Why do Catholics…

[Taken]

Yes, it is settled. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and answers for me who is to be ex-communicated. Not your fantasy that it is you.

Very unconventional to fulfill what is written in Matthew 18:17? Well then, call me unconventional for following what Scripture teaches. I will wear that with a badge of honor.

Keeping it real with Scripture....Mary

Keep it real in your reply Mary.
I said no such thing!
I expressly said it was Unconventional for you to NOT answer questions in your own words.

 

[Taken]

Lol....I should trust what YOU wrote over what men who were students of the Apostles wrote.....Clearly of not interest to me.

It is common sense, that individuals speak for themselves about themselves.
Matters not if you TRUST to believe what I SAY about MY OWN BELIEFS.

YOU have the writings of God Approved but the men who walked and talked with the Apostles are NOT approved? Fascinating theory Taken....Simply fascinating.........

I am aware of WHO GOD APPROVED....HE NAMED THEM.
The men you are eluding to were not Apostles, nor worthy to be mentioned in Scripture.
And so you agree with them. And think they are qualified to speak FOR YOU. That’s interesting...they’re dead.

 

[Jim B]

Your view of apostolicity is totally warped. It's a straw man fallacy with no basis in reality.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
read more here

and here: APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION - Scripture Catholic

There is no mention of the Catholic church in the Bible. RCC doctrine is full of fallacies, myths, and errors, not to mention the RCC history of unimaginable cruelty. Thank God for Martin Luther, who restored God's church to its rightful place.

BTW, "bishop" is used in only one place in Scripture, and only in the KJV. Better translations have "overseer". There is no mention of the Pope or cardinals. They are made-up offices.

 

[Taken]

Your view of apostolicity is totally warped. It's a straw man fallacy with no basis in reality.

Already explained my view of WHO the “apostolic fathers” are...
You could have quoted what I said and agreed or disagree with that, instead of cutting that off and coming back with a dim witted accusation. Makes you look deceptive.

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ.

Well no kidding. Not a newsflash....THE FRIST Christians were the JEWISH Disciples, chosen BY Jesus!

The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Already been over this.... Within the span of approx a decade, AFTER the DEATH OF THE LAST APOSTLE....the Gentiles, calling themselves, CATHOLICS, began twisting and turning the Word of God to their own DOCTRINE....and 2,000 years later, they continue the same.

A person can be brainwashed within weeks, months....and well...2,000 years later...a bit embarrassing to admit family generations have been fooled.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

So? Pastor, Minister, Preacher, Elder, Deacons, eh, confidant the congregation comprehends who is who, even if they are not wearing a long robe, bejeweled crown, and...
Anyway, It is impressive that Protestants are not confused about WHO alone is the God Appointed “Father of many Nations” and WHO alone is same Constant Forever “Holy Father”, opposed to a handful of men you have never met, appointing a new “holy father”, every few decades.

Succession comes with responsibility, to actually KEEP Gods Word.
Surely you must know, Catholic succession appointments have not always been ... on the up and up.

John 17:
[1] These words spake Jesus...
[11] And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Confidant Jesus exclusively used the term Holy Father in reference to God......not a man.

 

[Taken]

[QUOTE="Taken, post: 1291726, member: 7756"
“Apostolic Fathers” is not a Scriptural term.

The concept is all over the place in Scripture, as I just illustrated, you just refuse to see it. What's is not scriptural is your abolishment of the office of bishop, the abolishment of the NT priesthood etc., etc. "Sola scriptura" and "sola fide" are not scriptural terms either, yet you base your whole system on these man made traditions. [/QUOTE]

** The Concept of Priesthood was appointed to Arron and his male offspring...ACCORDING to Gods WORD...that fizzled.
** The Concept of having Overseers of the Church is not news.
No, I did not refuse to SEE IT.
I SAID, the “TITLE” given WAS NOT IN SCRIPTURE!

Good grief, If you can not comprehend what IS said, best to be upfront, instead of having a knee jerk reaction of accusing.

If anything must be described, then, as a corruption of primitive, pure Christianity, it is Protestantism, not Catholicism,

I know there are some Whacky Protestant teachings I do not agree with.
I know there are some Whacky Catholic teachings I do not agree with.
I do like others to give their beliefs AND their sources for my own interest and benefit.

I do notice (some) Catholics are so far out, and can not, show a ounce of Scriptural support that comes close to what they are claiming....it’s amusingly fascinating and disturbing.

since it introduced a radically new mode of Christian authority which was a 180-degree departure from the established Christian Tradition: that of subjective, private judgment, tied in with the unbiblical, unhistorical, and unreasonable notion of "Scripture Alone." Protestantism is much more of a corruption, if that word is defined as an essential change of direction or philosophy of an institution or a set of beliefs (in this case theological and spiritual).

