New Covenant only for Jews?

[Illuminator]

Do you deny that you believe that Mary is the Queen of heaven? Do you deny that you believe that the pope is infallible?

You have to derail with "Mary" to avoid answering any of B of L's questions. The Pope, apart from the Church, IS NOT INFALLIBLE. Since it is impossible for a sola scripturist to comprehend the true meaning of infallibility, you are forced to invent a false definition.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As I suspected your response would be, nothing but ad hominem, denial, and bluster. I told you not to blame your church's crimes on the state, but you did anyway. "The devil made us do it" would have been just as evasive, but more honest. And you speak of my ignorance, yet expose your own when I mentioned Thomas Aquinas. The very fact that he was the first advocate for the two sword theory which the church adopted, which everyone it seems except you understands the sword of the state was always under the authority of Rome and whatever they did was with the full support, including financial on many cases, encouragement, and direction of the Papacy. I'm sure you don't want me to go into detail do you? Some verifiable historical cases?
The point being, in forming a union with the state power as per Aquinas writings which you know I am correct on, the church abandoned God. The Papacy trusted state armies to strengthen and empower the church, and therefore the gates of hell won a resounding victory. Clovis would be my first example, I believe he was hailed as the first pagan son of the church, or words to that effect? There were many more of course. Charlemagne. Numerous kind and queens and minor dukes and princes throughout European history in all European countries who washed war against any who refused to submit to papal authority. Lies BoL? Now have some integrity and stop behaving like a child in the playground caught exposing himself to the little girls. Your Knight of Columbus agenda is not doing you any favors. You defend your church at the cost of truth.
BTW. I don't deny protestant persecution. It was just as egregious as Catholic. And Revelation depicts a future where such will rise again. Apostate protestantism in your own country is now joining the state to empower the church. And your church is standing by cheering them on and in some cases joining in. Your Jesuit cousins are loving every minute of the current debacle they have created.

Once again – you ALWAYS go off the deep end with your SDA-required hatred of the Catholic Church and you make idiotic claims about the Church and ME.

I presented some historical FACTS – not Ellen White fairy tales – but FACTRS.
And what do YOU accuse me of? “NOTHING BUT ad hominem, denial, and bluster”.

This is why it is impossible to have discussions with you – because you are dishonest and simply CANNOT stay focused on the truth to save your life. There were many things done unilaterally by various kingdoms over the centuries – and were NOT ordered by the Church. For crying out loud – the Sale of Indulgences wasn’t even sanctioned by the Church – but your cult won’t allow you to believe this.

So, is Calvinism “Apostate” because of all of the Catholics they murdered, including the Martyrs of Gorkum)?
So, is Alglicanism “Apostate” because of all of the Catholics they murdered, including under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I??
Is the SDA sect “Apostate” because of all of the molestation of children?
Adventist Women's Ministries | Statement on Child Sexual Abuse
Healing the wounds of childhood sexual abuse - Adventist Record
Seventh-day Adventist Church Retaliates against Abuse Victim and her family.
Sex Abuse Cases: New Allegations | Adventist Today
Moncton woman sues Seventh-day Adventist Church over alleged sex abuse ...

OR – were all of these things committed by bad people and bad leaders WITHIN those churches.

Biblical doctrines don’t become ”null and void” just because of existence of bad leaders.
It is obvious that powers (men) within the Church have been corrupt. – but I’ve got news for you:
JESUS WARNED US THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN (Matt. 7:15-20)..

Seems like ALL Protestants weren’t listening. Now, instead of ONE Church, we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering factions that ALL teach bizarre, man-made inventions like “Soul Sleep” . . .

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You have to derail with "Mary" to avoid answering any of B of L's questions. The Pope, apart from the Church, IS NOT INFALLIBLE. Since it is impossible for a sola scripturist to comprehend the true meaning of infallibility, you are forced to invent a false definition.

What does that mean that he is not infallible apart from the Church? You're saying he is infallible with the church then? Whatever that means. I'm not derailing anything. I don't need to waste time arguing against nonsense like thinking that Jesus was telling people to literally eat His body and drink His blood.

 

[covenantee]

Sooooo, YOU will ONLY believe in the thingsd of God if there is “medical evidence”??
You are EXACTLY who Jesus was talking about in John 6. Pay CLOSE attention to the underlined text”
John 6:61-66
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

From this time MANY OF HIS DISCIPLES TURNED BACK AND NO LONGER FOLLOWED HIM.

