My last stand
This preface was not part of the debate procedure but one of Mr Gino
Paradela’s ignorant posts. I just want to rectify it.
GINO: But
Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who
was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the
apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing
art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he
testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed
accurately from the first.
(Luke 1:2-3) The
other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts
of others, but from what he had seen himself.
And
they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of
some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.
SIN: insinuating that
whenever paul mentions the words “my gospel”, they implied he is referring to the
gospel of Luke but fact is, they made it up. Paul is actually and obviously
been referring to his teachings.
What is the gospel?
Ro 1:1 “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an
apostle, separated unto the gospel
of God,
Ro 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy
scriptures,)
Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh;
Ro 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according
to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:”
The gospel in greek
bible:
Euaggelion
The good message, the gospel
The gospel of god is
the good message concerning jesus Christ which was promised in the holy
scriptures.
“separated unto the gospel of
God, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,”
Paul’s teaching is the
good message concerning jesus christ therefore qualifies as the gospel of god.
Paul fully preached
the gospel, it is what given him to administrate. So when he said my gospel, he
referred it to his own teachings also. “MY” means myself and not Luke. You’re
twisting simple words.
From the apostles emanate
the gospel.
Ga 2:7 “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the
uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the
Gentiles:)
Ga 2:9 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.”
Paul as an apostle
has all right to say “MY GOSPEL” bec he is the one personally commanded by
Christ as with all other apostles to preach the gospel as witnesses to all
nations. Luke was not a witness for god but a documenter:
Ro 15:19 “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the
Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have
fully preached the gospel
of Christ.”
1C 1:17 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be
made of none effect.”
1C 9:17 “For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if
against my will, the administration [of the gospel] is
committed unto me.”
What
did paul FULLY preached? The gospel. How?
2Th 2:14 “Whereunto he called you by “OUR GOSPEL”, to the
obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions WHICH
YE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY WORD OR OUR EPISTLE.”
He taught the gospel by
word and by epistle. Therefore his epistles are the gospel of god also, and “my
gospel” is obviously his epistles bec luke don’t have any gospel given him by
Christ. “Our gospel” is all of the
apostle’s teachings.
Our gospel? is that luke’s
gospel again?
On the debate
procedure:
Formerly I concluded: I DEMAND THE MISSING LINK that is, a direct link of the roman catholic
church to the apostles in order for their claim of continuance from the first
Christians to be legitimate. They don’t have corroborating, convincing facts to
link their Christian origin to the true church, links like documents of proven
Christian descent like letters of paul or timothy or titus etc…to any Christian
brother which in turn acknowledges the papacy or the roman catholic church as
the true church in order for such continuity to be evident. BIBLICAL FIGURES
MUST BE THE REFERENCE POINT BEC THEY ARE TRUSTWORTHY. Without the connection to
them, either historically or doctrinally, your sources are not trustworthy. But
that’s not all. Once you established historical links, you must show consistent
doctrinal heritage bec true Christianity must manifests apostolic doctrines. One
of their foremost evidence is St Clement but hasn’t been proven of having a
continual Christian status. He is a biblical figure and is written in the book
of life, but chances are, he might also have reverted away or have been
excommunicated away. Who knows? Bec even if you are written in the book of
life, you can also be blotted out. (I am saying this against Saint Clement
basing it on how catholics portrayed him, if indeed they didn’t corrupt his
letter to the Corinthians by mistranslation or if indeed that that is his
letter.)
St Clement in the book of life:
Phl 4:3 “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those
women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other
my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life.”
He can also be
blotted out from god’s book.
Moses said:
Ex 32:32 “Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not,
blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
Ex 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned
against me, him will I blot out of my book.”
He can also defect.
1Ti 5:12 “Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.”
Christians may also be reprobates, they can be cast
away. NO ASSURANCE THAT A CHRISTIAN MAY ALWAYS REMAIN A CHRISTIAN.
2C 13:5 “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove
your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you,
except ye be reprobates?”
1C 9:27 “But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself
should be a castaway.”
