It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

another verse in the Gospel to show OSAS is a lie, a heresy from men

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

1Timothy 3:15 states the Church not Martin Luther's "Bible Alone" is
our authority

1 Timothy is one of the forged letters.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 

1Timothy 3:15 states the Church not Martin Luther's "Bible Alone" is
our authority

1 Timothy is one of the forged letters.


I guess you're not Protestant, a "Bible Alone" believing Christian since
the Bible is full of error. By whose authority do you say all these books
are wrong? You do not reply to my previous question.

Friend, which book in the Gospel is correct? Logic should guide you.
History shows the Church, the RCC canonized Scripture, the Bible is
her book, maybe, God gave her the authority to interpret Scripture too.

He did...if everyone could decide the meaning of Scripture, what would
you have?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

I guess you're not Protestant, a "Bible Alone" believing Christian since
the Bible is full of error. By whose authority do you say all these books
are wrong? You do not reply to my previous question.

Friend, which book in the Gospel is correct? Logic should guide you.
History shows the Church, the RCC canonized Scripture, the Bible is
her book, maybe, God gave her the authority to interpret Scripture too.

He did...if everyone could decide the meaning of Scripture, what would
you have?
The people who made the New Testament canon were in error.
They made Athanasius a saint.
Apparently one of his miraculous things was to name all the books that should be included in the NT canon.
Instead of investigating the issues themselves, the canon board accepted the Saints version which we have to this day.
Not Luke, definitely, and probably not Mathew. Mark and John I would take as authoritative eye witness documents by Mark and John.
Answer to the last question: exactly what we have right now.
edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 

I guess you're not Protestant, a "Bible Alone" believing Christian since
the Bible is full of error. By whose authority do you say all these books
are wrong? You do not reply to my previous question.

Friend, which book in the Gospel is correct? Logic should guide you.
History shows the Church, the RCC canonized Scripture, the Bible is
her book, maybe, God gave her the authority to interpret Scripture too.

He did...if everyone could decide the meaning of Scripture, what would
you have?
The people who made the New Testament canon were in error.
They made Athanaius a saint.
Apparently one of his miraculous things was to name all the books that should be included in the NT canon.
Instead of investigating the issues themselves, the canon board accepted the Saints version which we have to this day.
Not Luke, definitely, and probably not Mathew. Mark and John I would take as authoritative eye witness documents by Mark and John.
Answer to the last question: exactly what we have right now.
edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Who is your vague "They?" Athanasius didn't determine the Canon,
Pope Damasus did..

Hey, not Catholicism, she is the true faith. Protestantism, yes, they
fell for the heresy of private interpretation of Scripture. The world sees the fruit of this heresy, division and error. Imagine, 38,000 Protestant sects! One new Protestant community started every week since 1517.

Pope Damasus determined the Canon in 382 A.D. St. Jerome who
translated the Greek and Hebrew into the first Bible which was in Latin,
the common language of the time disagreed about a couple of the writings but recognized the Holy Father's God given authority and translated those books.

Turns out, always knew though...

The Dead Sea Scrolls in our time confirm Pope Damasus' choices
were correct. The Canon remains the same as decided by the Holy
Father in 382 A.D.

jm, you haven't replied, by whose authority do you say those books
in the Canon are in error? God doesn't leave us not knowing...

blessings,

colbe



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

Pope Damasus did.

And what was Damasus' background in textual criticism?
At that time, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria was held in high esteem as a theologian and by that time was a saint, so they would have given deference to his analysis to base their decision on.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 

Pope Damasus did.

And what was Damasus' background in textual criticism?
At that time, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria was held in high esteem as a theologian and by that time was a saint, so they would have given deference to his analysis to base their decision on.




The Pope trumps a bishop every time (humor and a fact). Why are you using a Catholic Bishop (he was still alive so not yet a named "saint") to refute Catholicism?

By whose authority do you deny certain parts of the Canon? You gotta
answer the question.

When God shows you, please become Catholic jm, the Remnant is Roman Catholic.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 
Here is some info from Wikipedia.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament canon,
en.wikipedia.org...

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism
en.wikipedia.org...
Athanasius was long dead when the final word was said and done.
I have no authority but have a right to my opinion which only represents the consensus opinion of biblical scholars who study the origins of the New Testament books.
The criteria for inclusion into the canon was that the books were actually written by the Apostles.
If it is ascertained that any books were not in fact written by Apostles then they should not be considered legitimate books of the New Testament. To start with, Luke and Acts should never be used as a basis of any doctrine since they were not written by an Apostle, but apparently the Church authorities wanted some historical books.

