Judaism and Catholicism

[FireSword]

The apostles and their successors functioned in two ways: some were permanently attached to a particular city and geographical area where they cared for the spiritual welfare of a community of Christians, while others, inspired by the words of their founder commanding them to teach all peoples and nations, traveled to distant lands spreading the message of their faith. These leaders roamed far from the Mid-Eastern cradle of Christianity, penetrating even such remote countries as India, as did the apostle Thomas. Apostles of Jesus such as Thomas, Bartholomew, and Andrew, who did not remain in fixed residences caring for an established community, may thus be regarded as the first traveling, or "wandering," bishops.

    Later, other categories of wandering bishops came upon the scene. Emperor Constantine established Christianity as the state religion of his realm and proceeded to enforce an artificial unity on the Christian communities. Prior to this time, there was a strong pluralistic orientation of such communities and of their leaders. Acknowledging a common devotion to Christ and his teachings, they differed widely in doctrine and practice. With Constantine conditions changed; "orthodoxy" was declared as binding upon all. Those who did not conform were forced to leave the community and often their places of residence. They became wanderers. Gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, and other non-conforming Christian leaders became wandering bishops. A new trend was created. Those who conformed to emperor and bishop were allowed to remain in office and enjoy the support of the state, while those who dissented were invited to depart and became wanderers. Yet, such wanderers were not without followers, for kindred, dissenting clergy and congregants rallied around wherever they went, often impelling the orthodox authorities to acts of persecution. The rest of the story is a familiar and sorrowful one.

    From early times, transmission of apostolic authority existed outside of the mainstream of the churches of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and others. Many of these transmissions were condemned by their "big brothers" as heretical. Curiously, the validity of their apostolic orders was acknowledged by their critics. Due to an early tradition, articulated but not invented b y St. Augustine, the orthodoxy and validity of apostolic succession were not considered identical. Bishops could be heretics, yet could exercise their office as stewards of the sacraments in a valid manner. This doctrine (known as the Augustinian doctrine of orders) has been held to this day by the Roman Catholic Church. Provided the "wandering ones" held the same intentions when ordaining their successors as those traditionally held by sacramental Christendom over the ages, they could pass on their sacred powers and administer the sacraments in a manner that the popes would recognize as valid. Such is the character and status of the so-called wandering bishops as they exist today.

[winsome]

The apostles and their successors functioned in two ways: some were permanently attached to a particular city and geographical area where they cared for the spiritual welfare of a community of Christians, while others, inspired by the words of their founder commanding them to teach all peoples and nations, traveled to distant lands spreading the message of their faith. These leaders roamed far from the Mid-Eastern cradle of Christianity, penetrating even such remote countries as India, as did the apostle Thomas. Apostles of Jesus such as Thomas, Bartholomew, and Andrew, who did not remain in fixed residences caring for an established community, may thus be regarded as the first traveling, or "wandering," bishops.

    Later, other categories of wandering bishops came upon the scene. Emperor Constantine established Christianity as the state religion of his realm and proceeded to enforce an artificial unity on the Christian communities. Prior to this time, there was a strong pluralistic orientation of such communities and of their leaders. Acknowledging a common devotion to Christ and his teachings, they differed widely in doctrine and practice. With Constantine conditions changed; "orthodoxy" was declared as binding upon all. Those who did not conform were forced to leave the community and often their places of residence. They became wanderers. Gnostic, Arian, Nestorian, Monophysite, and other non-conforming Christian leaders became wandering bishops. A new trend was created. Those who conformed to emperor and bishop were allowed to remain in office and enjoy the support of the state, while those who dissented were invited to depart and became wanderers. Yet, such wanderers were not without followers, for kindred, dissenting clergy and congregants rallied around wherever they went, often impelling the orthodox authorities to acts of persecution. The rest of the story is a familiar and sorrowful one.

    From early times, transmission of apostolic authority existed outside of the mainstream of the churches of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and others. Many of these transmissions were condemned by their "big brothers" as heretical. Curiously, the validity of their apostolic orders was acknowledged by their critics. Due to an early tradition, articulated but not invented b y St. Augustine, the orthodoxy and validity of apostolic succession were not considered identical. Bishops could be heretics, yet could exercise their office as stewards of the sacraments in a valid manner. This doctrine (known as the Augustinian doctrine of orders) has been held to this day by the Roman Catholic Church. Provided the "wandering ones" held the same intentions when ordaining their successors as those traditionally held by sacramental Christendom over the ages, they could pass on their sacred powers and administer the sacraments in a manner that the popes would recognize as valid. Such is the character and status of the so-called wandering bishops as they exist today.

Firesword,

When you plagiarise someone else's work you are supposed to give an attribution, like http://gnosis.org/wandering_bishops.htm

1. The apsotles by their nature were sent out as missionaries (Mt 28:19-20). By their very nature any missionary was on the move. But the vast majority of bishops were fixed.

2. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion so that blows up the second paragraph.

3. Yes there are some groups that are not attached to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches that have valid orders but they are a very tiny minority. They are not smart Christians as they have fallen away from the truth into heresy.

[FireSword]

Firesword,

When you plagiarise someone else's work you are supposed to give an attribution, like http://gnosis.org/wandering_bishops.htm

1. The apsotles by their nature were sent out as missionaries (Mt 28:19-20). By their very nature any missionary was on the move. But the vast majority of bishops were fixed.

2. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion so that blows up the second paragraph.

3. Yes there are some groups that are not attached to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches that have valid orders but they are a very tiny minority. They are not smart Christians as they have fallen away from the truth into heresy.

I hope my criticsm of your church has not weakened your faith in the church, but then again that which is built on sand will not stand, only faith in the rock Jesus will be left standing.
I did not claim that article to be mine, so how could I plagarize it? Also the forum rules does not allow links on the forum, so how can I reference it.

Then what of Constantine. Every subject relating to Constantine that Protestants bring up Catholics here deny the writings. Then they agree with the writings, when they speak, such as saying, 'constantine made RCC the official religion but did not create it' So how can it not be the states religion if its the official one.

As for point three, you admit then, that it was not fancifull imagination, but in fact, that there were wandering bishops, who turned against the pope, just like the early Protestants {this aspect no longer applies to modern Protestants, since we never were part of the holy see}.

[LightHammer]

Firesword,

When you plagiarise someone else's work you are supposed to give an attribution, like http://gnosis.org/wandering_bishops.htm

1. The apsotles by their nature were sent out as missionaries (Mt 28:19-20). By their very nature any missionary was on the move. But the vast majority of bishops were fixed.

2. Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion so that blows up the second paragraph.

3. Yes there are some groups that are not attached to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches that have valid orders but they are a very tiny minority. They are not smart Christians as they have fallen away from the truth into heresy.

I hope my criticsm of your church has not weakened your faith in the church, but then again that which is built on sand will not stand, only faith in the rock Jesus will be left standing.
I did not claim that article to be mine, so how could I plagarize it? Also the forum rules does not allow links on the forum, so how can I reference it.

Then what of Constantine. Every subject relating to Constantine that Protestants bring up Catholics here deny the writings. Then they agree with the writings, when they speak, such as saying, 'constantine made RCC the official religion but did not create it' So how can it not be the states religion if its the official one.

As for point three, you admit then, that it was not fancifull imagination, but in fact, that there were wandering bishops, who turned against the pope, just like the early Protestants {this aspect no longer applies to modern Protestants, since we never were part of the holy see}.

1. This forum does allow and recommend links to foreign aricles albeit it is not mandatory.

2. You're not following. Constantine did not make the Christianity the official religion of the empire. He made it a legal and officially recognized religion.

Here's an example. In Saudi Arabia the official religion is Islam. No other religion is tolerated and therefore is illegal to practice in Saudi Arabia. If tomorrow the King of Saudi Arabia declares Christianity legal that does not make Christianity the official religion of Saudi Arabia but a legally permissible one.

3. There were no "wandering bishops" who turned against the Pope. Winsome never agreed with your baseless claim for which you provide no evidence.

[mclees8]

Winsome says

Why would anyone pass on authority to an evil person?

Why do you think such a thing would happen all the time?

Jesus promised to protect his Church from falling into teaching error


first 2 it happens because of apostasy that starts out as inocent but with time it comes to fulll bloom. It is like cancer small and un-noticed but if not caught in time the person dies. apostasy is insidious. It is a gradual falling back into worldlyness and carnal ambitions. when this happens the holy Spirit departs and the church will fall pray to false ideals. In the case of the papacy the bishops of Rome were not men truly guided of the Holy Spirit but guided of their own ambitions

It was the third that really got me. Since when did Jesus promise the church would not fall into teaching error. What scripture please. All throught the New Testament we are warned of false teachers. Jesus specificlly warns us in Matt 24:24  For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

[Amo]

1. To say that what the early Christians wrote does not compare with that of the apostles is a meaningless statement. We can always compare two things. At the very minimum the writings of the early fathers are historical records.

Is it meaningless that the Apostles were hand picked by the Son of God to continue building upon the foundation He laid Himself, being the chief corner stone of the household of God? Were the early fathers you speak of attended with the miraculous power which the Apostles displayed to the glory of God, and by His power?