In fact if we look on
the translated letter (if indeed correctly translated) of St Clement to the
Corinthians we can see a lot of discrepancies with the bible, implying, a
heretical faith. so if you are using him as a source to prove your Christian
origin then you are false bec you relied on a heretic.
I’ll add some of his
heresies. He said,
“For Lot's wife,
who went forth with him, being of a different mind from himself, and
not continuing in agreement with him [as to the command which had been given
them], was made an example of, so as to
be a pillar of salt unto
this day. This was done that all might know that
those who are of a double mind, and who
distrust the power of God, bring
down judgment on themselves and become a sign to all succeeding
generations.”
Could this be possible, naturally? Salt melts by
water. And of course it melted during those times and never remained a pillar
of salt anymore bec it rained during those times. Prove that it never rained at
all there for the salt to be preserved.
Also this,
“and let us look steadfastly to the Father
and Creator of the universe, and
cleave to His mighty and surpassingly
great gifts and benefactions of peace. Let us contemplate Him
with our understanding, and look with the eyes of our soul to
His long-suffering will. Let us
reflect how free from the wrath He
is towards all His creation.”
Now compare to biblical truth:
Ps 21:9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine
anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the
fire shall devour them.
Ps 21:10 Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their
seed from among the children of men.
Ps 21:11 For they intended evil against thee: they imagined a
mischievous device, [which] they are not able [to perform].”
Zep 1:18 “Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to
deliver them in the day of the LORD'S
wrath; but the whole land shall
be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy
riddance of all them that dwell in the land.”
Is that so?
Also this,
Let us
consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in
eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about.
There is a certain bird which is called a phœnix. This is the
only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when
the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds
itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which,
when the timeis fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays
a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the
juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired
strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and
bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the
city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of
all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having
done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then
inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as
the five hundredth year was completed.
Phoenix (mythology), legendary bird that lived in Arabia. According to tradition, the phoenix
consumed itself by fire every 500 years, and a new, young phoenix sprang from
its ashes. In the mythology of ancient Egypt, the phoenix represented the sun,
which dies at night and is reborn in the morning. Early Christian tradition
adopted the phoenix as a symbol of both immortality and resurrection.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. ©
1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Why will st clement incorporates mythology and
tradition to Christian faith?
Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
We must not believe on
mythology bec truth is certain.
Pr 22:20 “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels
and knowledge,
Pr 22:21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth
to them that send unto thee?”
This is clear deception.
Who translated this letter anyway? How sure are we that he/they didn’t added
anything to it?
Is this st clement
speaking, the fellow worker of paul or you added this ignorantly to his letter?
“Do we then deem it any great and wonderful
thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those that have
piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when
even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His
promise? “
This is obviously not in accordance to biblical
truth.
He didn’t show us resurrection by a mythological
bird. Why will he? The phoenix is the sign of resurrection? Again an addition
to the scriptures.
Pr 30:5 “Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them
that put their trust in him.
Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and
thou be found
a liar.”
Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
A christian’s faith must be after Christ alone,
and not on a phoenix and its worm, and feathers and all.
Moreover, he said:
“Having then this hope, let our souls be
bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in
His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself
not lie; for nothing is impossible
with God, except to lie.”
wrong again! there are other things impossible
for god, such as this,
Ja 1:17 “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of
lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
Mal 3:6 “For I [am] the LORD, I change not;”
There is no transmutation
of god from one form to another “with
whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning”. He can’t change his
spiritual self to some other form such as to be physical or, even to change himself
as an angel or created being. It is impossible with god to change or have variableness.
It is impossible with god
to forsake the righteous also.
Ps 37:28 “For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the
wicked shall be cut off.”
Allah can redeem some
people from hell whereas god’s judgment is eternal. It is impossible for him to
redeem the condemned.
Mt 25:46 “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
It is impossible for him
not to be faithful. It is impossible for god to deny himself.
2Ti 2:13 “If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.”
It is impossible for god
to forget the righteous. They are always in his everlasting remembrance.
Ps 112:6 “Surely he shall not be moved for ever: the righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.”
Now what are you saying, except to lie?