Conclusion:
You CANNOT understand the things of God unless you have the LIFE of the Holy Spirit in you.
YOU obviously don’t,

Soooooo, I will give you medical proof that the Eucharist is flesh and blood – just as soon as YOU give me medical proof for the Holy Spirit, my faithless friend,

As for the rest of your nonsense - that you can actually say y this with a straight face is ASTIOUNDING.

Let’s review:
- I presented the Early Church’s belief in the Real Presence (the Eucharist)

- YOU challenged me to show a SINGLE, early, post-Apostolic Father who wrote about this.

- I provided you with TWO explicit examples (Ignatius and Augustine)

- YOU proclaimed that Ignatius COULDM’T have been serious because he used metaphors in SOME of his writings.

- I informed you that EVERYBODY uses metaphors – even YOU. So, are YOU disqualified as well?

- And, NOW your claim is that NONODY speaks in truths or reality because they ALL use members once in a while??

And you DON’T understand how incredibly stupid this is??
How old are you?

Jesus t sometimes spoke in metaphors:
He told Peter to “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, and “Feed my sheep”.
Was He talking about His Church - are a herd of animals?

He spoke REALITY as well:
Mark 16:16
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.“

Sooooo, was that just a joke on Hi part? Was it a “metaphor”??
OR, was conveying the TRUTH with a dire warning??

You can continue paying your idiotic games here – but YOU asked for post-Apostolic proof – and I delivered. So, don’t say you weren’t warned when you’re being judged.
For now – you’re simply wasting my time, because you don’t have any valid counter-arguments.
Consider yourself, historically, linguistically and Scripturally SPANKED in public . . .

Any intelligent arguments out there – or should we just proclaim the Catholic position as the CORRECT position, Biblically, historically and linguistically?. . .

More metaphors from Ignatius from his Letter to the Romans:

But grant me nothing more than to be poured out as a libation to God...
Allow me to be bread for the wild beasts...
I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found to be the pure bread of Christ.

Adding to his metaphors of bread, wine, flesh, and blood.

But you believe Ignatius literally. So explain how he could be "poured out", and be "wheat" and "bread".
Did he somehow dissolve himself to permit himself to be poured out?
What type of wheat was he? Hard red winter? Hard red spring?
What kind of bread was he? White, whole wheat, sourdough?

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[covenantee]

Sooooo, YOU will ONLY believe in the thingsd of God if there is “medical evidence”??

Matthew 8
2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Why would you be afraid of medical evidence?

When Jesus Himself healed the leper, He told him to show himself to the priest to confirm the medical evidence of his healing.

Did Jesus believe in the things (what are "thingsd"?) of God?

There's only one reason to be afraid of medical evidence.

That is when it exposes error and deception.

Such as your transubstantiation.

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

More metaphors from Ignatius from his Letter to the Romans:

But grant me nothing more than to be poured out as a libation to God...
Allow me to be bread for the wild beasts...
I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found to be the pure bread of Christ.

Adding to his metaphors of bread, wine, flesh, and blood.

But you believe Ignatius literally. So explain how he could be "poured out", and be "wheat" and "bread".
Did he somehow dissolve himself to permit himself to be poured out?
What type of wheat was he? Hard red winter? Hard red spring?
What kind of bread was he? White, whole wheat, sourdough?

Thank God for the Reformation.

This is REALLY an idiotic exercise in futility on YOUR part.
I’m ONLY in this discussion with you to further expose you to everybody reading this.,

It’s already been shown to you that EVERYBODY uses.
So, Ignatius should be disregarded because he used sine metaphors in his writing.

Should JESUS be disregarded for using metaphors?
Should PAUL be disregarded for using metaphors?
Should the GOSPELS be disregarded because of the use of metaphors?
Should we continue this idiotic point of yours – or has it finally sunk in?

This is how Ignatius and Augustine describe the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are PERISHING in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Augustine
What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread IS THE BODY OF CHRISt and the chalice IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

Only an ignoramus would consider EIITHER ONE of these letters as “Metaphorical” . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Matthew 8
2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3 And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Why would you be afraid of medical evidence?
When Jesus Himself healed the leper, He told him to show himself to the priest to confirm the medical evidence of his healing.
Did Jesus believe in the things (what are "thingsd"?) of God?
There's only one reason to be afraid of medical evidence.
That is when it exposes error and deception.