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Eph 2:18-22 (KJV)

Apart from Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, the apostles and prophets themselves are part of the foundation of the church. Their testimony is not to be contradicted, being themselves part of the foundation which Christ laid.

None of that is relevant to the point I made.

Yes it is relevant. When comparing the two, the latter are judged by the former, and never the other way around. Nor is there any authority from the supposed church fathers to change or contradict the testimony of Christ and the apostles.

Moreover many of them were very seriously being considered for inclusion in the canon of NT scripture well into the third century, for example the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabus the Shepherd of Hermas, and others. And some of what was incorporated into the canon was under dispute until into the fourth century, for example Hebrews, Revelation,  2Peter and others.

Considered by who? The New Testament contains the writings of the Apostles alone, and this is for a reason. Or do you suppose God messed up when He personally saw to the formation of the New Testament?

Actually it isn't .

We don't know who wrote Hebrews.

Mark was not an Apostles, nor was Luke.

Neither are your comments relevant to what I said.

Though a valid one, a minor point at best. The new Testament scriptures are the written record of the words and actions of Christ and His apostles. Some no doubt written by the apostles themselves, most however probably dictated to others for writing, or written by contemporaries of their own day. Thus being accepted, approved, and supported by the apostles themselves. The following articles are from Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

The Gospel According to Mark
Preface

Of Mark, the writer of this gospel, little is certainly known. He is commonly supposed to be the same that is several times mentioned in the New Testament. He was not an apostle, or companion of the Lord Jesus, during his ministry, though some of the Fathers affirm that he was one of the seventy disciples. This is improbable, as he is mentioned by Peter (1 Peter 5:13) as his son; from which it is supposed that he was converted by the instrumentality of Peter.
 
From the New Testament, we learn that he was sister's son to Barnabas, (Colossians 4:10;) and that his mother's name was Mary, a pious woman in Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and primitive Christians often assembled, Acts 12:12.
 
His Hebrew name was John, (Acts 12:12,) and it is probable that he adopted a name better known, or more familiar, when he visited the Gentiles, a practice not uncommon in that age. He was at first the companion of Paul and Barnabas, in their journeys to propagate Christianity, Acts 13:5. He chose not to attend them through their whole journey, but left them in Pamphylia, and probably returned to Jerusalem, Acts 15:38. Probably at this time he was the companion of Peter, and travelled with him to Babylon, 1 Peter 5:13. Afterwards he went with Barnabas to Cyprus, Acts 15:39. Subsequently he went to Rome, at the express desire of Paul, in company with Timothy, 2 Timothy 4:11. He remained at Rome while Paul was a captive there, but how long is uncertain, Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24. From Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome, we hear that Mark went from Rome to Alexandria, in Egypt, where he planted a church, and died and was buried in the eighth year of the reign of Nero, a.d. 64.
 
The time when this gospel was written is not certainly known. It is supposed to have been between the years 56 and 63. It is allowed by all that it was written at Rome; of course, it was during the latter years of his life, after the apostles had left Judea, Mark 16:20. Mark was, for a considerable time, the companion of Peter. Though he had not himself been with the Saviour in his ministry, yet, from his long acquaintance with Peter, he was familiar with the events of his life, and with his instructions. The uniform testimony of the Fathers is, that he was the interpreter of Peter, and that he wrote this Gospel under the eye of Peter, and with his approbation. It has come down to us, therefore, with the sanction of Peter's authority. Its right to a place among the inspired books has never been questioned. That it was written by Mark; that it was with Peter's approbation; that it was a record of the facts which Peter stated in his ministry; and that it was, therefore, an inspired book has never been questioned.
—Barnes' Notes on the New Testament

The Gospel According to Luke
Preface

Little is certainly known concerning the time and place of writing this Gospel, or concerning the author. The first time we have any mention of the author is in his own history, Acts 16:10,11. He was then the companion of Paul in his travel, and it is evident that he often attended Paul in his journeys, comp. Acts 16:11-17; 21:1-6. In each of these places the author of "the Acts" speaks of his being in company with Paul. That the same person was the writer of this Gospel is also clear from Acts 1:1.
 
From this circumstance the ancients regarded this Gospel as in fact the Gospel which Paul had preached. They affirm that Luke recorded what the apostle preached. Thus Irenaeus says, "Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him." He also says, "Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul." Origen, speaking of the Gospels, says, "The third is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts." The testimony of the fathers is uniform that it was written by Luke, the companion of Paul, and was therefore regarded by them as really the gospel which Paul preached.
 
It is not known where it was written. Jerome says it was composed in Achaia. There seems to be some probability that it was written to persons that were well acquainted with Jewish manners, as the author does not stop to explain the peculiar customs of the Jews, as some of the other evangelists have done. Respecting the time when it was written nothing very definite is known. All that can with certainty be ascertained is that it was written before the death of Paul (a.d. 65), for it was written before the Acts (Acts 1:1), and that book only brings down the life of Paul to his imprisonment at Rome, and previous to his going into Spain.
 
It has been made a matter of inquiry whether Luke was a Gentile or a Jew. On this subject there is no positive testimony. Jerome and others of the fathers say that he was a Syrian, and born at Antioch. The most probable opinion seems to be that he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, though descended from Gentile parents. For this opinion two reasons may be assigned of some weight. 1st. He was intimately acquainted, as appears by the Gospel and the Acts, with the Jewish rites, customs, opinions, and prejudices; and he wrote in their dialect, that is, with much of the Hebrew phraseology, in a style similar to the other evangelists, from which it appears that he was accustomed to the Jewish religion, and was, therefore, probably a proselyte. Yet the preface to his Gospel, as critics have remarked, is pure classic Greek, unlike the Greek that was used by native Jews; from which it seems not improbable that he was by birth and education a Gentile.
 
2nd. In Acts 21:27, it is said that the Asiatic Jews excited the multitude against Paul because he had introduced Gentiles into the temple, thus defiling it. In Acts 21:28 it is said that the Gentile to whom they had reference was Trophimus, an Ephesian. Yet Luke was also at that time with Paul. If he had been regarded as a Gentile it is probable that they would have made complaint respecting him as well as Trophimus; from which it is supposed that he was a Jewish proselyte.
 
But again, in the Epistle to the Colossians, Colossians 4:9-11, we find Paul saying that Aristarchus, and Marcus, and Barnabas, and Justus saluted them, "who are," he adds, "of the circumcision," that is, Jews by birth. In Colossians 4:14 he says that Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas also saluted them; from which it is inferred that they were not of the circumcision, but were by birth Gentiles.
 
Most writers suppose that Luke, the writer of this Gospel, was intended in the above place in Colossians. If so, his profession was that of a physician; and it has been remarked that his descriptions of diseases are more accurate and circumstantial, and have more of technical correctness than those of the other evangelists.
 
Luke does not profess to have been an eye-witness of what he recorded. See Luke 1:2,3. It is clear, therefore, that he was not one of the seventy disciples, nor one of the two who went to Emmaus, as has been sometimes supposed. Nor was he an apostle. By the fathers he is uniformly called the companion of the apostles, and especially of Paul.
 
If he was not one of the apostles, and if he was not one of those expressly commissioned by our Lord to whom the promise of the infallible teaching of the Holy Ghost was given, the question arises by what authority his Gospel and the Acts have a place in the sacred canon, or what evidence is there that he was divinely inspired?
 
In regard to this question the following considerations may give satisfaction:
 
1st. They were received by all the churches on the same footing as the first three Gospels. There is not a dissenting voice in regard to their authenticity and authority. The value of this argument is this-that if they had been spurious, or without authority, the fathers were the proper persons to know it.
 
2nd. They were published during the lives of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, and were received during their lives as books of sacred authority. If the writings of Luke were not inspired, and had no authority, those apostles could easily have destroyed their credit, and we have reason to think it would have been done.
 
3rd. It is the united testimony of the fathers that this Gospel was submitted to Paul, and received his express approbation. It was regarded as the substance of his preaching, and if it received his approbation it comes to us on the authority of his name. Indeed, if this be the case, it rests on the same authority as the epistles of Paul himself.
 
4th. It bears the same marks of inspiration as the other books. It is simple, pure, yet sublime; there is nothing unworthy of God; and it is elevated far above the writings of any uninspired man.
 
5th. If he was not inspired-if, as we suppose, he was a Gentile by birth-and if, as is most clear, he was not an eyewitness witness of what he records, it is inconceivable that he did not contradict the other evangelists. That he did not borrow from them is clear. Nor is it possible to conceive that he could write a book varying in the order of its arrangement so much, and adding so many new facts, and repeating so many recorded also by the others, without often having contradicted what was written by them. Let any man compare this Gospel with the spurious gospels of the following centuries, and he will be struck with the force of this remark.
 
6th. If it be objected that, not being an apostle, he did not come within the promise of inspiration (John 14:26, 16:13,14) made to the apostles, it may be replied that this was also the case with Paul; yet no small part of the New Testament is composed of his writings. The evidence of the inspiration of the writings of Luke and Paul is to be judged, not only by that promise, but by the early reception of the churches; by the testimony of the fathers as to the judgment of inspired men when living, and by the internal character of the works. Luke has all these equally with the other evangelists.
—Barnes' Notes on the New Testament

Yes, the Holy Spirit who is God, who is one with Jesus, who is the Word of God. What was given by the Holy Spirit of God, was given by God the Father, and God the Son also, for they are one. Your point takes nothing away from the fact that the scriptures are the word of God to humanity, and above all earthly authority. Whoever claims authority above God's word is verily antichrist.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; John 17:14-20 (KJV)

Again you do not reply to what I said. Let me make this point clear.