A 180-degree turn? Yes. That is what happens when men learn to read and verify what has been told to theirs ears was not true according to Scripture.

Regarding the Scriptures....I’m confident in the Scriptural view...
rather than yours.

2 Tim 3:
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

Regarding Judgement....Again, I’m confident in the Scriptural view...
Rather than yours.

1 Cor 2:
[15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Protestantism's charges against Catholicism, closely scrutinized, only come back to incriminate itself.

Yawn...it’s so boring to observe a Catholic whining about, being attacked, while on a rampage of attacking others...
Pretty sure that is called hypocrisy.

, much more biblical support can be found in Scripture for these "Catholic" doctrines than Protestants suppose.

I’m confident In Jesus’ DOCTRINES.​

Thoughtful Protestants owe it to themselves and intellectual honesty to ponder this indispensable notion before lashing out at the allegedly "unbiblical excesses" of Catholicism.

Not once has the Word of God directed me to BELIEVE in men, or exalt earthlings above or equal with God, or Lay down His Doctrine and gravitate to philosophies of men.

It has NOTHING to do with being THOUGHTFUL to delve into your Catholic doctrines. It has everything to do with...Trusting the Doctrines God gave to me, as sufficient as God saw sufficient for my benefit.

Allegedly “unbiblical excesses”...I never used “your quoted term”.
I have found Catholics to make “implied” Scriptural claims, that is not supported by Scripture....which I find suspect.
​

 

[Taken]

@Illuminator

Interesting you continue to post and repost a photo of your Pope with a forlorn look and caption about weapons....While he sits as head of his country .44 mile of area, with a military trained and weapon armed army of 135 men to protect him.

Sort of hypocritical for one with their own armed army, to criticize others arming themselves.

 

[Philip James]

The gentile churches prior to the diaspora were not answerable to the Jerusalem council, they were answerable to Paul!

Hello Ronald,

as Paul was an integral part of the Jerusalem Council that statement seems contradictory.

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[DavidB]

You can’t just follow men who lived while the apostles were still living or shortly thereafter.
Paul said: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” Acts 20:29, 30
For example, should we follow Hymenaeus and Philetus because they knew Paul? 2 Timothy 2:15–18.
Others also became wolves that twisted things. The church allied itself with Rome and ended up behaving more like blood thirsty Romans than Jesus Christ. You can know a tree by its fruitage.

 

[Illuminator]

There is no mention of the Catholic church in the Bible.

Yes, there is. There is no mention of your church in the Bible, but I don't think you have a church or a pastor.

QUESTION: CATHOLIC: Where did the word originate?
ANSWER: It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

QUESTION: What is the meaning of the word?
ANSWER: It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is necessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: But is it Biblical?

ANSWER: Yes it is. It is in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Kataholis, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Romans 1:8 (Bible Gateway)

2605 [e] καταγγέλλεται
katangelletai is being proclaimed V-PIM/P-3S
1722 [e] ἐν
en in Prep
3650 [e] ὅλῳ
holō all Adj-DMS
Romans 1:8 Greek Text Analysis
3588 [e] τῷ
tō the Art-DMS
2889 [e] κόσμῳ.
kosmō world. N-DMS

Acts 26:21-23

Keep in mind that English as a language did not exist for many centuries after the Bible was written. Pontification is easy, research is hard.
Q. I have heard that the word 'Catholic' did not come into use for hundreds of years after Jesus Christ founded His Church.
A. Not true. The first recorded use of the word that I could find, is in St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D., "Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.

Q. Some say the Catholic Church ended with Constantine (285-337), with the "Edict of Milan" which he issued in 313, which allowed the Church to practice openly. Others say that is when the Church began. Who is right?

A. Neither is right. The Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and He guaranteed its perpetuality, Matthew 28:20, and its unfaltering truth, 1Timothy 3:15. Now if either of the arguments in the question were true, then don't you think the Church Fathers would have mentioned it somewhere? Instead, the Church Fathers mention the Catholic Church by Name in hundreds of their writings and spanning many centuries.
Documented proof for example:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

That quote does not apply to Protestants because there were no Protestants in 375 A.D.

RCC doctrine is full of fallacies, myths, and errors, not to mention the RCC history of unimaginable cruelty.

That is what you have been trained to think. The Protestant Inquisition was just as bad, if not worse.
Disclaimer and statement of intent: Unfortunately, the religious “scandal score” needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known “skeletons in the closet” need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in “dredging up” these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contrary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural.​

(in Grisar, VI, 268-269; Johann von Dollinger, Kirche und Kirchen, 1861, 68)

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff — and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education.​

Thank God for Martin Luther, who restored God's church to its rightful place.