Such as your transubstantiation.

Thank God for the Reformation.

Ummmm - you HEAVEN'T given me any medical evicence.
I'm STILL waiting for some from you , Einstein . . . . . .

 

[covenantee]

This is REALLY an idiotic exercise in futility on YOUR part.
I’m ONLY in this discussion with you to further expose you to everybody reading this.,

It’s already been shown to you that EVERYBODY uses.
So, Ignatius should be disregarded because he used sine metaphors in his writing.

Should JESUS be disregarded for using metaphors?
Should PAUL be disregarded for using metaphors?
Should the GOSPELS be disregarded because of the use of metaphors?
Should we continue this idiotic point of yours – or has it finally sunk in?

This is how Ignatius and Augustine describe the Eucharist:
Ignatius of Antioch
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are PERISHING in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Augustine
What you see is the bread and the chalice, that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread IS THE BODY OF CHRISt and the chalice IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith, yet faith does not desire instruction (ibid. 272).

Only an ignoramus would consider EIITHER ONE of these letters as “Metaphorical” . . .

You haven't answered the questions about Ignatius. Here they are again:

Did he somehow dissolve himself to permit himself to be poured out?
What type of wheat was he? Hard red winter? Hard red spring?
What kind of bread was he? White, whole wheat, sourdough?

They represent your literal perspective on Ignatius.

Why are you afraid to answer them?

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[covenantee]

Ummmm - you HEAVEN'T given me any medical evicence.
I'm STILL waiting for some from you , Einstein . . . . . .

Afraid of medical evidence.

Jesus wasn't.

But you are.

You're either errant or fraudulent.

Or both.

Thank God for the Reformation.

 

[Illuminator]

What does that mean that he is not infallible apart from the Church? You're saying he is infallible with the church then? Whatever that means.

It means teaching without error, it does not mean living without sinning (impeccability). 1st & 2nd Peter are infallible encyclicals. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, Peter, James & John, together with the other Apostles and elders, (what we call the Magisterium) reached an infallible decision, because the Holy Spirit was with them. (Acts 15:28)

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 – the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 – Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail. (the SDA commits this constantly)

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 – non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 – Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 – some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter – for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul – Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

John 14:16 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

John 14:26 – Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 – Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

John 16:13 – Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.
READ MORE HERE

I'm not derailing anything. I don't need to waste time arguing against nonsense like thinking that Jesus was telling people to literally eat His body and drink His blood.

Then why did you bring up "Mary" in an insulting manner (post #666) who isn't mentioned anywhere in this thread? "Mary" is the STANDARD overused DERAILER when anti-Catholics make fools of themselves and need a quick way out. I don't need to waste my time with Modernist anti-Mary liberals who refuse to come to terms with their own reformers' teachings on Mary.

Jesus meant what He said. A mere 60 years after Luther's nail job, there were 200 Protestant interpretations of THIS IS MY BODY. It might be prudent to find out what was believed by everyone everywhere and not seriously challenged by anyone for 11 centuries. And where on the list of 200 do you fit in.

How the Satanic Black Mass Proves the Truth of Catholicism

There have been a number of stories in the news lately of small Satanic groups publicly performing so-called “Black Masses.” These rituals are based on the Catholic mass but are inverted toward Satan and often involve the desecration of a Eucharistic host. This sort of thing is evil and should

www.churchpop.com

further reading: Eucharistic Index - The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Fr. Hardon Archives - This is My Body, This is My Blood

My purpose in this conference will be twofold: first to identify and explain what the Catholic Church understands by the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and then to see how basic to Protestantism is the denial of the Real Presence.

www.therealpresence.org

 

[Brakelite]

Once again – you ALWAYS go off the deep end with your SDA-required hatred of the Catholic Church and you make idiotic claims about the Church and ME.

I presented some historical FACTS – not Ellen White fairy tales – but FACTRS.
And what do YOU accuse me of? “NOTHING BUT ad hominem, denial, and bluster”.

As if Ellen White began the reformation lol. You load her with all the credit for Protestant truth?

This is why it is impossible to have discussions with you – because you are dishonest and simply CANNOT stay focused on the truth to save your life. There were many things done unilaterally by various kingdoms over the centuries – and were NOT ordered by the Church. For crying out loud – the Sale of Indulgences wasn’t even sanctioned by the Church – but your cult won’t allow you to believe this.