When God shows you, please become Catholic jm, the Remnant is Roman Catholic.
The arguments for even being called Catholic is obviously flawed. Also the chain from Peter was broken so there is no continuity of succession to the present so-called representatives of Peter.
edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 
Here is some info from Wikipedia.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament canon,
en.wikipedia.org...

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism
en.wikipedia.org...
Athanasius was long dead when the final word was said and done.
I have no authority but have a right to my opinion which only represents the consensus opinion of biblical scholars who study the origins of the New Testament books.
The criteria for inclusion into the canon was that the books were actually written by the Apostles.
If it is ascertained that any books were not in fact written by Apostles then they should not be considered legitimate books of the New Testament. To start with, Luke and Acts should never be used as a basis of any doctrine since they were not written by an Apostle, but apparently the Church authorities wanted some historical books.

When God shows you, please become Catholic jm, the Remnant is Roman Catholic.
The arguments for even being called Catholic is obviously flawed. Also the chain from Peter was broken so there is no continuity of succession to the present so-called representatives of Peter.
edit on 19-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


Apostolic Succession has not been broken. God doesn't leave us wondering, left to our own opinions jm.

"So called" is pure pride and disobedience.

And you said, thank you. "I have no authority".....

Logic should make me, you, everyone ask, what did the first Christians believe? Scholars studying "Scripture" 16 centuries later won't do.
They are inconsistent in belief. That's not of Christ.


I appreciate your reply, God bless,


colbe



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



One new Protestant community started every week since 1517.


Maybe satan hasn't been attacking the RCC and leading sheep astray since 1517? If you have no wolves at all leaving the "true church" starting new ones with errors, then perhaps he isn't. My pastor always says, "if satan isn't attacking you, it's usually because he already has you."

We both should love the very same Jesus who died for all our sins. Guess that's secondary to what church you go to nowadays?



edit on 19-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by colbe
 



One new Protestant community started every week since 1517.


Maybe satan hasn't been attacking the RCC and leading sheep astray since 1517? If you have no wolves at all leaving the "true church" starting new ones with errors, then perhaps he isn't. My pastor always says, "if satan isn't attacking you, it's usually because he already has you."

We both should love the very same Jesus who died for all our sins. Guess that's secondary to what church you go to nowadays?



edit on 19-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Who said "Satan hasn't been attacking the RCC", I didn't. Protestantism started with Satan's attack on a Catholic. Your Pastor's words are correct and very important right now for these end of times.

Satan already has Protestantism, it is no threat to him. The evil one with the help of his man, the anti-Christ is going to try to destroy Catholicism.
Prophesied by Daniel long ago and at present by modern prophets, the anti-Christ is going to abolish the Holy Eucharist.

Why would he do this if it weren't true?

Come to believe in Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

The evil one with the help of his man, the anti-Christ is going to try to destroy Catholicism.

The anti-christ is dispensationalism which says Christianity has no right to exist and Christians have stolen the birthright of the Jews and Christians will be eliminated so a new sovereignty of Jews can come about.
They use Catholicism as a target to focus people's hatred against them, and then to have that undermine the very notion of any church whatsoever.
So the men of Satan are the Dispensationalists, the anti-christ.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
the Bible is wrong in certain books, ie; Paul? By what authority do you speak?

No one needs 'authority' to state the FACT that there is error in the bible.

The earth wasn't made 6,000 years ago.

The Psalms were not all written by David. The same prayers are found on ancient walls in Egypt. They are prayers to the pagan ancient egyptian gods and pre-date David.

The Noahs Ark fable was stolen and then reworded from the Summerian epic of Gilgamesh.

There are TWO creation myths presented in Genesis. Both can't be absolutely true.
(and, for that matter, neither one is)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



Satan already has Protestantism, it is no threat to him.


Hey, you're the one who marveled that there is "a new Church started every week since 1517." My Bible says that there will be grievous wolves who enter the church "not sparing the flock". Do you even read church history, from either scholars or historians? The Catholic Church refused to let the common man have a copy of the bible for over 1,000 years. When people began to translate the Bible into the common languages of the day, they began to see that the RCC was wrong on virtually everything from Eschatology to Soeteriology

We were instructed by Paul to flee from false churches. Heck, one pope, in one afternoon, murdered more Christians than all of Rome did in 300 years of persecution.



Come to believe in Our Lord's presence in the Eucharist.