Many protestants confusing three different meanings of "the word of God" or "God's word"

A.   Jesus is the Word of God (with a capital "W"). Sometimes Protestants talk about the Bible as the Word of God The Bible is not Jesus. Jesus is not the Bible
Scripture does not say "In the beginning was the Bible and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God."

B. Scripture was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That is why it is described as God-breathed, the Holy Spirit being breathed (spirated) by God, his Rhua. There are therefore two authors to scripture, men and the Holy Spirit. In that sense of authorship is scripture the word of God. However this should not be confused with the third meaning of the word of God - the actual words that God spoke.

C. The third meaning of the word of God is the actual words that God spoke, either directly ("let there be light") or indirectly though men (as when a prophet says "It is the Lord who speaks").
In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; (Heb 1:1).

Not all of scripture is the actual words of God. Paul makes this quite clear:
I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord)..... (1Cor 7:10)
To the rest I say (not the Lord).... (1Cor 7:12)

You need to separate out these three meaning clearly and not confuse them

I am well aware of the above. We both know it. Apparently though, you wish to minimize the very intimate, integral, and indissoluble connection between them, while I wish to exalt the same. Seeing that the topic we are both addressing is the authority of the word of God, it is not hard to understand why one belonging to the institution you do, would want to minimize the same. The true church always exalts the authority of the word of God, while the false church always seeks to minimize the same. The history of your church in relation to the scriptures is certainly no testimony to it's love for having and sharing it's words.

I am confusing nothing. To the contrary, I am seeking to establish the truth in relation to the subject at hand. Those inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, gave messages from God. The messages spoken directly from God were of course from God. Christ who was, is, and always will be the Word of God, of course also spoke the word of God. Their connection is intimate, integral , and indissoluble. Of course, that which the apostles clearly stated was their own thoughts or words, were just that.

Why do you think one of the many titles given to Christ in the scriptures is, The Word of God?

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Heb 1:1-3 (KJV)

Your problem is with the authority of the word of God, not me.

[Amo]

Jesus was the Son of God. He gave authority to His Apostles because they believed His words, which were of course the word of God. It was their faith in the word of God that gave them the authority of the same, not anything of themselves. The same holds true for all others. Either the authority of God's word backs them up, or it does not. The bible is that standard which determines the same. You are wrong, it is not the person, it is the word of God, and their faith in it, or not.

That is not how authority works.
 
Authority lies with persons. They are given it by a person who has authority to speak and act in their name, under their authority.

God has given us His word. When we speak and act according to it, then we are backed up by His authority. This is called faith. When we do not speak or act in accordance with God's expressed will through His word, we are not backed up by the same. If one who is given authority starts to speak and act contrary to the expressed will of the one who gave them authority in the first place, that authority they were given will naturally be revoked. This is basic, if you cannot see it, it simply because you do not want to.

22 And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, journeyed from Kadesh, and came unto mount Hor. 23 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, 24 Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah. Num 20:22-24 (KJV)
 
Aaron was appointed High Priest by God Himself, and certainly had authority as such. However, when he rebelled against God's word he lost that authority and his life before being able to enter the promised land as the High Priest of Israel.

Exactly. You make my point. Aaron was given authority by God. The authority was then Aaron's not some books.
 
And yes, the one who gives authority can take it away.

Yes, it was taken away because Aaron rebelled against God's word. The authority was given and or taken away in relation to compliance to the word of God or not. Enough of this trifling. No one has God's authority while contradicting His expressed will. This fact alone clearly reveals that the authority is in God and His word alone, not the one merely representing either.

48 And the Lord spake unto Moses that selfsame day, saying, 49 Get thee up into this mountain Abarim, unto mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, that is over against Jericho; and behold the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel for a possession: 50 And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people; as Aaron thy brother died in mount Hor, and was gathered unto his people: 51 Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel. 52 Yet thou shalt see the land before thee; but thou shalt not go thither unto the land which I give the children of Israel. Deut 32:48-52 (KJV)
 
7 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink. 9 And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock? 11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. 12 And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. Num 20:7-12 (KJV)
 
Moses was highly exalted by God on many an occasion. Apart from Christ Himself, probably no man on earth performed so many and such great miracles by the power of the Lord. He was selected by God to lead His people out of Egyptian slavery and into the promised land. No man or power of earth could stand before him while he faithfully fulfilled the word of God. Yet, when he disobeyed God, and presumed to be the one giving Israel water with, or in the place of God, he lost the privilege of leading them into the promised land, and died right on it's borders.
 
20 And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back: 21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee, 22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers. 1 Kings 13:20-22 (KJV)
 
The above prophet of God, did not do as the Lord commanded and lost his authority as a prophet and died shortly thereafter.

Exactly – Moses was given authority by God, not a book

Where is Moses now? Where is his authority? He is gone, but God's word to him is recorded and still with us. It has as much authority now, as it had then. This is because it is the word of God, not man. Again, you will not see this because you do not want to see it. You belong to an institution which claims authority above and beyond the scriptures, thus you must deny the authoritative validity of the same. Is this not why your church persecuted and killed so many throughout history? Yes, because they would not submit to your usurped authority.

Thus today your church admonishes it's adherents to support it by exalting it's social doctrines and teachings through legislation with or without the will of all concerned. Which you will eventually do also concerning church doctrine as soon as you have the power to do so. All of this because you believe you have power which God never gave you, and never sanctioned.
 

13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; 14 And enquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse. 1 Chron 10:13-14 (KJV)
 
Saul was appointed king of Israel by God Himself, and even prophesied by the Spirit of God. When he acted against the word of the Lord though, the kingdom was taken from him, and he and his sons died in battle. It is not the person, it is the word of God! God's chosen have authority because of their faith in His word, without which they will lose the same.
 
19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it. Luke 8:19-21 (KJV)
 
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24 (KJV)
 
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. 30 As he spake these words, many believed on him. 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:28-32 (KJV)
 
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. John 12:47-50 (KJV)
 
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. 25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:23-26 (KJV)
 
It is the word of God, the word of God, the word of God! Not the person. Read the book of Hebrews chapter 11 and see what God's people accomplished by faith in God's word. God's word I say, not in themselves, or some position given to them by God, but by God's word to them.

You keep making the same point. God gives authority and God takes it away. But authority lies with people not a book.

You keep denying the authority of God's word above that of people, because your institution is about establishing the authority of man, not God. Thus is your church always seeking power through legislation and the laws of humanity rather than the law of God which you yourselves have attempted to change. Since you so often contradict and exceed and add to the word of God, you must seek power to do the same. Which means you must exalt people or institutions above His word, that you may pursue a course of action contrary to the same.

You never have, you do not, and you never will have more authority than the scriptures. The more you assert and attempt to establish such usurped authority, the more conflict you will have with those who will not allow for it. The closer you come to actually establishing such usurped authority in this world again, the closer you will be to once again persecuting and killing in the name of that power again also. If you seek the power of this world through legislation in spiritual matters, you cannot avoid persecution as a result of the same.

[Amo]

When and where did Jesus pass even some of that authority to the Bible, especially to the books that hadn't even been written then when Jesus was on the earth?

You are completely ignoring all the many scriptures I have already shared concerning the word of God. Again, and again I say, this you must of course do, in order to establish the authority of your institution above the authority of the word of God. Will you now deny that Christ and His apostles had the Holy Spirit of God, which the scriptures themselves testify to over and over again? Were they not filled with the Holy Spirit when they lived and taught that which is recorded in the New Testament scriptures? Do you not understand then that the records of the New Testament are just as Holy Spirit inspired and enlightened as those of the Old Testament?

Of course you do. You are however at war with the authority of the same, therefore you downplay the significance and authority of them. You exalt the authority of persons above and beyond the same, because your church is built upon the authority of humanity, rather than the authority of God.
 
There is nothing new here. What are we arguing, but exactly what Luther and Rome argued in the 1500's. What all true Protestants and Rome have argued throughout their history. You and yours will continue to propagate and institute your usurped authority wherever possible, and true Protestants will deny the same in favor of the word of God. You are bound to win the struggle here on this earth, for you have, do, can, and will exceed and contradict the word of God in order to establish your authority. This no true Christian can do. Though all who do such will lose their souls for eternity.

However Jesus did Jesus pass some of that authority to the apostles:
 
"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Mt 16:19)
 
"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven".(Mt 18:18)
 
"When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 'If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'" (Jn 20:22-23)
 
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.'"(Mt 28:19-20) - authority to teach and baptise.
 
"Do this in memory of me" (Lk 22;10) Instituting the Eucharist.
 
We can see the apostles exercising this authority as in "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials:...." (Acts 15:28)

Jesus passed authority on to the Apostles because they believed the word of God He spoke to them. Thus the authority of their own words as recorded as eye witnesses and trustees of the words of Christ spoken to them. This included of course all the power of God that went along with their commission from God to preach the gospel of Christ.