Once again – you ALWAYS go off the deep end with your SDA-required hatred of the Catholic Church and you make idiotic claims about the Church and ME.

I presented some historical FACTS – not Ellen White fairy tales – but FACTRS.
And what do YOU accuse me of? “NOTHING BUT ad hominem, denial, and bluster”.

This is why it is impossible to have discussions with you – because you are dishonest and simply CANNOT stay focused on the truth to save your life. There were many things done unilaterally by various kingdoms over the centuries – and were NOT ordered by the Church. For crying out loud – the Sale of Indulgences wasn’t even sanctioned by the Church – but your cult won’t allow you to believe this.

So, is Calvinism “Apostate” because of all of the Catholics they murdered, including the Martyrs of Gorkum)?
So, is Alglicanism “Apostate” because of all of the Catholics they murdered, including under Henry VIII and Elizabeth I??
Is the SDA sect “Apostate” because of all of the molestation of children?
Adventist Women's Ministries | Statement on Child Sexual Abuse
Healing the wounds of childhood sexual abuse - Adventist Record
Seventh-day Adventist Church Retaliates against Abuse Victim and her family.
Sex Abuse Cases: New Allegations | Adventist Today
Moncton woman sues Seventh-day Adventist Church over alleged sex abuse ...

OR – were all of these things committed by bad people and bad leaders WITHIN those churches.

Biblical doctrines don’t become ”null and void” just because of existence of bad leaders.
It is obvious that powers (men) within the Church have been corrupt. – but I’ve got news for you:
JESUS WARNED US THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN (Matt. 7:15-20)..

Seems like ALL Protestants weren’t listening. Now, instead of ONE Church, we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering factions that ALL teach bizarre, man-made inventions like “Soul Sleep” . . .

Okay, first of all, an apology. I was wrong about Thomas Aquinas. I did some revision and discovered that although he wrote of the relationship between the church and state, as did just about everyone else from the 4th century to this day, he was not the creator of the 2 sword theory, so to you and @Illuminator , I apologize.
However, that didn't mean the main thesis of the discussion become null and void, it doesn't mean that the tension and debate that has surrounded the topic of the relationship between church and state isn't relevant. Which is why I'm disappointed with your jack of integrity and honesty. The church/state issue had been around since Constantine, and there were several historical periods when the Catholic Church had great difficulties managing and balancing the two powers. The 2 sword thing, was a thing. And there were several popes who worked on the idea and used it to their advantage. I Scofield don't see any reason why you need to establish a false argument about a relationship between sin and apostasy. That wasn't where I went with the discussion, and you know it. I never mentioned persecutions as the cause of apostasy, but rather the fruit of it. Not did I mention the child abuse thing. I fully know that child abuse is as rampant in the church as it is in the world, and no church is exempt, including my own. The apostasy of the Catholic Church is not to be found in false doctrine, not the persecutions irregardless off the numbers, not even in the seemingly rampant numbers of victims worldwide of wicked priests, no, but the apostasy is rooted in the same place as the apostasy of Israel, the abandonment of the true God in favor of state power. The apostasy of the church, and that includes any Protestant church that thinks likewise, is rooted in trusting the state to support church growth, to serve the church by way of warring against it's enemies instead of trusting God.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As if Ellen White began the reformation lol. You load her with all the credit for Protestant truth?



Okay, first of all, an apology. I was wrong about Thomas Aquinas. I did some revision and discovered that although he wrote of the relationship between the church and state, as did just about everyone else from the 4th century to this day, he was not the creator of the 2 sword theory, so to you and @Illuminator , I apologize.
However, that didn't mean the main thesis of the discussion become null and void, it doesn't mean that the tension and debate that has surrounded the topic of the relationship between church and state isn't relevant. Which is why I'm disappointed with your jack of integrity and honesty. The church/state issue had been around since Constantine, and there were several historical periods when the Catholic Church had great difficulties managing and balancing the two powers. The 2 sword thing, was a thing. And there were several popes who worked on the idea and used it to their advantage. I Scofield don't see any reason why you need to establish a false argument about a relationship between sin and apostasy. That wasn't where I went with the discussion, and you know it. I never mentioned persecutions as the cause of apostasy, but rather the fruit of it. Not did I mention the child abuse thing. I fully know that child abuse is as rampant in the church as it is in the world, and no church is exempt, including my own. The apostasy of the Catholic Church is not to be found in false doctrine, not the persecutions irregardless off the numbers, not even in the seemingly rampant numbers of victims worldwide of wicked priests, no, but the apostasy is rooted in the same place as the apostasy of Israel, the abandonment of the true God in favor of state power. The apostasy of the church, and that includes any Protestant church that thinks likewise, is rooted in trusting the state to support church growth, to serve the church by way of warring against it's enemies instead of trusting God.

