Let's see SCRIPTURAL authority for popes, cardinals, etc.

[OfLivingWaters]

" contra-scriptural human traditions" The greatest one being Sola Scriptura. Which is why one day a guy will leave YOUR denomination to start a new one.

Well that is defiance of a truth that has been clearly pointed out with scripture. Is Timothy a liar?

2Tim.3 Verses 16 to 17
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Profitable for doctrine=making, and all the rest. Doesn't this sound like that is what (all) scripture is for? Of course one needs to be guided along by the Holy Spirit to understand God's words. But really is there some other doctrine built before or outside of this written Word that I should know about? What is our faith based on? Did (your) gentile church "fathers" receive the Word or was it to the Jew first?

 

[Revmitchell]

" contra-scriptural human traditions" The greatest one being Sola Scriptura. Which is why one day a guy will leave YOUR denomination to start a new one.

I don't know why you think that is a good argument. It's not. Further, how many time throughout history have you Cathy's had a Pope that made a decree, as if it was from God, only later to have it changed by another Pope years down the road. Honestly you guys make stuff up, (tradition), just like the pharisees did back in the day.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

I don't know why you think that is a good argument. It's not. Further, how many time throughout history have you Cathy's had a Pope that made a decree, as if it was from God, only later to have it changed by another Pope years down the road. Honestly you guys make stuff up, (tradition), just like the pharisees did back in the day.

You have a point.

 

[robycop3]

Huh?

Acts 6:5-6
...Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip...
the Apostles...laid their hands on them...

Acts 6:8
And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.

Hallelujah!

Didn't do miracles, eh?

There were some signs & miracles done by a few others besides the apostles at that time, including the 70 disciples besides the apostles appointed by Jesus Himself, and, of course, Stephen. After them, there were few miracles, same as today,where there are still some miraculous healings, among others.. But there's no succession of miracle workers!

 

[robycop3]

You can call it whatever you want. The only "goofy" is your lack of understanding those verses.
Mark 16:16-18…16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.”

This does not contradict what utilyan posted of 1 Corinthians either. Personally I would not call anything of scripture goofy. I pick up snakes everyday and cast them aside with my Wisdom ,that the Lord has given me. It frees a lot of people. Obviously the snakes in Mark are not just physical snakes. I mean after all there are snake charmers and snake handlers who do that as a living and never get bit. The snakes I handle are demons doctrines, which people are buried under. Though I enter the pit, dens of inquity which are filled with evil doctrines, I never get bit There are many types of snake handlers.Each has various gifts, which is reinforced in 1 Corinthians that utilyan posted. So as I said the scriptures are not goofy, just your perception is. Nor do they contradict. Men contradict their meanings. This is why one must be guided by the Holy Spirit when pointing them out.

Also, if by some queer act of evil, I am thrown into a snake pit or have snakes PHYSICALLY thrown on me , I will be good. If someone tried to poison me , I will be good. And for sure I will never be poisoned by your doctrine.

Still full of pentecostal baloney. I hope you chuck it before you pass on.

MAYBE you'd survive a snake pit; maybe NOT, if God decides your life as a mortal is through. And you stand as much chance of getting bitten if you DELIBERATELY pick up a poisonous snake as anyone else. I live just 35 miles from the snake-handler capital of the world, Jolo, WV.

On the temple roof, Jesus reminded Satan, who'd asked Him to jump off, that one does not deliberately DARE God.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Still full of pentecostal baloney. I hope you chuck it before you pass on.

MAYBE you'd survive a snake pit; maybe NOT, if God decides your life as a mortal is through. And you stand as much chance of getting bitten if you DELIBERATELY pick up a poisonous snake as anyone else. I live just 35 miles from the snake-handler capital of the world, Jolo, WV.

On the temple roof, Jesus reminded Satan, who'd asked Him to jump off, that one does not deliberately DARE God.

What are you talking about?

 

[robycop3]

"discipleship" not passed down. That is the craziest thing I ever heard.

Matthew 28

19“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”



I got a scripture come back for ever challenge given. You gave us two things, Jack and Squat.

Oh, REALLY? Aint seen any Scripture yet for the office of pope or cardinal, nor for apostolic succession.

 

[robycop3]

What are you talking about?

I didn't stutter.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

Oh, REALLY? Aint seen any Scripture yet for the office of pope or cardinal, nor for apostolic succession.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[utilyan]

Well that is defiance of a truth that has been clearly pointed out with scripture. Is Timothy a liar?

2Tim.3 Verses 16 to 17
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: [17] That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Profitable for doctrine=making, and all the rest. Doesn't this sound like that is what (all) scripture is for? Of course one needs to be guided along by the Holy Spirit to understand God's words. But really is there some other doctrine built before or outside of this written Word that I should know about? What is our faith based on? Did (your) gentile church "fathers" receive the Word or was it to the Jew first?

"But really is there some other doctrine built before or outside of this written Word that I should know about?"