They didn't get authority because they believed the word of God. They got authority because Jesus commission them and gave the authority.

One simple question answered honestly, will undermine your entire argument. Will you answer it honestly? If any of the apostles did not believe Christ's words, and acted accordingly, would Christ have given them any of His authority? There is no way around it, the answer is no. This is not to mention the fact again of course, that you are ignoring all the scriptures I have given concerning ones authority based upon their acceptance or not of the word of God. Instead, you pit the above scriptures against the same to your own end. This is truly not, rightly dividing the word of God.

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31-32 (KJV)

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mt 28:18-20)
 
He told them to act and speak in his name.
 
How does a police officer get his authority to arrest someone?
Does he get it by reading a police manual?
No, He gets it by some process of commissioning by the Police Chief.

He gets his authority from a written law. He has no authority to enforce his own ideas, or those of anyone else for that matter, he enforces that which is on the books as approved by whoever does such. Hopefully by the will and authority of those he is policing. If he himself breaks those written laws, he loses his authority, and pays the penalty of that written law. Why will you continue to trifle with the word of God?
 

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31-32 (KJV)
 
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
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. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. John 17:6-23 (KJV)
 
It is the word of God, the word of God, the word of God! Not the person, or position given. The authority of the true church comes from the word of God, or not at all.

No, authority is given by someone who has it to someone who hasn't to act and speak in that person's name.
 
Let me give you a Biblical example
Take the example of the centurion with the sick servant in Mt 8:5-10. The centurion approaches Jesus and asks him to cure his servant.

You keep saying no to the word of God. Now you speak of a Roman and his authority as such as an example of what true authority is, as apposed to the authority of the word of God clearly revealed in the scriptures. You are in serious denial. Very well, let us examine your scriptures which actually speak to the exact opposite effect of what you are trying to manipulate them into saying.

 

Verse 9 is a key verse For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes;
 
 The Centurion has authority because of his rank, given him by those above him. I don't know the structure of the Roman Army but ultimately his authority comes from Caesar himself. When he gives an order to a soldier it was as if Caesar himself was standing there giving the order. To disobey the Centurion was to disobey Caesar.
 
 Or we could put it another way - for a soldier to listen to the centurion was to listen to Caesar; to reject the centurion was to reject Caesar.
 
 When the centurion said to Jesus "For I too am a person under authority" he was acknowledging that Jesus too had authority from above and that his word was sufficient to cure his servant Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed .(verse 8) This is why Jesus was astonished at the faith of the centurion.
 
 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith (verse 10).

You missed the entire point of the above scriptures because you read them with the intent of supporting what you already believe, instead of taking the actual lesson at hand. The authority being addressed in the scriptures you shared was the authority of the word of God, which Christ spoke, not the giving of ones authority to another. The point of the soldier was that Christ need not go to his servant to heal him, or send someone to do so, but that the word of Christ alone had the authority and power to perform the thing spoken. It is the word of God that has power in and of itself to perform that which is spoken. You missed this point, because you were not reading the scripture to learn, but rather to use it to support your own views.

Your other point is moot also. Soldiers who exceed the orders of those above them are on their own. Those who contradict the same are court marshaled, and lose all authority.

 

Now move on to Luke 9:1-6 and Luke 10:1-6 Jesus enunciates these two principles with the disciples he send out on mission.He summoned the Twelve and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,  and he sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal (the sick).(Lk 9:1-2)  He gives them authority to act and authority to speak in his name. And he sums this up in verse 16 - Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.
 
 That is a universal principle when Jesus gives someone a task, a mission, an office under his authority.
 
 Thus when Jesus sends the apostles out on the great mission with the great commission in Mt 28:19-20
 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. He gives the apostles the authority to act and to speak in his name, and the "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." applies to them.

Which authority He never gives to any but those who already believe His words and the authority of the same. Which fact is always established first. No one ever gives their authority to someone they know has no respect for their own. Duh! This is a no brainer.

No one who contradicts the already expressed will of God, then receives authority from Him. Even those who have received authority from Him, lose it when they willingly go against His already expressed will. The scriptures contain His already expressed will.
 

The letters from Paul to Timothy and Titus record Paul appointing them to set up or oversee churches and giving them the authority to teach, just as the apostles were given authority by Jesus.
 
"Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us." (2 Tim 1:13-14)
 
Paul instructs Timothy & Titus to pass on authority:
And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2Tim 2:2)
"I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you: .......... (Ti 1:5)
 
And to be careful who they choose:
 
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity.. (1Tim 3:1-4)
 
For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; ........... He must have a firm grasp of the word that is trustworthy in accordance with the teaching, so that he may be able both to preach with sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it." (Tit1:7,9)
 
We see authority passed from the apostles to the deacons in Acts 2 "They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them." Philip the deacon went off to Samaria and taught and baptised, just as the apostles had been told to do, and thereby given the authority to do.
 
The passing on of authority is done by the laying on of hands, for example Acts 6:6, 1Tim 4:14 2Tim 5:22.

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 1 Tim 6:3-5 (KJV)

10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim 3:10-17 (KJV)

1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Tim 4:1-4 (KJV)

6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. Titus 1:6-9 (KJV)

1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: 2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. 3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. 6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. 7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8 Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. 9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; 10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. Titus 2:1-10 (KJV)

No one who did not believe the teachings of Christ and the apostles, and were not actively involved in sharing the same, received any authority from them. Nor did, are, or will any ever receive authority from the same, save they submit themselves to the same, but by fraud.

All of the authority passed on was only to those who also subjected themselves to the authority of the word of God. No person can pass on any power from God but to one who also subjects themselves to the word of God. There is no magic or hocus pocus apart from this. There is no authority apart from, or above, or beyond God's authority which is based upon His word alone which is living and active and able to discern and judge all.
 
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Heb 4:12-13 (KJV) .

There is no Biblical support for your view. When Paul commissioned Timothy and Titus there were no NT scriptures for them to be subject to.
 
Paul passed on his authority to them. Full stop!

You are willingly ignorant of the truth. Not to mention, just not very intelligent if you actually believe any authority would be passed on to someone who did not even acknowledge the teachings and authority of the one passing it on to them. This would be foolish and no one in their right mind would do it. It is a prerequisite to the passing on of all authority, that the one receiving such, believe in and have subjected themselves to the ones bequeathing their authority upon them. This is to basic to argue about, however you refuse to see it, because you have rejected the authority of the word of God in favor of an institution and the people running it.
 

This is how authority was passed on from the apostles to bishops & priests down the ages.
 
The record of the passing on of authority is not just in scripture, but in the records of the early church, for example:-
 
Pope Clement I (writing in about 80AD)
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Clement was not a Pope. There was no Pope during his day. Nor has the authority of the leaders of the Roman Catholic church been passed on in the manner described above over the centuries. Do you really want to get into an examination of historical fact regarding the passing on of papal authority over the centuries? I would not recommend it, it would not go well for you or your cause on this board. It would wholly disprove everything you just built up in defense of the usurped authority claimed by the Roman Catholic church. Nevertheless, we can go there if you want.

Yes there was. It's a historical fact.

Then present the evidence, that we may examine it.
 

Jesus gave his authority to the apostles and told them to teach.
He also gave us a principle about his authority "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Lk 10:16).
Jesus is the final authority and he gave that to the leaders of his Church. To listen to them is to listen to Jesus. To reject them is to reject Jesus.

The above is correct concerning Jesus and the Apostles. This in no way shape or form means though, that all are to blindly follow whoever claims to have received authority from Jesus and the Apostles. To the contrary, all must know what Jesus and the Apostles said, in order to properly determine who has truly received authority in submission to their words. It is the word of God that is the real authority, not just anyone who claims to have received authority from Christ or the Apostles. If they have, let their teachings be examined and compared to the same for authenticity. If they refuse or believe they are above the same, then they are a false system and antichrist.

Scripture clearly shows that authority was passed on.
 
If you deny it you are denying the words of scripture

I am not denying any such thing, but only your false claim that that authority was passed on to your church which exceeds and contradicts the word of God in many areas. Which also has a past filled with corruption, deceit, greed, and bloodshed. Not to mention an extremely unhealthy relationship with one abusive form of government after another throughout it's history.

4. No Catholic doctrine contradicts scripture and no scripture contradicts Catholic doctrine. That is because they come from the same source - the deposit of faith that Jesus entruested to the apostles, and with Jesus' guarantee that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. (Jn 16:13). Jesus has not abandoned his Church and continues the lead the Church into all truth.

Sorry, say and believe whatever you will, this will never give you any authority over anyone. Back it up by the word of God, and you will have the authority you are speaking of, but not because of anything in you, only because of the power and authority of God's word. You will never convince those who have and study the word of God for themselves that you and yours are God's authority on earth.

I've backed up what I said by scripture.. You just need to read it.

Certainly not from what I have seen. I have read every word and scripture you have written to me. Your argument is extremely weak from a scriptural perspective. The scriptures you have used either present no real argument against what I am saying in and of themselves, or are taken out of context to your own ends. We are not arguing at all simply about authority being passed on, which we both acknowledge, but rather what qualifications are necessary to the same. You have presented nothing refuting the fact that submission to the already expressed will of God written in the scriptures, is necessary to receiving authority from the same.
 