For starters – I NEVER claimed that the Church did NOT get involved in matters of state – directly or indirectly. I simply stated that YOUR preposterous supposition that the Church was not only responsible for “Untold Millions” of deaths - but that it was responsible for EVERY War the world experienced during that time. Not only is that an irresponsible claim – but an outright LIE.

Can you READ about the “murderous Church” and “Untold Millions?? Absolutely – and that’s probably what you did.
I can find dishonest dirt on ANY subject – but that doesn’t mean it true. More reputable historical scholars NEVER make these claims. Your false claim about it being “Official Church Policy” to “Destroy” ALL non-Catholcs – and that “policy” exists to this day, was particularly offensive – albeit debunkable.
You seem like a fairly educated and intelligent person – so it really surprises me that you would fall for this garbage without doing some REAL research.

As to the Church becoming “apostate” – you will have to convince me that Jesus was just a 2-bit con man and a liar. We believe Him to be GOD – and God doesn’t lie:

Matt. 16:12-15
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall NOT PREVAIL prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL TRUTH. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

To “prevail” means to prove more powerful than opposing forces. YOU are claiming that Satan was more powerful than God - and that He conquered. This is blasphemy.

YOU are claiming that the Holy Spirit did NOT guide His Church to ALL truth.
That means you think Jesus is a LIAR. This is also blasphemy.

Since you have such a tough time differentiating between Christ’s Church and SOME – or even MANY of the men WITHIN it – would it be fair for ME you blame YOU and ALLL SDAs for the current sex scandals perpetrated by your clergy?

 

[Brakelite]

For starters – I NEVER claimed that the Church did NOT get involved in matters of state – directly or indirectly. I simply stated that YOUR preposterous supposition that the Church was not only responsible for “Untold Millions” of deaths - but that it was responsible for EVERY War the world experienced during that time. Not only is that an irresponsible claim – but an outright LIE.

Can you READ about the “murderous Church” and “Untold Millions?? Absolutely – and that’s probably what you did.
I can find dishonest dirt on ANY subject – but that doesn’t mean it true. More reputable historical scholars NEVER make these claims. Your false claim about it being “Official Church Policy” to “Destroy” ALL non-Catholcs – and that “policy” exists to this day, was particularly offensive – albeit debunkable.
You seem like a fairly educated and intelligent person – so it really surprises me that you would fall for this garbage without doing some REAL research.

As to the Church becoming “apostate” – you will have to convince me that Jesus was just a 2-bit con man and a liar. We believe Him to be GOD – and God doesn’t lie:

Matt. 16:12-15
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall NOT PREVAIL prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL TRUTH. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

To “prevail” means to prove more powerful than opposing forces. YOU are claiming that Satan was more powerful than God - and that He conquered. This is blasphemy.

YOU are claiming that the Holy Spirit did NOT guide His Church to ALL truth.
That means you think Jesus is a LIAR. This is also blasphemy.

Since you have such a tough time differentiating between Christ’s Church and SOME – or even MANY of the men WITHIN it – would it be fair for ME you blame YOU and ALLL SDAs for the current sex scandals perpetrated by your clergy?