What he mistook is this:
Lk 1:37 “For with
God nothing shall be
impossible.”
Wrong translation. It contradicts many verses
such as above.
LUKE 1:37
“HOTI (for) OUK (not) ADUNATESEI (to be unable) PARA (by) TO (the) THEO (god) PAN (every) REMA (word).”
The right translation: “for every word by god is not unable”
In other words, “every word by god is able.” It
means every word by god is able to be executed.
Let’s consider the premise for this:
Lk 1:35 “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God.
Lk 1:37 “for
every word by god is not unable”
Lk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto
me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.”
Saint Clement not knowing
the right translation?
also this,
“Or, Who
shall resist the power of His strength? When, and as He pleases, He will
do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away. Matthew 24:35 All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His
counsel.”
All
things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel
Is this true? An all-knowing god?
Jer 32:35 “And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in
the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to
pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, NEITHER CAME
IT INTO MY MIND, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”
NEITHER
CAME IT INTO MY MIND
Now, is he all-knowing? This is obviously a
catholic church influence. It’s either that if this is st clement’s letter, it
is possibly corrupted and if not then clement became heretical.
Have you proven St
Clement to be a roman catholic other than that letter? how? The term roman
catholic was formulated on the 15th century so we will not find any admission that
he belong to the roman catholic church but perhaps indicating membership to a
catholic church only, but certainly not implying the papal catholics. The true
church is catholic but not named catholic. I want to reiterate that. Catholic
is from the greek “hole” meaning whole, not divided but generally whole or
“hole te ekklesia”-the catholic church. Any church protestant or satanic as
long as it is whole can be considered a catholic church bec catholic is but a description not a
distinction! The true church is catholic, the papal church is catholic but what
is the bible’s catholic church’s distinction from papal catholics? There is
only one-their doctrines.
Jn 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he
shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of
myself.
Jn 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he
that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness
is in him.”
Hb 13:9 “Be not carried about with
divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the
heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them
that have been occupied therein.”
Roman catholics have
diverse doctrines from the true church as testimony of its falsehood. They used
historical testimonies as their sole evidence of continuity but not
sufficiently linked to the early church to be acceptable. As I always reiterated
there is no proof at all sufficient and absolute than doctrines. ONLY BY
DOCTRINES CAN ONE PROVE CHRISTIAN ORIGIN.
a certain mark bonocore:
“Has it now? Well, certainly not according to the witness
of our ancient Christian forefathers:
(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining
Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200
AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair
whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair"
(cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e.
the bishop's chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls
Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter
as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome
as "the place of Peter" (Ep ad Anton), and as "the Chair of
Peter" (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope
Stephen's claim to the "succession of Peter" and to the "Chair
of Peter" (Ep ad Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter
was "the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years" (Chron an 44), and
calls Linus "first after Peter to obtain the episcopate" (Chron an
66). He also says that Victor was "the thirteenth bishop of Rome after
Peter" (HE III, 4).
Etc etc…
Now, if our critic would care to produce ONE ancient
quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome,
then perhaps he has an argument. Yet, until such time, the ancient witness
stands firm and consistent.”
______
I have. The bible!
Peter was never a bishop of Rome and
never had been in rome. Read on for more.
It’s my turn to ask.
Who are these? Why will we believe on them? Just bec someone claimed something
then it must be true. Satan deceives so what is our assurance that they speaks
the truth? satan has his old clever way.
Re 12:9 “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent,
called the Devil, AND SATAN, WHICH DECEIVETH THE WHOLE WORLD: he was cast out
into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
Eph 6:10 “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the
power of his might.
Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
stand against the wiles
of the devil.”
Jn 8:44 “Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of
his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
Satan uses people to
deceives.
2Th 2:9 “[Even him], whose coming is after the working of Satan
with all power and signs and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved.”
How will you prove
that your sources were not deceivers?
And also, give us
their links to the apostles to be trustworthy.
One of their foremost link: ST IGNATIUS WAS A
STUDENT OF JOHN. Is it like, judas is a student of Christ but he defected
apart? Also, paul was a student of gamaliel but he left his pharisean status
and the teachings of gamaliel for Christianity? How can Ignatius be different?