Since you brought up Clement, whom you falsely claim to be a very early Pope, let's examine some of his words, in relation to that of a much later Pope. Emphasis mine.
 
 
ST. CLEMENT. EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS
 
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS
 
CHAPTER 13
AN EXHORTATION TO HUMILITY
Let us therefore, brethren, be of humble mind, laying aside all haughtiness,
and pride, and foolishness, and angry feelings; and let us act according to
that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, "Let not the wise man
glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither
let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in the
Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness"),
being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake,
teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be ye
merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to
you; as ye do, so shall it be done unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be
judged; as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what
measure ye mete, with the same it shall be measured to you." By this
precept and by these rules let us stablish ourselves, that we walk with all
humility in obedience to His holy words. For the holy word saith, "On
whom shall I look, but on him that is meek and peaceable, and that
trembleth at My words?"
 
CHAPTER 16
CHRIST AS AN EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY
For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt
themselves over His flock.[/b] Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Scepter of the
majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although
He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had
declared regarding Him. For He says, "Lord, who hath believed our report,
and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our
message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in
thirsty ground; He has no form nor glory, yea, we saw Him, and He had no
form nor comeliness; but His form was without eminence, yea, deficient in
comparison with the [ordinary] form of men. He is a man exposed to
stripes and suffering, and acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His
countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed. He
bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that
[on His own account] He was exposed to labor, and stripes, and affliction.
But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities.
The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were
healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray; [every] man has wandered in
his own way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins, while He in
the midst of His sufferings openeth not His mouth. He was brought as a
sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He
openeth not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away;
who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth. For
the transgressions of my people was He brought down to death. And I will
give the wicked for His sepulcher, and the rich for His death, because He
did no iniquity, neither was guile found in His mouth. And the Lord is
pleased to purify Him by stripes. If ye make an offering for sin, your soul
shall see a long-lived seed. And the Lord is pleased to relieve Him of the
affliction of His soul, to show Him light, and to form Him with
understanding, to justify the Just One who ministereth well to many; and
He Himself shall carry their sins. On this account He shall inherit many,
and shall divide the spoil of the strong; because His soul was delivered to
death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bare the sins
of many, and for their sins was He delivered." And again He saith, "I am a
worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All that
see Me have derided Me; they have spoken with their lips; they have
wagged their head, [saying] He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him, let Him
save Him, since He delighteth in Him." Ye see, beloved, what is the
example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself,
what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His
grace?
 
CHAPTER 17
THE SAINTS AS EXAMPLES OF HUMILITY
Let us be imitators also of those who in goat-skins and sheep-skins went
about proclaiming the coming of Christ; I mean Elijah, Elisha, and Ezekiel
among the prophets, with those others to whom a like testimony is borne
[in Scripture]. Abraham was specially honored, and was called the friend
of God; yet he, earnestly regarding the glory of God, humbly declared, "I
am but dust and ashes." Moreover, it is thus written of Job, "Job was a
righteous man, and blameless, truthful, God-fearing, and one that kept
himself from all evil." But bringing an accusation against himself, he said, "
No man is free from defilement, even if his life be but of one day." Moses
was called faithful in all God's house; and through his instrumentality,
God punished Egypt with plagues and tortures. Yet he, though thus
greatly honored, did not adopt lofty language, but said, when the divine
oracle came to him out of the bush, "Who am I, that Thou sendest me? I
am a man of a feeble voice and a slow tongue." And again he said, "I am
but as the smoke of a pot."
 
CHAPTER 38
LET THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH SUBMIT THEMSELVES,
AND NO ONE EXALT HIMSELF ABOVE ANOTHER
Let our whole body, then, be preserved in Christ Jesus; and let every one
be subject to his neighbor, according to the special gift bestowed upon him.
Let the strong not despise the weak, and let the weak show respect unto
the strong. Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor; and let the
poor man bless God, because He hath given him one by whom his need
may be supplied. Let the wise man display his wisdom, not by [mere]
words, but through good deeds. Let the humble not bear testimony to
himself, but leave witness to be borne to him by another. Let him that is
pure in the flesh not grow proud of it, and boast, knowing that it was
another who bestowed on him the gift of continence. Let us consider, then,
brethren, of what matter we were made, — who and what manner of
beings we came into the world, as it were out of a sepulcher, and from
utter darkness. He who made us and fashioned us, having prepared His
bountiful gifts for us before we were born, introduced us into His world.
Since, therefore, we receive all these things from Him, we ought for
everything to give Him thanks; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
 
Good advice from Clement, now let us examine the words of Pope Boniface VIII. Emphasis mine.
 
 
THE BULL UNAM SANCTAM , 1302
The Bull 'Unam Sanctam', in which Pope Boniface VIII asserted his rights against King Phillip the Fair of France, is a landmark in the history of the doctrine of Papal Primacy.
 
 
The following English translation of 'Unam' is taken from a doctoral dissertation written in the Dept. of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America, and published by CUA Press in 1927.
 
UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
 
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
 
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
 
For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
Ah, such humility. Do you deny the above Winsome? Or are you in agreement?

Your rant  is completely off topic

No it is not off topic at all. Either God's word is the final authority, or the Roman Pontiff's word is the final authority. Which is it? You did not answer my question. Is it "absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" ? 

[LightHammer]

Quote

Quote


1. To say that what the early Christians wrote does not compare with that of the apostles is a meaningless statement. We can always compare two things. At the very minimum the writings of the early fathers are historical records.

Is it meaningless that the Apostles were hand picked by the Son of God to continue building upon the foundation He laid Himself, being the chief corner stone of the household of God? Were the early fathers you speak of attended with the miraculous power which the Apostles displayed to the glory of God, and by His power?

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Eph 2:18-22 (KJV)

Apart from Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, the apostles and prophets themselves are part of the foundation of the church. Their testimony is not to be contradicted, being themselves part of the foundation which Christ laid.

None of that is relevant to the point I made.

Yes it is relevant. When comparing the two, the latter are judged by the former, and never the other way around. Nor is there any authority from the supposed church fathers to change or contradict the testimony of Christ and the apostles.

No its not relevant to his point. That is because he is not comparing the latter to the former or setting the writings of the early Christian Fathers in the place of the scriptures. That is because the writings of the Church Fathers do not supplement scripture but interpret scripture.

So when you say the writings of the Fathers don't compare to those of the Apostles and earliest bishops (Timothy, Mark, etc) it is very much irrelevant because no one in this forum is claiming that they do, are meant to or are even attempting to.

Furthermore your claim that the Church Fathers "change or contradict the testimony of Christ and the apostles" is not self-sufficient. You have been groomed not by scripture alone to believe that but your own heritage of fathers (and mother) who have interpreted the scriptures to directly counter the Fathers' interpretations.

So in the Godly spirit of honesty you must acknowledge that this is not matter of scripture but a contest between what your fathers (and mother) say about scripture and what ours say.

I think this mutual acknowledgment would be a great foundation to lay for further discourse on this subject.

Though a valid one, a minor point at best. The new Testament scriptures are the written record of the words and actions of Christ and His apostles. Some no doubt written by the apostles themselves, most however probably dictated to others for writing, or written by contemporaries of their own day. Thus being accepted, approved, and supported by the apostles themselves.

I believe this bolded portion of your response is the most important in our conversation. If God utilized the Apostles to fashion authentic scriptures then wouldn't it be consistent with His will to utilize like minded men to interpret them accurately?

I don't see how you can be congruent with God's design for scripture when you hold your position about its interpretation. If the final word on what scripture is was in fact what the Apostles "accepted, approved and supported" then it would follow that the final word on accuracy concerning the interpretation of those scriptures should be men of the Church as well.

I am well aware of the above. We both know it. Apparently though, you wish to minimize the very intimate, integral, and indissoluble connection between them, while I wish to exalt the same. Seeing that the topic we are both addressing is the authority of the word of God, it is not hard to understand why one belonging to the institution you do, would want to minimize the same. The true church always exalts the authority of the word of God, while the false church always seeks to minimize the same. The history of your church in relation to the scriptures is certainly no testimony to it's love for having and sharing it's words.

I disagree here. Winsome's issue was not that you and others like you exalt the Sacred Scriptures, his issue was that you seemed to tread close to worshipping Sacred Scripture. That is his issue; the perception that for you all scripture is not simply (minimizing) the inspiration of Gold but God Himself (overly exalting flirting with idolatry).

I don't what you believe about this but we have had others come here and literally say "Scripture is the word of God, Jesus is the word of God, when we read scripture we are reading Jesus" (paraphrased).

That is the mindset Winsome is addressing and that mindset needs be "minimized". Before Christ King Hezekiah destroyed the miraculous Nehuhstan (the Bronze Serpent) that Moses crafted to nourish the wondering Israelites because they had began to worship it as God. I believe this is the true Christian heart and its consistent with Catholic history. In the East when religious statues led to a fear of idol worship they were banned. When the Teutonic Knights took Jerusalem from the Muslims they resolved to destroy it before they let it be used for false worship again. When the Jesuits became so formidable in Europe that the Church could not spread the message due to elites fearful of them the Pope suppressed the Order.