Absolutely a Church that can tell you WHAT IS SCRIPTURE in the first place. There is a guy out there that says well that means the QUARAN is holy scripture, the book of mormon is holy scripture. There is no inspired table of contents.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason you identify any book at all as the bible is SOMEONE TOLD YOU SO.

Let me put you a library of thousands of works and lets watch the holy spirit aid you in selecting the scripture ignoring the fakes the ones that switch a verse here and there.

You were SPOON FED what IS the bible.

Its not by circular reasoning.....oh of course I got the right bible and know what books belong it says right here in my bible.....That is NONSENSE.


There is lineage of scripture pointed out by a lineage of TEACHER to STUDENT.

Who put that book in your hand first and what faith were they.

 

[utilyan]

I don't know why you think that is a good argument. It's not. Further, how many time throughout history have you Cathy's had a Pope that made a decree, as if it was from God, only later to have it changed by another Pope years down the road. Honestly you guys make stuff up, (tradition), just like the pharisees did back in the day.

Because its a fake rule not written in scripture. Simple as that. Show me the verse....

If its unbiblical, then tell the truth for once and say that then.

It is neither taught explicitly or implicitly.

You are insisting the FALSE DOCTRINE that for something to be officially christian rule it must be in scripture. WELL where is THIS rule in scripture?

Its not there. It was a LIE to sucker the ignorant into division.

 

[Jerome]

Jesus had the Holy Spirit enable the apostles to do miracles, especially those of healing.That was NOT passed on....There were other preachers during the apostles' lifetimes, of course, but they didn't do miracles.

Huh?
Acts 6:8...Stephen did miracles

There were some signs & miracles done by a few others besides the apostles at that time, including the 70 disciples besides the apostles appointed by Jesus Himself, and, of course, Stephen...

Thank you!
but a simple "I, Robycop, wuz wrong" would have sufficed.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

"But really is there some other doctrine built before or outside of this written Word that I should know about?"

Absolutely a Church that can tell you WHAT IS SCRIPTURE in the first place. There is a guy out there that says well that means the QUARAN is holy scripture, the book of mormon is holy scripture. There is no inspired table of contents.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason you identify any book at all as the bible is SOMEONE TOLD YOU SO.

Let me put you a library of thousands of works and lets watch the holy spirit aid you in selecting the scripture ignoring the fakes the ones that switch a verse here and there.

You were SPOON FED what IS the bible.

Its not by circular reasoning.....oh of course I got the right bible and know what books belong it says right here in my bible.....That is NONSENSE.


There is lineage of scripture pointed out by a lineage of TEACHER to STUDENT.

Who put that book in your hand first and what faith were they.

And who put those writings in their hands? Last I knew there was a Counsel which convened and men brought the scriptures to the table. No one is denying what the RCC has done. But it is disingenuous to say no one would have their bibles without them. What is most correct to say is they made scripture available (after some time ) to the Western world. And further that was because their arch-nemesis Luther, took advantage of the printing press because he felt that each man should have his or her own bible. So the RCC stepped up to out do him. And the Harlot , like any Harlot was used to spread seed. Who am I to question God. But in any event, the RCC didn't write the scriptures they , compiled what was already out there and had men with respect to their knowledge of language translate it into Latin . And those works were not available for centuries . At one time one could only be privy to them by joining the fraternity.

 

[utilyan]

Oh, REALLY? Aint seen any Scripture yet for the office of pope or cardinal, nor for apostolic succession.

"This has been explained once, but I'll let someone do it who can word it much-better than I.
John 20:23 appears to give the ability to forgive sins to Christians. How do you explain this? | Evidence for Christianity"

You gave us the LINK to YOUR TEACHER.

"I wish I could tell you exactly what this passage means, but I believe that we can get a general understanding of John 20:23. God is giving real delegated authority to the church and, specifically, to the leaders of the local churches. As disciples of Jesus, we need to respect and submit to that authority, as God delegates authority to these people. As is written in Hebrews 13:17, we should obey our leaders and submit to their authority as men who will give an account to God for their leadership. I believe that this, or something like this, is what Jesus has in mind in John 20:23."


" He was about to leave, and he was delegating to them authority to make some authoritative decision for the church. An example of the application of this authority is found in Acts when the Council of Jerusalem made authoritative decision for the Gentile Christians scattered across areas where Paul had planted churches. "


That is not me saying the stuff that is YOUR SUPERIOR.


No one in the world has better understanding of scripture than ROBY, RIGHT?

You gave us the answer we told you.

 

[utilyan]

And who put those writings in their hands? Last I knew there was a Counsel which convened and men brought the scriptures to the table. No one is denying what the RCC has done. But it is disingenuous to say no one would have their bibles without them. What is most correct to say is they made scripture available (after some time ) to the Western world. And further that was because their arch-nemesis Luther, took advantage of the printing press because he felt that each man should have his or her own bible. So the RCC stepped up to out do him. And the Harlot , like any Harlot was used to spread seed. Who am I to question God. But in any event, the RCC didn't write the scriptures they , compiled what was already out there and had men with respect to their knowledge of language translate it into Latin . And those works were not available for centuries . At one time one could only be privy to them by joining the fraternity.