KJV Isaiah 1:9
9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

God also promised to be faithful to Israel, yet after being refused, rejected, and disbelieved, Jesus declared at the end of His ministry, your house is left into you desolate.
Although God rejected Israel as His chosen vehicle for reaching mankind and demonstrating the true character of God to the world, the above prophetic message applied... God retained a remnant despite the enemy prevailing over the majority. Individuals believed, and joined the church.
So it was with the early church. Yes, Jesus promised that His church would not fall. And it didn't. What you refuse to recognize and are willingly blind to is that the Roman branch of the church wasn't the only shop in town. The Roman branch, over the course of several centuries, particularly after Constantine and later Justinian, feel away from true faith and trusted in the power and strength of secular armies in the place of God. It began in earnest with an appeal to Caesar in Constantinople in the 6th century to get rid of the Goths, so called heretics because they rejected the official Orthodox doctrines of the trinity, as well as papal supremacy. Somewhere around the same time, perhaps a little earlier, was Clovis. Another convert to catholicism who waged war against Christians who knew not the Pope. These appeals to the state power are no less egregious as the Jews' appeals to Pilate to kill their Messiah, papal Rome following pagan Rome in desiring to kill His followers. It happened throughout Europe BoL. They weren't isolated incidents. A variety of Catholic kings and queens in France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Chechoslavakia (as it's more recently known, although no doubt spelt wrong) and Italy itself, were tools of they popes throughout early, middle and later medieval history to subjugate they people, enforce catholicism as the only faith, and disenfranchise those who refused. You know this BoL, and it does you no good to keep denying it. I could offer you numerous specific examples, names, places, and events, and there were even examples of Catholic rulers being reprimanded and threatened for not carrying out papal orders. None of this BoL has diddly squat to do with Ellen White, child abuse, or anything else other than the use of the state to empower Rome. Papal Rome and at the expense of religious freedom. Hence, apostasy. The gates of hell did prevail... Over Rome... But not over the remnant throughout history that survived. This Jesus was not a liar, and he kept His promise.

 

[Illuminator]

Hence, apostasy. The gates of hell did prevail... Over Rome... But not over the remnant throughout history that survived. This Jesus was not a liar, and he kept His promise.

Funny how you have no one identified by name in your alleged remnant church, but I'll be generous. The first 10 centuries is a lot of history to select from. One would think it would be easy to name ONE "remnant Christian" within a very long time period. But you can't, because your "remnant church", an entity apart from from the historic Church, is as mythical as your church-state revisionisms.

 

[Illuminator]

It began in earnest with an appeal to Caesar in Constantinople in the 6th century to get rid of the Goths, so called heretics because they rejected the official Orthodox doctrines of the trinity, as well as papal supremacy.

The Goths were a people who flourished in Europe throughout ancient times and into the Middle Ages. Sometimes called "barbarians," they are famous for sacking the city of Rome in A.D. 410. After the Western Roman Empire diminished, two Gothic kingdoms rose: the short-lived Visigoths and the longer-lasting Ostrogoths...

Ironically, however, the Goths are often credited with helping to preserve Roman culture. After the sacking of Rome, a group of Goths moved to Gaul (in modern-day France) and Iberia and formed the Visigothic Kingdom, which would eventually incorporate Catholicism, Roman artistic traditions and other aspects of Roman culture. The last Gothic kingdom fell to the Moors in A.D. 711.

Who were the ancient Goths, Visigoths and Ostrogoths?

The Goths sacked Rome in A.D. 410, but they also helped preserve Roman culture.

www.livescience.com

Caesar was the emperor in the 1st century, not the 6th.

How The Goths Pierced Constantinople In Rome’s Last Great Defeat​

Brokelight's mission is to confuse secular Rome with Christian Rome, and blame everything on the Catholic Church. Dave Hunt does the same thing.

 

[Illuminator]

Somewhere around the same time, perhaps a little earlier, was Clovis. Another convert to catholicism who waged war against Christians who knew not the Pope.

Clovis I | Biography, Significance, & Facts | Britannica

Clovis I, king of the Franks and ruler of much of Gaul from 481 to 511, a key period during the transformation of the Roman Empire into Europe. His dynasty, the Merovingian, survived more than 200 years. While he was not the first Frankish king, he was the kingdom’s political and religious founder.

www.britannica.com

Clovis I - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clovis I

Clovis I (or Chlodovech, 466-511/513 CE), king of the Franks, is considered the founding father of the Merovingian Dynasty, which would continue for over 200 years. Clovis became king at the age of...

www.worldhistory.org

Clovis I | Encyclopedia.com

Clovis I >The Frankish king Clovis I (465-511) founded the Merovingian kingdom of >Gaul, the most successful of the barbarian states of the 5th century. He is >widely regarded as the originator of the French nation.

www.encyclopedia.com

None of these non-Catholic sources indicate Clovis waged war against Christians. Invading barbarians were not Christians.
Another one of Brokelights falsehoods exposed.

 

[Illuminator]

A variety of Catholic kings and queens in France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Chechoslavakia (as it's more recently known, although no doubt spelt wrong) and Italy itself, were tools of they popes throughout early, middle and later medieval history to subjugate they people, enforce catholicism as the only faith, and disenfranchise those who refused. You know this BoL, and it does you no good to keep denying it.

