community, and from whom did they recieve their orthodox faith? Where can I trace that orthodox community back to the apostles and Jesus?
From whence comes their authority to judge what is and is not orthodox?

Peace!

My judgement of the Roman Catholics to be unorthodox is because they have left the teachings of Scripture. That's all the explanation/reasoning I am going to give.

 

[Taken]

Jesus commissioned 11 men to "teach all nations".

More correctly:

Matt 15:
[24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Unto the LOST of the House of Israel.

In Jerusalem, Jesus at age 12, went to the Temple, and conversed with Jews in the Temple.

Luke 2:
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.

42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

Jesus Established HIS Church, on the BELIEF;
"He IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

Men who BELIEVED, "He (JESUS) IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God"...Became one By one, the men and women who Became the MEMBERS (and Brethren one of another) of Jesus' Church.

Jesus selected 12 men, (one defaulted), 11 continued Following and Learning FROM Jesus, and then After approx 3 Years, the 11 were SENT OUT to all the Nations to continue Jesus' WORK of SEEKING THE LOST JEWS, scattered about Multiple Nations.

Afterward, The Spirit of God, came upon Saul / Paul, and selected Saul / Paul, to SEEK out the Gentiles throughout the Nations, to Preach the Good News of Jesus and His Father, God Almighty, and Saul / Paul agreed.

Point is:
For nearly 3 years; THOSE "men and women" Becoming Members OF CHRIST'S CHURCH, were nearly EXCLUSIVELY "JEWS".

Teaching and Preaching, DID NOT have a BARRIER, allowing "ONLY" Jews or "ONLY" Gentiles TO HEAR and LEARN about JESUS and GOD.

So at TIMES, most often the CROWDS were "MIXED" with Jews and Gentiles...and the Jews and Gentiles "individually" Deciding what "THEY" chose to BELIEVE.

However the INTENT did NOT CHANGE.
The 11 chosen Disciples were to SEEK Lost Jews,
(Continuing Jesus' work) and the 1 Saul was chosen to SEEK Gentiles, (fulfilling prophecy of the inclusion of Gentiles TO the Jewish God and His Christ Messiah).

Acts 10
[36] The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
[37] That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

It was later JEWS (not Gentiles at large), In a city called Antioch, who were FIRST CALLED "Christians" BY Non-Believers IN JESUS being the Christ Messiah,

It was Lost JEWS who were sought and the First to Become members of Christ's Church.

It was Gentiles, Believers in JESUS being the Christ Messiah, who first began CALLING THEMSELVES the adopted term, "CHRISTIANS".

It was a Gentile Convert to Christianity, named, Ignatius;
Who was appointed (likely the first non-Jew) BISHOP to the Church in Antioch, WHO FIRST "described" Christ's Church as Universal, Complete, Whole...by using the Greek Term "Katholikos".

Ignatius, was instrumental in SEPARATING Jews and Gentiles, and Gentiles and Gentiles; In Doctrines of the Jews and Establishing Doctrines for the Gentiles.

And those WHO today call their Church "Catholic" and call themselves "Catholic"...
Continue in "their" established Doctrines, as if "THEY" are the ONLY True Church of Christ...and separate themselves FROM, other Churches and People, WHOSE own World wide spread Churches and Members ARE established IN JESUS, declaring JESUS the Christ Messiah, and Son of the Living God.

Not everyone Jew or Gentile, WHO is in committed BELIEF that Jesus IS the Christ, the Son of the Living God.....must AGREE with the Doctrines and Traditions of one who calls their church and themselves Catholic.

And It does NOT MAKE, a NON-Catholic "WRONG" because they DO NOT ACCEPT "a Catholics established Doctrine or Tradition...

And while you may THINK BOL....as patient...
Repeating Catholic Doctrine over and over, Being rude and snarky over and over, Incapability of staying ON Point and Failing to show Verification in Scripture FOR Catholic Doctrines....is hardly a virtue of patience.

Glory to God,
Taken