"No one is denying what the RCC has done."

Did what? brother your half a step from being catholic if not for vanity.

Who has a better understanding Christianity than you. I don't think you will supply a website, a name, or denomination. Because NNE has better understanding than the TRUE POPE SAINT OFLIVINGWATERS.


Just try proving it. Take out a blank sheet of paper and write the bible yourself. You have to take a PERSON's WORD FOR IT that what you have is legit.

What you did is say whoa these guys' religion is junk and worthless, they serve the devil, but HOLD on the books they got is the real deal.

Thats crazy. I would never depend on SATAN's henchmen to provide the word of God. That is nuts.

If I was in your shoes. There is no way i'd take catholic's word on anything and everyone else you disagree with.


#1 if God is on your side act like it, find the bible yourself. You shouldn't have to depend on a false religion to supply your bible.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

"This has been explained once, but I'll let someone do it who can word it much-better than I.
John 20:23 appears to give the ability to forgive sins to Christians. How do you explain this? | Evidence for Christianity"

You gave us the LINK to YOUR TEACHER.

"I wish I could tell you exactly what this passage means, but I believe that we can get a general understanding of John 20:23. God is giving real delegated authority to the church and, specifically, to the leaders of the local churches. As disciples of Jesus, we need to respect and submit to that authority, as God delegates authority to these people. As is written in Hebrews 13:17, we should obey our leaders and submit to their authority as men who will give an account to God for their leadership. I believe that this, or something like this, is what Jesus has in mind in John 20:23."


" He was about to leave, and he was delegating to them authority to make some authoritative decision for the church. An example of the application of this authority is found in Acts when the Council of Jerusalem made authoritative decision for the Gentile Christians scattered across areas where Paul had planted churches. "


That is not me saying the stuff that is YOUR SUPERIOR.


No one in the world has better understanding of scripture than ROBY, RIGHT?

You gave us the answer we told you.

Utilyan what is your end game ? What exactly is your concern regarding not following hierarchy? Forget about Roby. Really, what is your concern? Not being argumentative.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

"No one is denying what the RCC has done."

Did what? brother your half a step from being catholic if not for vanity.

Who has a better understanding Christianity than you. I don't think you will supply a website, a name, or denomination. Because NNE has better understanding than the TRUE POPE SAINT OFLIVINGWATERS.


Just try proving it. Take out a blank sheet of paper and write the bible yourself. You have to take a PERSON's WORD FOR IT that what you have is legit.

What you did is say whoa these guys' religion is junk and worthless, they serve the devil, but HOLD on the books they got is the real deal.

Thats crazy. I would never depend on SATAN's henchmen to provide the word of God. That is nuts.

If I was in your shoes. There is no way i'd take catholic's word on anything and everyone else you disagree with.


#1 if God is on your side act like it, find the bible yourself. You shouldn't have to depend on a false religion to supply your bible.

So let me see if I get your jive? First God put these men in charge of giving everyone the scriptures, yet you say we can not say that they are legit? And I should therefore trust the pope because he is above the scriptures and I am as close as Catholic as one can get but for my vanity??? WOW! And do you try to put both your socks on at the same time too?

 

[atpollard]

What you did is say whoa these guys' religion is junk and worthless, they serve the devil, but HOLD on the books they got is the real deal.

The Catholic Church even screwed that up by canonizing the Apocrypha as Scripture when much of it is patently not written by the claimed author at the claimed date. There was a reason that it was excluded by the early Catholic Church when they compiled the list of inspired scripture.

The EARLIEST churches (those predating even the Church in Rome) circulated the four gospels that we have today as a single “book” (not a physical book, but a set of scrolls) and the collected letters of Paul (including Hebrews) as a second “book” and used these two “books” along with the OT scrolls as “Scripture” in the Second Century. We KNOW what the actual Apostles wrote and anything that contradicts the Christ appointed Apostles must be held as suspect.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 12:05 AM Pacific.

 

[OfLivingWaters]

The Catholic Church even screwed that up by canonizing the Apocrypha as Scripture when much of it is patently not written by the claimed author at the claimed date. There was a reason that it was excluded by the early Catholic Church when they compiled the list of inspired scripture.

The EARLIEST churches (those predating even the Church in Rome) circulated the four gospels that we have today as a single “book” (not a physical book, but a set of scrolls) and the collected letters of Paul (including Hebrews) as a second “book” and used these two “books” along with the OT scrolls as “Scripture” in the Second Century. We KNOW what the actual Apostles wrote and anything that contradicts the Christ appointed Apostles must be held as suspect.

When making such wide brush stroke statements please give a for instance (the Book/books) that are false and point out what is erroneous please?