This summarizes the SDA false history platform. Forced conversions have NEVER been accepted as valid by the CC. Brokelight sounds more like Marx, Lenin and Geobbles every day.

​

 

[Dropship]

Why does it say the "New Covenant" Jesus made is only for the Jews?

Hebrews 8:8 - But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

Israel was simply the gospel's "launch pad", from where the gospel would spread around the whole planet for all countries and all races..:)
Jesus said- "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations" (Matt 24:14)
“Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." (Mark 16:15)

 

[covenantee]

This summarizes the SDA false history platform. Forced conversions have NEVER been accepted as valid by the CC. Brokelight sounds more like Marx, Lenin and Geobbles every day.

View attachment 28172​

The originating seminal issue has still not been addressed.

Why did Matthew not, in the Greek, render Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petros", which would have reflected Aramaic's singular rendering?

But Matthew didn't. He rendered the Greek as "Petros/Petra".

He rendered it thus because the Holy Spirit inspired him to clearly highlight the distinction between Peter the pebble; and Christ the Rock on Whom His Church is built.

Every recognized historical Greek manuscript of Matthew of which I'm aware renders Matthew 16:18 as "Petros/Petra".

That includes the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican library.

Which demolishes the RC fallacies of Peter as the rock of the church, Peter as the first pope, apostolic succession, et al.

 

[BreadOfLife]

KJV Isaiah 1:9
9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

God also promised to be faithful to Israel, yet after being refused, rejected, and disbelieved, Jesus declared at the end of His ministry, your house is left into you desolate.
Although God rejected Israel as His chosen vehicle for reaching mankind and demonstrating the true character of God to the world, the above prophetic message applied... God retained a remnant despite the enemy prevailing over the majority. Individuals believed, and joined the church.
So it was with the early church. Yes, Jesus promised that His church would not fall. And it didn't. What you refuse to recognize and are willingly blind to is that the Roman branch of the church wasn't the only shop in town. The Roman branch, over the course of several centuries, particularly after Constantine and later Justinian, feel away from true faith and trusted in the power and strength of secular armies in the place of God. It began in earnest with an appeal to Caesar in Constantinople in the 6th century to get rid of the Goths, so called heretics because they rejected the official Orthodox doctrines of the trinity, as well as papal supremacy. Somewhere around the same time, perhaps a little earlier, was Clovis. Another convert to catholicism who waged war against Christians who knew not the Pope. These appeals to the state power are no less egregious as the Jews' appeals to Pilate to kill their Messiah, papal Rome following pagan Rome in desiring to kill His followers. It happened throughout Europe BoL. They weren't isolated incidents. A variety of Catholic kings and queens in France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Chechoslavakia (as it's more recently known, although no doubt spelt wrong) and Italy itself, were tools of they popes throughout early, middle and later medieval history to subjugate they people, enforce catholicism as the only faith, and disenfranchise those who refused. You know this BoL, and it does you no good to keep denying it. I could offer you numerous specific examples, names, places, and events, and there were even examples of Catholic rulers being reprimanded and threatened for not carrying out papal orders. None of this BoL has diddly squat to do with Ellen White, child abuse, or anything else other than the use of the state to empower Rome. Papal Rome and at the expense of religious freedom. Hence, apostasy. The gates of hell did prevail... Over Rome... But not over the remnant throughout history that survived. This Jesus was not a liar, and he kept His promise.

WRONG.

First of all - "Apostasy" is a repudiation of dogmatic and doctrinal beliefs. It is NOT defined by what SOME leaders did personally.
As I told you before - Jesus WARNED us about false teachers from WITHIN Matt. 7:15-20). And they will be judged for that – along with the Martin Luthers, John Calvins and Ellen Whites.

As for this having not having “squat” to do with them or sex abuse within YOUR sect – I was making the point that there are EVIL people in ALL religious groups. This does NOT make the entity itself “Apostate”.

If YOU believe that God is going to condemn His Church because of some bad Bishops – then you DON’T know God OR His Word. You should have learned from Judas, oone of the FIRST Bishops, that this is the case.

As for this historical “remnant” that I ALWAYS hear SDAs rave one about – when you can PROVE that and give me historical proof for that, THEN come and talk to me.
And you STILL haven’t substantiated your earlier LIE that the Church’s “official policy” to DESTROY all non-Catholics.

So, when you’re ready to have an honest and intelligent conversation – let me know.
Just leave your SDA falsehoods at the door . . .