Ec 9:2 “All [things come]
alike to all: [there is] one event to the righteous, and to the wicked; to the
good and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him
that sacrificeth not: as [is] the good, so [is] the sinner; [and] he that
sweareth, as [he] that feareth an oath.”
What catholic apologists have been doing is quoting
so and so who have unsupported Christian status, acknowledging the papacy, and
claiming to be of the true church etc.. but without any biblical confirmation
that indeed these are Christians. Who and what proves that these were indeed
Christians? Ignatius is not convincingly proven with an intact Christian status
bec by his letter manifested un-christian belief.
One of their
sources:
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or "preeminent authority"] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION." [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)
And also this:
“... to the Church beloved and enlightened
after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed
everything which is; to the Church also which holds the PRESIDENCY in
the place of honor of the country of the ROMANS, worthy of God,
worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success,
worthy of sanctification, and, because you HOLD THE PRESIDENCY of love
named AFTER JESUS CHRIST, the Son of the Father...”
- - Ignatius
of Antioch, Letter to the Romans ca. 110AD [Address]
And we have to believe them?
Eph 4:14 “That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and
fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men,
[and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”
Catholic proves
themselves with these as if there are no deceivers.
Actually, the roman catholic church are deceivers.
1Ti 4:1 “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 SPEAKING LIES IN HYPOCRISY, having their conscience seared
with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry (celibacy), [and commanding] to abstain from meats (during
holy weeks), which God hath created to
be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”
So the early church
was under the papacy? And you believe that the true church has its presidency
in Rome?
How can Rome be the throne of presidency and not
Jerusalem or other else?
Mic 4:1 “BUT IN THE LAST DAYS it shall come to pass, [that] the
mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the
mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto
it.
Mic 4:2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go
up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he
will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: FOR THE LAW SHALL GO
FORTH OF ZION AND THE WORD OF THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM.”
BUT IN THE LAST DAYS THE LAW SHALL GO FORTH OF ZION AND THE WORD
OF THE LORD FROM JERUSALEM
In the last days, it means from the time
of Christ til the resurrection. And during these times the law must comes and
will always be from Jerusalem alone and not from rome, proving Ignatius a liar.
A LIAR BEC HOW CAN THE LAW COMES FROM ROME THEN? HOW CAN THE PRESIDENCY THEN BE
IN ROME WHEN THE LAW MUST BE FROM JERUSALEM?
THE LAW MUST COME FROM JERUSALEM WHEREAS CATHOLIC LAWS AS
CANONIZATION, CELIBACY, IDOL-WORSHIP, BAPTISM OF BABIES ETC.. ORIGINATED FROM
ROME.
If Rome was never intended as the throne
of presidency then how did peter became its first bishop?
Consider that truth, a bit deeper folks!
Moreover
Ac 20:29 “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Ac 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”
Note: Bec you believe scholars I’ll quote them, according to them, acts of
the apostles was written prior to marcionites and Gnostics which inevitably is
telling us that there were earlier wolves in sheep clothing than them. Who were
earlier than them than catholics?
Some of the text (Acts 16:10-17,
20:5-21:18, 27:1-28:16) refers to the author as one of the “we” who traveled
with Paul, but Paul's execution is not mentioned, and no reference to his
letters is made. Some scholars have
reasoned therefore that the book was written before Paul's death (circa 61) and
before the collection of his letters early in the 2nd century. Because the
Acts is designed to serve as a second volume, however, the book must be at
least slightly later than the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel is almost
certainly later than that of Mark. The result is to put Luke's two volumes
sometime in the last two decades of the 1st century.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. ©
1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
He said that these wolves in sheep clothing were the
Marcionites (140 AD) and Gnostics (100-200AD) who were all rage preaching
strange doctrines.
WHAT MADE YOU DIFFERENT?
You’re propagating strange doctrines too as baptism
of babies, inherited original sin, holy water, sign of the cross etc… which are
not apostolic doctrines at all.
One of your strange doctrines:
BAPTISM
OF BABIES
They say it is to wash inherited original sins.