The Lord gave His Spirit to us at Pentecost to indwell us and guide us in our lives. Why do I need the Eucharist to enter the Lord's presence when He Himself promised to be anywhere two or more are gathered in His name, and promised to dwell inside me with His Spirit, and never leave me?? Please explain how I have conviction of sin without the Holy Spirit in my life. Please, I'm interested in learning how the RCC has "clarified" most of Christ's statements that are apparently inaccurate according to the RCC, err, I mean the Bible.





edit on 20-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by colbe
 

The evil one with the help of his man, the anti-Christ is going to try to destroy Catholicism.


The anti-christ is dispensationalism which says Christianity has no right to exist and Christians have stolen the birthright of the Jews and Christians will be eliminated so a new sovereignty of Jews can come about.


I'm a dispensationalist. I've never heard anyone teach that "the church has no right to exist". That's an absurd charge placed on God's elect. The church absolutely has a right to exist Biblically, and will do so until "the fullness of the Gentiles be come in". Or until during intense persecution the Jews call upon the One who is "blessed" and "who cometh in the name of the Lord." Christians "stole" nothing from the Jews, the Messiah was prophesied to bring salvation to the gentiles in the OT. God promised to provoke them to jealousy with the gentiles, and also promised to regather them a "second time". Dispensationalists believe God will keep His Word in its entirety.

Now, anyone who has the "spirit of antichrist", which was alive in John's day, and continues to this day, is anyone who denies Christ came in the flesh, and anyone who denies the relationship between the Father and the Son. "THE antichrist", (personal pronoun specific in the Greek), means a specific one, different from all others. "THE" antichrist hasn't come yet, if he had satan would be bound and the Lord would be ruling the world in truth and righteousness. WW 1 and WW 2, with 50 million people killed, pretty much made it clear we are not yet to the antichrist or the great tribulation.

That day never could have came before atomic weapons, Jesus Himself said if those days (the great tribulation) weren't "shortened then no flesh would be saved." That was impossible for the world to destroy itself and all life with swords, muskets and bayonets. That's a technology statement from Jesus. lastly, if Nero or whoever from antiquity was the antichrist,..

then who the heck was Adolf Hitler??? Why didn't the Bible mention that guy living and killing 6 million Jews in the millennium?



They use Catholicism as a target to focus people's hatred against them, and then to have that undermine the very notion of any church whatsoever.


Dispensationalists don't at all undermine the church, that's another absurd idea. The church is the bride of Christ, and will continue to be so until He comes to gather her. So it's not at all that the church is "hated", you're just mad we Dispensationalists don't join in your hatred of the Jews and Israel, or anything Jewish, or anything to do with Hebrew language or culture, feast, ritual, harvest for that matter. (They ALL point to the Messiah, duh).


So the men of Satan are the Dispensationalists, the anti-christ.


You neither know who "THE antichrist" is, nor do you know what identifying marks accompany someone influenced with the "spirit of antichrist". You have a grasp doctrinally on neither of them.


edit on 20-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I'm a dispensationalist. I've never heard anyone teach that "the church has no right to exist". That's an absurd charge placed on God's elect.

What I find "absurd" is how you think only you and your fellow Dispensationalists are the "elect".
What it teaches is that there is no Old Testament prophecy about there being a Church.
Dispensationalists get their name from the idea that all Prophecy in the OT was about the blood descendants of Israel, who we can now call "The Jews", but there was a suspension of time in the Prophecy Clock, the count-down of time which all prophecy is linked to where events have to follow a chronological order, year by year, and in that frozen time, inserted in is a special dispensation where the gentiles can have their own Messiah who will never reign on earth but is only a sacrificial beast of burden to carry the sins of the gentiles on his back.
Then, at a predetermined moment, all those who believed in that gentile Messiah will be eliminated from the earth, and then the Prophetic Clock starts right back where it left off with the destroyed temple in 70 A.D. and the holy bright presence of The Lord will come into the rebuilt temple and they continue right where they left off, sacrificing bulls and sheep.

You have a grasp doctrinally on neither of them.
According to your sectarian version of doctrine. I would have to side with Colbe on this issue of a Catholic Church, and against your factional splinter group of heretics. I made this decision months ago but really haven't had the opportunity to articulate it on this forum but am kind of forced to take a stand here against extreme heresy of the worse imaginable sort, that seeks to remove the very memory of the Church from the earth, the church which believes in the new and eternal covenant with the Church and not a finite dispensation. World without end.

edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I'm a dispensationalist. I've never heard anyone teach that "the church has no right to exist". That's an absurd charge placed on God's elect.


What I find "absurd" is how you think only you and your fellow Dispensationalists are the "elect".


Jesus said all that Father would give to Him would come to Him, and "any man" that called upon Him He would "in no wise cast out". If a person comes to God it's because God elected and first drew that person, if they call upon the Lord for Salvation He promised to never cast them out. Pretty self-explanatory IMHO. If you let the Bible be your ultimate authority instead of textual critics and extreme fringe scholars you wouldn't make these monumental errors.