Martin Luther was mentally disturbed. In America in the 1910s, Professor Preserved Smith from Amherst College wrote several articles and books analyzing Luther from a Freudian perspective and finding evidence of psycho-pathology in him.

In 1937, a Copenhagen Psychiatrist, Paul J. Reiter MD wrote a 2 volume study, Martin Luther's World Character and Psychosis and the Influence of These Factors on his Development and Teachings which also demonstrated in detail from his own writings that Luther was mentally disturbed.

There is a review of Reiter's book here

+++
I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW
II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jim B thinks this is from God.

BTW, "bishop" is used in only one place in Scripture, and only in the KJV. Better translations have "overseer".

It's the same thing. You have a poor excuse for having no leaders. You don't support your childish insults with any facts. I can cite reputable Protestant historians that disagree with your dogmatized opinions, but you won't accept them either, just as you don't accept medical facts written by doctors.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it is never illuminating.

 

[Brakelite]

Hey Backlit,

Can you name a false doctrine of The Church that is taught using tradition only?

Thanks....Mary

Sunday sacredness.

 

[DavidB]

Yes, there is. There is no mention of your church in the Bible, but I don't think you have a church or a pastor.

QUESTION: CATHOLIC: Where did the word originate?
ANSWER: It comes from the Greek word Katholikos, which was later Latinized into Catholicus.

QUESTION: What is the meaning of the word?
ANSWER: It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is necessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION: But is it Biblical?

ANSWER: Yes it is. It is in Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Kataholis, Katholicos, Catholicus, Catholic.

Romans 1:8 (Bible Gateway)

2605 [e] καταγγέλλεται
katangelletai is being proclaimed V-PIM/P-3S
1722 [e] ἐν
en in Prep
3650 [e] ὅλῳ
holō all Adj-DMS
Romans 1:8 Greek Text Analysis
3588 [e] τῷ
tō the Art-DMS
2889 [e] κόσμῳ.
kosmō world. N-DMS

Acts 26:21-23

Keep in mind that English as a language did not exist for many centuries after the Bible was written. Pontification is easy, research is hard.
Q. I have heard that the word 'Catholic' did not come into use for hundreds of years after Jesus Christ founded His Church.
A. Not true. The first recorded use of the word that I could find, is in St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, of 106 A.D., "Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.

Q. Some say the Catholic Church ended with Constantine (285-337), with the "Edict of Milan" which he issued in 313, which allowed the Church to practice openly. Others say that is when the Church began. Who is right?

A. Neither is right. The Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ and He guaranteed its perpetuality, Matthew 28:20, and its unfaltering truth, 1Timothy 3:15. Now if either of the arguments in the question were true, then don't you think the Church Fathers would have mentioned it somewhere? Instead, the Church Fathers mention the Catholic Church by Name in hundreds of their writings and spanning many centuries.
Documented proof for example:
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.

That quote does not apply to Protestants because there were no Protestants in 375 A.D.
That is what you have been trained to think. The Protestant Inquisition was just as bad, if not worse.
Disclaimer and statement of intent: Unfortunately, the religious “scandal score” needs to be evened up now and then, and the lesser-known “skeletons in the closet” need to be rescued from obscurity, surveyed, and exposed. I take no pleasure in “dredging up” these unsavory occurrences, but it is necessary for honest, fair historical appraisal. This does not mean that I have forsaken ecumenism, or that I wish to bash Protestants, or that I deny corresponding Catholic shortcomings.

Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contrary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural.​

(in Grisar, VI, 268-269; Johann von Dollinger, Kirche und Kirchen, 1861, 68)

Historical facts are what they are, and most Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware of the following historical events and beliefs (while, on the other hand, one always hears about the embarrassing and scandalous Catholic stuff — and not often very accurately or fairly at that). If (as I suspect might often be the case) readers are shocked or surprised by the very title of this paper, this would be a case in point, and justification enough for my purposes of education.​

Martin Luther was mentally disturbed. In America in the 1910s, Professor Preserved Smith from Amherst College wrote several articles and books analyzing Luther from a Freudian perspective and finding evidence of psycho-pathology in him.

In 1937, a Copenhagen Psychiatrist, Paul J. Reiter MD wrote a 2 volume study, Martin Luther's World Character and Psychosis and the Influence of These Factors on his Development and Teachings which also demonstrated in detail from his own writings that Luther was mentally disturbed.

There is a review of Reiter's book here

+++
I. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE: AN OVERVIEW
II. PLUNDER AS AN AGENT OF RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION
III. SYSTEMATIC SUPPRESSION OF CATHOLICISM
IV. PROTESTANT CENSORSHIP
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jim B thinks this is from God.
It's the same thing. You have a poor excuse for having no leaders. You don't support your childish insults with any facts. I can cite reputable Protestant historians that disagree with your dogmatized opinions, but you won't accept them either, just as you don't accept medical facts written by doctors.
Ignorance may be bliss, but it is never illuminating.