Where did you read such inherited sins? Man don’t inherit original sin bec
initially from babyhood, man is made upright.
Ec 7:29 “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man
upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”
God assured us that we don’t inherit sins.
Ezk 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither
shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him,
and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
Baptism is to wash sins of repentant sinners.
Ac 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Sin is transgression of the law.
1Jn 3:4 “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for
sin is the transgression
of the law.”
Babies don’t commit sins also, they are citizens of
heaven.
Mt 19:14 “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them
not, to come
unto me:
for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”
WHY
WILL YOU BAPTIZE NO-SIN BABIES CATHOLICS?
Another strange doctrine: communion.
Mt 26:26 “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed
[it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to
them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed
for many for the remission of sins.”
That communion is
spiritual and not literal as catholics do.
Jn 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth
nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.”
The commandment say, eat the bread and drink
the wine whereas catholics eat the bread but only the priest drink the wine. A
strange doctrine.
Their alibi: it is too expensive for
members to have the wine.
Conclusion: you disobeyed the
commandment. Even if wine is expensive but the words of god is incomparable.
Jb 23:12 “Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his
lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary [food].”
Pr 3:13 “Happy [is] the man [that] findeth wisdom, and the man
[that] getteth understanding.
Pr 3:14 For the merchandise of it [is] better than the merchandise
of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.
Pr 3:15 She [is] more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto
her.”
Wine is expensive but
rubies is more expensive than wine. The word of god is more precious than it
all. You prefer to defer bec of the expensiveness of wine than to obey the
words of god, isn’t that strange?
_____________________________________
Q. 522. Which are the
attributes of the Church?
A. The attributes of the
Church are three: 1.authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.
Q. 526. What do you mean by
the infallibility of the Church?
A. By the infallibility of
the Church I mean that the Church can not err when it teaches a doctrine of
faith or morals.
--baltimore
cathecism.
_____________________________________
Read my other posts, more of their strange “erroneous” doctrines exposed.
You imposed a challenge: where is your source that the early
Christians were not catholics?
No. they are catholic bec they are not divided but
not papal catholics as you. My source? The bible. by doctrinal proofs.
Ok, I read the remaining post it is not good
arguments anymore.
Folks! I think this short snappy response is
sufficient along with my previous posts to prove your religion false and
satanic, I don’t mean the members but your leaders and your doctrines and faith
for they are tainted with heresies, but members must not be qualified with them
for they do it by ignorance. Being blind your idol worship and heresies are not
imputed as your sin, but in times when you know the truth and prefer to adhere
to your catholic faith then it becomes a sin to you an unpardonable sin.
Jn 9:41 “Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no
sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”
Ac 17:29 “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought
not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by
art and man's device.
Ac 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent:”
As you noticed with my posts, I only used the bible
to prove christianity bec never can a man proves it by any other means but the
bible alone, not historically or scholarly but only doctrinally. The bible is
sufficient in itself as god assured.
Isa 34:16 “SEEK YE OUT OF THE BOOK OF THE LORD AND READ, NO ONE OF
THIS SHALL FAIL, NONE SHALL WANT HER MATE: for my mouth it hath commanded, and
his spirit it hath gathered them.”
NO ONE OF THIS SHALL FAIL, NONE SHALL WANT HER MATE (or
partner like history and scholars etc…)
It must only be by
doctrines.
Jn 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be
of God, or [whether] I
speak of myself.
Jn 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he
that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness
is in him.”
By Christ alone-not
by scholars or history.
Col 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
I hope god open your eyes.
THIS I SAY TO ALL
POPES:
Ac 13:10 “And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief,
[thou] child of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not
cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?”
Below is the debate procedure between Bro Eli
Soriano and a catholic apologist. I hope you give time to watch it and see how
a MINISTER in the true church “THE CHURCH OF GOD” debates.
BRO ELI SORIANO VS A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST: WATCH THIS VIDEO! CLICK ME OPEN!
Truly yours,
PS: more of it from this site> nobiblicalcontradiction
No comments:
Post a Comment