What it teaches is there is no Old Testament prophecy about there being a Church.


Yeah duh, it was a "mystery" shared by Paul in the NT. The church was "hidden" from the eyes of the prophets. "Musterion" in the Greek carries a slightly different connotation than the English form "mystery". It's not some foggy, enigmatic thing that's hard to decipher. It means, something that's been previously hidden is now revealed for the first time. Like a combination to a safe or password to your computer.


Dispensationalists get their name from the idea that all Prophecy in the OT was about the blood descendants of Israel, who we can now call "The Jews", but there was a suspension of time in the Prophecy Clock, the count-down of time which all prophecy is linked to where events have to follow a chronological order, year by year, and in that frozen time, inserted in is a special dispensation where the gentiles can have their own Messiah who will never reign on earth but is only a sacrificial beast of burden to carry the sins of the gentiles on his back.


lol what? We're awaiting His return to rule on Earth. Fail. His apostles asked Him if He was going to restore the kingdom at that time and He never denies He won't do that, He just tells them it's not their business to know when He's going to do it. He could have easily said, "Umm, no, sorry guys, you have a misunderstanding of OT prophecy."


Then, at a predetermined moment, all those who believed in that gentile Messiah will be eliminated from the earth,


Well, common sense should tell you that there will be believers alive on Earth when Christ returns for His bride.


and then the Prophetic Clock starts right back where it left off with the destroyed temple in 70 A.D. and the holy bright presence of The Lord will come into the rebuilt temple and they continue right where they left off, sacrificing bulls and sheep.


LOL, no. He will redeem them to Christianity, trusting in Him as their Messiah and God. They've "continued right where they left off" for 2,000 years now. The purpose of the harpazo of the bride and their great tribulation is to both drive them to jealousy and to call upon Him to save them in the face of sudden destruction at the hands of the antichrist. That's when they will be grafted back in as Paul says in Romans 11. (That's still on your cadre's legitimate canon books list correct?)



What about everything else I said in that post above?? No comments? lol



I would have to side with Colbe on this issue of a Catholic Church, and against your factional splinter group of heretics.


Poisoning the well. And now we know you side with Agnostics and Catholics. Explains the whole lust you have for works righteousness.


edit on 20-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Here:


That's a technology statement from Jesus. lastly, if Nero or whoever from antiquity was the antichrist,..

then who the heck was Adolf Hitler??? Why didn't the Bible mention that guy living and killing 6 million Jews in the millennium?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

If you let the Bible be your ultimate authority instead of textual critics and extreme fringe scholars you wouldn't make these monumental errors.

The first thing you mention, letting the Bible be the authority, is what your sect does not do.
The second thing, following fringe self-proclaimed "scholars" (such as John Nelson Darby, who invented dispensationalism), your sect does do, accepting a "monumental" error of an earth without Christians.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

If you let the Bible be your ultimate authority instead of textual critics and extreme fringe scholars you wouldn't make these monumental errors.

The first thing you mention, letting the Bible be the authority, is what your sect does not do.

Bullocks, the olnly diffference between my "sect' (lol) and your "sect" is a rigid literal Hermeneutic approach and a loose allegorical one.


The second thing, following fringe self-proclaimed "scholars" (such as John Nelson Darby, who invented dispensationalism), your sect does do, accepting a "monumental" error of an earth without Christians.


I've told you several times I've never read any works from John Darby, and besides that, recently when you brought him up I learned pre-millinnealism was taught long before Darby anyways, he just popularized it because of his influence in the church.

The early church taught it, and it was forgotten for almost 1,500 years by the errors of Augustine who wanted to allegorize most of Eschatology because of pressure from Rome. Getting the Word of God back into the hands of the common person lead to the reformation and a restoration of all things from the early church away from Catholicism.

Amillinnealism is Catholic Eschatology.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

We're awaiting His return to rule on Earth. Fail.
If that is the case, then what is the purpose of the rapture? No one is coming back, is that not right? The Jews, according to the general philosophy which you have joined yourself into by your earlier declaration of being a Dispensationalist, is that the Jews will have their Messiah, exactly as they were expecting in the time of Jesus, and rejected and killed Jesus for not living up to that standard.
So, basically another Jesus, nothing like the one we know of from the Gospels. An anti-christ, who of course will not be called by the Hellenized name Jesus, but will be called by a proper (according to your philosophy) "Hebrew" name, again, a second marker as being the "instead of"-christ.

BTW: you have now thoroughly debunked your own claim about yourself as being against religion.
edit on 20-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join