In response to the mention of the “RCC’s history of unimaginable cruelty” you said:

“The Protestant Inquisition was just as bad, if not worse.”

What kind of a defense is that? I am aware of Protestant persecutions and I never considered keeping score. Both are indefensible and disqualifying. If anyone is looking for true Christianity, they need to think carefully about this history and seek the truth elsewhere.

 

[quietthinker]

Hey Backlit,

Can you name a false doctrine of The Church that is taught using tradition only?

Thanks....Mary

The veneration of Mary and Saints. But I'm not telling you anything, you know this!

 

[Brakelite]

What does God has to say regarding what boils down to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

KJV Daniel 7:23-26
23 Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.

KJV Daniel 8:9-12
9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land
10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them
11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down
12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered

KJV Daniel 11:32-39
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

KJV Revelation 13:1-8
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

KJV Revelation 17:1-14, 18
1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.
12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

KJV Revelation 18:2-21
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.
6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.
7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.
8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.
9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,
10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Hmmmm.....Ronald, for someone who is self described as being well studied you don't (or are pretending) even know who the Apostolic Fathers are?

I find it fascinating that you say that anyone AFTER the Apostles they are not "charged with establishing teh[sic] church and its doctrines." But then YOU go on to exhaustively study Scripture to determine what false doctrines other churches are teaching?

Sooooooo the men who started those churches they didn't properly study Scripture to come up with those doctrines that YOU call false but YOU conducted a proper study of Scripture to determine that their doctrines are false???????? Even though you are a man that came AFTER the Apostles YOU can figure out what a false doctrine is but Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp or any man that starts a Protestant church CAN'T figure out what a false doctrine is by reading the SAME BIBLE THAT YOU READ??????????

Simply fascinating and pompous....

Well As Romanism wasn't born until after Constantine that is not the original church .

but what are trying to nudge me too!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You have got to be kidding me right now.

Look back at my posts and all the Christian history I spoke of and passages from Scripture I quoted. Your statement is ludicrous. Compare what I have written to what you have written. Who posts more quotes from Scripture to back up what they say?

I don't know how much clearer I can make this Ronald. I do not have to defend MYSELF. What I believe, teach, practice etc. is clearly written out on multiple websites and those websites have the doctrine/dogma that was decided by much greater men than you and men who walked and talked with the Apostles. You put your interpretation of Scripture above men that walked and talked with the Apostles. That is not only disturbing but also pompous.

Any question you can think to ask me about what I believe can be answered on those websites. Where do I go if you refuse to answer a question from me Ronald? And how often should I ask that same question? Today, and then again a year from now to see if you have changed your answer. And then 2 years from that to see if you have changed your answer again??? Your doctrines, beliefs, dogmas are fluid; like being in quicksand. Mine are on the rock of The Church (Matthew 16:18).

Keeping it real....Mary

What specifically do you want to nudge me to????.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Hello Ronald,

as Paul was an integral part of the Jerusalem Council that statement seems contradictory.

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

No He had to go and present himself to the council!

Acts 15:1-22 , Gal. 2:1-9 No, Paul was not part of the original ruling body of the church!

 

[Philip James]

No, Paul was not part of the original ruling body of the church!

Who said that he was? Certainly he became one,

and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

And how does that show that Paul was not an integral part of the Jerusalem Council?

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Jim B]

Who said that he was? Certainly he became one,

and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

And how does that show that Paul was not an integral part of the Jerusalem Council?

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

You are correct in saying that was part of the ruling body of the early church, if one considers an apostle to be a part of the ruling body. He was not an integral part of the Jerusalem Council; he traveled throughout the Mediterranean world as the chief apostle to the Gentiles. James was the head of the church in Jerusalem.

 

[Philip James]

He was not an integral part of the Jerusalem Council

Hi Jim,
You keep asserting this, however:

The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

Seems pretty clear Paul was an integral part of that Council. Only Peter and James are also named as speaking at that council...

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Who said that he was? Certainly he became one,

and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised

And how does that show that Paul was not an integral part of the Jerusalem Council?

Christ is risen!
Alleluia!

Paul was not there in eh beginning.
Paul went to the council to debate:

Galatians 2:5-10
King James Version

5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Acts 13
King James Version

13 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

Paul was commissioned out of Antioch and not Jerusalem.

Paul was not part of the Jerusalem Council.

He had been rejected by the Jewish wing of the church,and was not accepted for several years-from that council. there is no record he ever was accepted into teh council. He spent most of his life with the gentiles.