It has been the tradition of the Church to degrade anything (idea or practice) that in anyway infringes upon the right of God to be alone worshipped. Winsome was reacting to the idea that scripture was God.

Your problem is with the authority of the word of God, not me.

Authority has to be exercised and a book can't exactly do that. A book can't manage the finances of a community of God's flock, or be its physical representative to the world. A book can't organize ministries and apostolates. A book can't coordinate the Christian people as we feed the poor, build hospitals and schools, and serve the world. A book can't raise children in the faith (children need to be spoken to). A book can't baptize. A book can't build churches. A book can't preach the message.

Authority is in leadership. Leadership is in men not inanimate objects.

Scripture is a rule (The Rule) but not it does not wield authority.

[LightHammer]

God has given us His word. When we speak and act according to it, then we are backed up by His authority. This is called faith. When we do not speak or act in accordance with God's expressed will through His word, we are not backed up by the same. If one who is given authority starts to speak and act contrary to the expressed will of the one who gave them authority in the first place, that authority they were given will naturally be revoked. This is basic, if you cannot see it, it simply because you do not want to.

This rhetoric is what Winsome was countering earlier.

God has given us His word.

That is Jesus Christ.

When we speak and act according to it, then we are backed up by His authority.

That is because the authority of God is the property of Jesus Christ who in turn delegated it on earth to the Apostles. Like God gave authority to the King of Israel and the priests of the temple.

God does not give authority to someone (or in this case something) that can not actually exercise that authority.

Enough of this trifling. No one has God's authority while contradicting His expressed will.

That is contrary to the record of scripture.

The King of Israel got its authority to reign from God. Kings David and Solomon did not cease to be kings when they fell into sin. They contradicted God's expressed will when they transgressed but they didn't loose their authority. They ceased to be good kings but they were still kings. Authority is vested in people to be executed by action. Authority isn't seated in actions.

From the mouth of Our Lord Himself, we are told that the Pharisees were men corrupt in action but they were still to be obeyed because they still had the authority of God. They contradicted God's expressed will (to His face) but they were still endowed with His authority and the people had to obey that authority.

The Apostle Peter was contradicting God's when he imposed Jewish customs on Gentile converts but that didn't make him lose his authority.

Your idea that if a person endowed with God's authority does something wrong (or rather what is not liked) that suddenly they lose their authority is inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian concept of authority and (apart from arguing and speculation) the actual history of the Church contained in the scriptures themselves.

Where is Moses now? Where is his authority? He is gone, but God's word to him is recorded and still with us. It has as much authority now, as it had then. This is because it is the word of God, not man. Again, you will not see this because you do not want to see it. You belong to an institution which claims authority above and beyond the scriptures, thus you must deny the authoritative validity of the same. Is this not why your church persecuted and killed so many throughout history? Yes, because they would not submit to your usurped authority.

Moses' authority was passed to his successor Joshua not to the Torah. Joshua led the tribes of Israel after Moses not a book or an inanimate object. After Joshua God gave each independent tribe Judges to inherit authority over them and ultimately gave them Saul as Israel's first King. Never has God Israel with some inanimate object to hold her authority but always chosen men to give the authority to lead His people.

The Church persecuted and killed so many? Not exactly western Europe is not so big and has never been populated enough to kill and persecute "so many". Also the Church only became violent after others made her so through violent attacks against her. A weakness yes but the Church is a collection of men and women.

As a black man I have very little sympathy for American protestants who rode against my people as slave masters and klansmen. The SDA are in no way exempt.

Thus today your church admonishes it's adherents to support it by exalting it's social doctrines and teachings through legislation with or without the will of all concerned.

Truth is not subjected to consent. However you lie about the Church. The only issues that Christians would see taken out of the hands of voters is that of abortion and that is because the Christian Church defines that begins at conception which makes abortion murder. Even still we have not advocated rebellion against the state to save the lives of innocent children.

All other positions of the Church on social issues (usually relating to human dignity and uplifting the poor) are sought through the political process. The idea of violent revolution against the state is not Catholic. It's history is particularly anti-Catholic. It was introduced into Europe by Protestants and esoterics; the Catholic Church was persecuted by the previous Roman Empire for hundreds of years without calling for a violent revolution. The two groups listed above plotted to violently destroy Catholic states before they were even persecuted. In the modern world violent revolution and totalitarianism has been the craft of atheist influence by so called "enlightened" principles. I refer to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Than She, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin. I can go on.

The Church has really only stood against a state violently when the state's persecution of the Church was so extreme that people grew desperate or when the state was Catholic and was being threatened by foreign or domestic enemies.

So while the Know Nothings, the KKK and others were burning Catholic churches and raping and slaughtering minorities, Catholic priests were dying at hands of military dictatorships in South America, Africa and Asia for their unfailing loyalty to the poor.

[Lively Stone]

Scripture is a rule (The Rule) but not it does not wield authority.

This statement is the basis of false religion. The way a person approaches scripture is the way a person approaches God. Its origin is God, and therefore is our authority, and we need to allow scripture to influence and mold our lives and views so that we become more like Christ, possessing more and more of His wisdom, and move into further and further intimacy with the Father.

[FireSword]

All other positions of the Church on social issues (usually relating to human dignity and uplifting the poor) are sought through the political process. The idea of violent revolution against the state is not Catholic. It's history is particularly anti-Catholic. It was introduced into Europe by Protestants and esoterics; the Catholic Church was persecuted by the previous Roman Empire for hundreds of years without calling for a violent revolution. The two groups listed above plotted to violently destroy Catholic states before they were even persecuted. In the modern world violent revolution and totalitarianism has been the craft of atheist influence by so called "enlightened" principles. I refer to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Than She, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin. I can go on.

That's because they joined forces with them becoming a state controlled Church, similar to these other nations in south America, Russia. This state controlled Church was also evident during word war 2, who did not excommunicate Hitler and join forces with Protestant freedom fighters in the rebel alliance against the oppressive state.

viva la Protestant!

[LightHammer]

All other positions of the Church on social issues (usually relating to human dignity and uplifting the poor) are sought through the political process. The idea of violent revolution against the state is not Catholic. It's history is particularly anti-Catholic. It was introduced into Europe by Protestants and esoterics; the Catholic Church was persecuted by the previous Roman Empire for hundreds of years without calling for a violent revolution. The two groups listed above plotted to violently destroy Catholic states before they were even persecuted. In the modern world violent revolution and totalitarianism has been the craft of atheist influence by so called "enlightened" principles. I refer to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Than She, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin. I can go on.

That's because they joined forces with them becoming a state controlled Church, similar to these other nations in south America, Russia. This state controlled Church was also evident during word war 2, who did not excommunicate Hitler and join forces with Protestant freedom fighters in the rebel alliance against the oppressive state.

viva la Protestant!

That wasn't a coherent sentence Firesword.

Viva La Protestant?

Che Guevara vs. Christ (inspired by Church Advertising Network)

[FireSword]

The French would fight by saying viva la France. I am simply borrowing the term for the glory of the Protestant (good saints) victory over the oppressors.

[LightHammer]

The French would fight by saying viva la France. I am simply borrowing the term for the glory of the Protestant (good saints) victory over the oppressors.

When you stand before God your nation will not be there with you but the Church will.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum

Ave Maria

Viva La Iglesia 

What victory of the Protestants? The Catholic Church is a billion strong and growing throughout the world while protestants spend their time spouting conspiracy theories online, performing gay marriages and surrendering Europe to Islam and atheism.

I'm not military expert but usually in a fight when one side gains and the other side decreases that's not a victory.

[FireSword]

The French would fight by saying viva la France. I am simply borrowing the term for the glory of the Protestant (good saints) victory over the oppressors.

When you stand before God your nation will not be there with you but the Church will.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum

Ave Maria

Viva La Iglesia 

What victory of the Protestants? The Catholic Church is a billion strong and growing throughout the world while protestants spend their time spouting conspiracy theories online, performing gay marriages and surrendering Europe to Islam and atheism.

I'm not military expert but usually in a fight when one side gains and the other side decreases that's not a victory.

That was a good comeback. But even though things look bleak now God will usher in a revival that will transform nations. The Harvest will be so great that many will have to go to Catholic churches as there won't be any room at the inn. Islam is weakining spiritually the people becoming discontent and we will have victory over the terrorists, what with the elimination of Bin Laden.

[LightHammer]

The French would fight by saying viva la France. I am simply borrowing the term for the glory of the Protestant (good saints) victory over the oppressors.

When you stand before God your nation will not be there with you but the Church will.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum

Ave Maria

Viva La Iglesia 

What victory of the Protestants? The Catholic Church is a billion strong and growing throughout the world while protestants spend their time spouting conspiracy theories online, performing gay marriages and surrendering Europe to Islam and atheism.

I'm not military expert but usually in a fight when one side gains and the other side decreases that's not a victory.

That was a good comeback. But even though things look bleak now God will usher in a revival that will transform nations. The Harvest will be so great that many will have to go to Catholic churches as there won't be any room at the inn. Islam is weakining spiritually the people becoming discontent and we will have victory over the terrorists, what with the elimination of Bin Laden.

I don't think Protestantism is going to be around that much longer especially not in Europe. Christianity is declining and Protestants are a minority which means they'll probably go first. Islam is on the rise due to immigration and nationalism is failing due to a lack proper integration.

In Africa and Asia Protestantism is seen as remnant of colonialism and foreign control. The future of those areas is between Catholics and Muslims. South America is South America of course. At worst people are just not practicing their faith conversion to Protestantism is rare except among young people who like music but the Church is holding its own in that regard to.

Protestantism sowed the seeds of its own desturction in several ways.

1. It doesn't actually stand for anything. To be clear many individual Protestants have official beliefs but their churches do not claim to teach to an unaltered truth given by God.

They venerate the scriptures but since there is no body within the Protestant communities to maintain a common faith people see no necessity in community. The church is a body of believers but ask a groups of Protestants of the same sects or even of a confederation of sects and you will get a thousand contradicting answers.

That is not body united by truth. Thats a body in search of truth.

2. Protestantism was born of discord. All the nations of the Holy Roman Empire were nationalistic. However the Emperor was elected, monarch dynasties married across different kingdoms and there was a system of private property so sometimes noble families within a kingdom could amass more wealth than the crown. This dynamic fusion of nationalism and fraternalism among the crowns and their elected Emperor (coupled with a common faith) provided just enough room for competition within the empire but did enough to prevent full scale wars.

So the English crown could lay calims to the France and the two cronws could fight a little, resolve their issues and things kept moving.

Protestantism changed everything. Protestant rebellions plunged nations into civil war and Europe into full scale wars with one another the likes of which shook the very culture of European infrastructure. Warfare is a despicable and horrifying thing witness. The common people suffered greatly as this reformer claimed that his version of the truth was the truth and that reformer claimed that this reform wasn't radical enough and all the reformers claimed the Catholic Church was evil. Then this king sided those protestants who killed those proptestants and those Catholics to maintain their power. Then the Catholics wiped those protestants for trying to take France and Spain wiped out those guys for question the Inquistion meant to remove Muslims and Jews in hiding from Catholic lands.

And on and on and on ad infinitam. All this new preachingand this random guy claiming to hold the truth apart from the consensus of the Church grew more and more biter as English was mobilized to slaughter more English to slaughter the French to slaughter Spanish to take Rome to take Sweden to defend against the Dutch.

The common people were sucked into a perpetual vaccuum of war with the birth of Protestantism until now, well now most Europeans distance themselves from the faith because they remember how Christianity ripped their country, their family, their homes apart.

If Christianity is to ascend to greater heights in the hearts of Europeans I doubt it will be in Protestants whose faith will simply lock Europe in a never ending tempest of animosity.

As if politics anf false religions aren't enough.

[Amo]

No its not relevant to his point. That is because he is not comparing the latter to the former or setting the writings of the early Christian Fathers in the place of the scriptures. That is because the writings of the Church Fathers do not supplement scripture but interpret scripture.

Main Entry:in£ter£pret
Pronunciation:in-*t*r-pr*t, -p*t
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
Date:14th century

transitive verb 
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of  : present in understandable terms  *interpret dreams*  *needed help interpreting the results*
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance  : CONSTRUE  *interpret a contract*(Merriam-Webster)

What is interpreting but explaining and defining? If that which is explained and defined is contrary to, or exceeds that which it is explaining or defining, then a decision must be made concerning the same. One must choose between the original, or that which the interpreter has changed which contradicts the original. Then one must decide also whether that which has been presented by the interpreter which exceeds or is not addressed in the original, is in accordance with the principles and teachings of the original. It is this, or just blindly accepting the words of others, in relation to the word of God.

In my experience, it is Catholics that most often, if not almost always are the ones who bring up the writings of the "church fathers". There is a reason for this. The reason being, that much of what the Catholic church teaches exceeds or contradicts what the scriptures address. Thus the need to refer to extra biblical writings so often. If the bible clearly addressed and or supported that which your institution propagates, then you would have no need to refer to other sources so often. You seek the support of the supposed "church fathers" because you do not have enough support from the scriptures alone.

So when you say the writings of the Fathers don't compare to those of the Apostles and earliest bishops (Timothy, Mark, etc) it is very much irrelevant because no one in this forum is claiming that they do, are meant to or are even attempting to.

Baloney! You are the ones who always refer to them, for the reasons already stated. You are looking for authority supporting your institution apart, above, and beyond that of scripture. Your institution claims authority above the scriptures, and therefore naturally seeks out other sources to rely upon, claiming them all to be of her of course.

Furthermore your claim that the Church Fathers "change or contradict the testimony of Christ and the apostles" is not self-sufficient. You have been groomed not by scripture alone to believe that but your own heritage of fathers (and mother) who have interpreted the scriptures to directly counter the Fathers' interpretations.

I have been groomed by no one. I was not raised religious at all, or a part of any denomination or religion at all. I do not seek the approval of any persons or denominations at all, though I belong to one. This because they seem to me to most closely adhere to the word of God than any other. Which conclusion was drawn by my own prayerful studies of the word of God, not at the feet of any denomination or individual.

Nor am I here to promote one denomination as apposed to or above another, but rather the word of God alone. Which word I always and only refer to, as the final authority of all matters. Which is precisely what we are debating, and the very root of our differences to which the axe must be lain if we are ever to agree.

So in the Godly spirit of honesty you must acknowledge that this is not matter of scripture but a contest between what your fathers (and mother) say about scripture and what ours say.

Sorry LH. Perhaps that is what it is for you, it most certainly is not for me. All who are leaning on what their fathers and mothers say or said about scripture above the scriptures themselves, for themselves, are lost souls.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Matt 10:37-39 (KJV)

I thank God that I was not raised any religion or denomination, but simply pointed in the right direction, that it may never be said that I am simply defending it according to any family tradition or otherwise. Tradition be damned, let the word of God reign.

I think this mutual acknowledgment would be a great foundation to lay for further discourse on this subject.

It cannot be mutual, for though I read and study the words of others, my decision making has nothing to do with backing up or preserving any institution or individual, unless they themselves are complying to the word of God. Let them all be damned, and may I be damned also, if I ever choose an institution or individual above the word of God.

Though a valid one, a minor point at best. The new Testament scriptures are the written record of the words and actions of Christ and His apostles. Some no doubt written by the apostles themselves, most however probably dictated to others for writing, or written by contemporaries of their own day. Thus being accepted, approved, and supported by the apostles themselves.

I believe this bolded portion of your response is the most important in our conversation. If God utilized the Apostles to fashion authentic scriptures then wouldn't it be consistent with His will to utilize like minded men to interpret them accurately?

I don't see how you can be congruent with God's design for scripture when you hold your position about its interpretation. If the final word on what scripture is was in fact what the Apostles "accepted, approved and supported" then it would follow that the final word on accuracy concerning the interpretation of those scriptures should be men of the Church as well.

The scriptures were not written to be interpreted by a few, to stand between God and humanity as those needed to correctly understand that which God clearly expressed for all. They were written for all to read and submit themselves to or not, by way of an educated decision regarding the same. Not education received by human to God go betweens, which method failed miserably during the Old Covenant, but education by the very word of God Himself provided for that very purpose. Jesus Christ is the human to God go between. The scriptures are they which testify of Him, and are to be available for every individual in order for them to establish a personal relationship with God through personal contact and dialogue with His word. Which the scriptures are.

This is the exact controversy we are addressing, which is not new at all, but has always been the contention between true Protestants, and Catholics. Your institution puts itself above the word of God, and claims authority as sole interpreter of the same. Thus when it had the power to do so, it removed the scriptures from society, maintained it in a dying and eventually dead language concerning the masses, and outlawed it's existence in the vernacular. All this to establish itself as the sole interpreter and definer of "Christianity" and thus have and maintain control over all professing to be the same. The result being of course dead tradition, and a "Christianity" needing to be maintained and enforced by the state, rather than the Holy Spirit of God by way of personal conviction at the word of God.

This was a prevalent problem during Jesus' day, which He addressed concerning the Jews. It is one of the many things the history of Judaism and Catholicism have in common.

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt 15:1-9 (KJV)

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:5-13 (KJV)

4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 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. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col 2:4-12 (KJV)

16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 17 And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:15-25 (KJV)

I am well aware of the above. We both know it. Apparently though, you wish to minimize the very intimate, integral, and indissoluble connection between them, while I wish to exalt the same. Seeing that the topic we are both addressing is the authority of the word of God, it is not hard to understand why one belonging to the institution you do, would want to minimize the same. The true church always exalts the authority of the word of God, while the false church always seeks to minimize the same. The history of your church in relation to the scriptures is certainly no testimony to it's love for having and sharing it's words.

I disagree here. Winsome's issue was not that you and others like you exalt the Sacred Scriptures, his issue was that you seemed to tread close to worshipping Sacred Scripture. That is his issue; the perception that for you all scripture is not simply (minimizing) the inspiration of Gold but God Himself (overly exalting flirting with idolatry).

The above sounds strange coming from one who belongs to an institution filled with people who regularly bow before statues, pictures, and even before Popes. Some even prostrate themselves before the Pope. I accept the scriptures as the word of God to humanity, and therefore invested with His authority above the words of all others. I do not reverently bow before them or pray to them. The word of God forbids all such.

I don't what you believe about this but we have had others come here and literally say "Scripture is the word of God, Jesus is the word of God, when we read scripture we are reading Jesus" (paraphrased).

The scriptures are those which testify of Him, they are not Him. He though, was the one who inspired all of the scriptures, for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are all one. Those who reject or minimize the authority of the scriptures, reject or minimize the authority of the Son of God, as well as the Father and Holy Spirit.

That is the mindset Winsome is addressing and that mindset needs be "minimized". Before Christ King Hezekiah destroyed the miraculous Nehuhstan (the Bronze Serpent) that Moses crafted to nourish the wondering Israelites because they had began to worship it as God. I believe this is the true Christian heart and its consistent with Catholic history. In the East when religious statues led to a fear of idol worship they were banned. When the Teutonic Knights took Jerusalem from the Muslims they resolved to destroy it before they let it be used for false worship again. When the Jesuits became so formidable in Europe that the Church could not spread the message due to elites fearful of them the Pope suppressed the Order.

It has been the tradition of the Church to degrade anything (idea or practice) that in anyway infringes upon the right of God to be alone worshipped. Winsome was reacting to the idea that scripture was God.

The serpent was made to cure the Jews which had been bitten by the poisonous serpents sent by God as judgment upon them, not to nourish them. No one is burning incense to, or bowing down to the scriptures, as your church does to the saints and the Pope. Your institution is not so concerned that people are worshiping the scriptures, but to the contrary, it is concerned that so many place the authority of the scriptures above that of your institution.

Religious statues were banned in the east to prevent the spread of worshipers bowing down before the same, as they did already in the west. Those of the east considered this idol worship, and therefore banned the statues to prevent the same from developing among there own.

The Teutonic Knights had no right or commission from God to violently take Jerusalem in the first place. Nor therefore any right either, to destroy the same to prevent any false worship. They themselves were false Christians under false Christian leadership. They had no authority, commission, or good reason from new covenant or new testament scripture to go to literal war with anyone over religion. Only a false and usurped authority lead them to do so. One that believed itself to be above the word of God.

The Jesuits became such a fanatical, corrupted, bloody, violent, back stabbing, and just all around trouble causing institution, that even most of the Catholic nations were demanding their dissolution. You certainly have a way of completely white washing history LH.

The practices of bowing, kneeling, or genuflecting before statues and praying, doing the same and even prostrating oneself before the Pope, and transubstantiation certainly are not conducive to "degrading anything (idea or practice) that in anyway infringes upon the right of God to be alone worshipped." I find your statement to that effect that your institution has a tradition of degrading all such to be false.

Your problem is with the authority of the word of God, not me

.

Authority has to be exercised and a book can't exactly do that. A book can't manage the finances of a community of God's flock, or be its physical representative to the world. A book can't organize ministries and apostolates. A book can't coordinate the Christian people as we feed the poor, build hospitals and schools, and serve the world. A book can't raise children in the faith (children need to be spoken to). A book can't baptize. A book can't build churches. A book can't preach the message.

Authority is in leadership. Leadership is in men not inanimate objects.

Scripture is a rule (The Rule) but not it does not wield authority.

It wields authority that neither you yourself or anyone else will escape the judgment of. All different religions and denominations do the things you spoke of above, none of that makes them true, or any authority above or apart from God's word. When God's own do the same, it is at the commission and expressed will of God contained in scripture. No laws or instructions make that which they rule or instruct happen. Though they are the authority, those who believe in that authority make it happen. You believe in your institutions claims to have authority above and beyond the scriptures, thus you are here arguing with me to that effect, and I with you to the opposite effect.

[Amo]

God has given us His word. When we speak and act according to it, then we are backed up by His authority. This is called faith. When we do not speak or act in accordance with God's expressed will through His word, we are not backed up by the same. If one who is given authority starts to speak and act contrary to the expressed will of the one who gave them authority in the first place, that authority they were given will naturally be revoked. This is basic, if you cannot see it, it simply because you do not want to.

This rhetoric is what Winsome was countering earlier.

God has given us His word.

That is Jesus Christ.

When we speak and act according to it, then we are backed up by His authority.

That is because the authority of God is the property of Jesus Christ who in turn delegated it on earth to the Apostles. Like God gave authority to the King of Israel and the priests of the temple.

God does not give authority to someone (or in this case something) that can not actually exercise that authority.

Enough of this trifling. No one has God's authority while contradicting His expressed will.

That is contrary to the record of scripture.

The King of Israel got its authority to reign from God. Kings David and Solomon did not cease to be kings when they fell into sin. They contradicted God's expressed will when they transgressed but they didn't loose their authority. They ceased to be good kings but they were still kings. Authority is vested in people to be executed by action. Authority isn't seated in actions.

Actually, the children of Israel insisted upon having a King, which request God granted them as a final response to their continual rejection of His authority, though warning them against the dangers thereof. By choosing to have a King, they were rejecting God's leadership through His prophets.

1 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba. 3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, 5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. 6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. 7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. 9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. 11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. 13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. 14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. 15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. 16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. 18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; 20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord. 22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city. 1 Sam 8:1-22 (KJV)

God never intended for kings to rule over Israel for the reasons stated above, but His rebellious people once again rejected Him and His authority through His prophets in favor of another. This to Judaism and Catholicism have in common, both having chosen the leadership of a man above that of God. Both leading to terrible abuse and suffering at the hands of unconverted power hungry men usurping the authority of God.

None of these men had any authority from God or His word to support their abusive behavior. All their subjects had the perfect right to reject whatever authority they claimed or exercised which was in contradiction to the already expressed and written will of God. It is only because people will not do so, that such evil prevails in this world. Countless Christians and Jews sacrificed their own lives rather than bow to the usurped authority of their leaders against the expressed will of God. The scriptures verify this truth, and history verifies the same in relation to the abusive authority of your own institution towards those who would not submit to them.

32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Heb 11:32-40 (KJV)

Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) made the following decree for the
destruction of all heretics, which is binding on civil rulers:

"Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if needs be,
compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their
functions: and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful,
so, for the defence of the faith, let them publicly make oath that
they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from
their territories all heretics marked by the Church; so that when
anyone is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or
temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath.
And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the
Church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical
pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind
him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to
make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme
Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their
allegiance, and leave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who,
the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged,
and preserve them in the purity of the faith"-"Decretalium
Gregorii Papae Noni Conpilatio," Liber V, Titulus VII, Capitulum
XIII, (A Collection of the Decretals of Gregory IX, Book 5, Title 7,
Chapter 13), dated April 20, 1619.

The sainted Catholic doctor, Thomas Aquinas, says:
"If counterfeiters of money or other criminals are justly delivered
over to death forthwith by the secular authorities, much more can
heretics, after they are convicted of heresy, be not only forthwith
excommunicated, but as surely put to death."-'' Summa
Theologica," 2a, 2ac, qu. xi, art. iii.

Dr. J. Dowling says:
"From the birth of Popery in 606, to the present time, it is
estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than .fifty
millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime
of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty
thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of
Popery"-"History of Romanism," pp. 54I, 542. New York: 1871.

From the mouth of Our Lord Himself, we are told that the Pharisees were men corrupt in action but they were still to be obeyed because they still had the authority of God. They contradicted God's expressed will (to His face) but they were still endowed with His authority and the people had to obey that authority.

Give the scriptures, and we will examine your point above. For now though, we will take the words of Peter to heart concerning those who command us to disobey God or go against His expressed will.

26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned. 27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. 33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. Acts 5:26-33 (KJV)

The Apostle Peter was contradicting God's when he imposed Jewish customs on Gentile converts but that didn't make him lose his authority.

What Jewish custom was Peter imposing on Gentile converts? If you are referring to the incident concerning the Jews remaining separate from the Gentiles while eating, you are mistaken.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Gal 2:11-14 (KJV)

Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. This because Peter had no authority when doing that which was against God's expressed will, thus Paul could rightly oppose him to his face. It is the opposite of what your are claiming, Peter did lose authority concerning that which he was practicing.

Your idea that if a person endowed with God's authority does something wrong (or rather what is not liked) that suddenly they lose their authority is inconsistent with the Judeo-Christian concept of authority and (apart from arguing and speculation) the actual history of the Church contained in the scriptures themselves.

You are putting words in my mouth which I never said. We are all sinners, and we all do things wrong. Those who teach and preach that which is contrary to God's expressed written will, have no authority from God to do so, duh! Neither are any bound to submit to their authority in such matters or at all if they will not repent. The actual history of the church and Jews contained in the scriptures is filled with examples of the wrong things the leaders and people did. The leaders were wrong when they commanded that which contradicted God's word, and the people were wrong when they obeyed those commands.

This does not and will not ever change the validity of all the scriptures I have shared pertaining to the authority of God's word, and that same authority carrying over to those only who subject themselves to it. The wrong actions and mistakes of God's people recorded in scripture, do not change the teachings of His word recorded in it as well, and certainly not the words or teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. John 14:23-24 (KJV)

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. John 15:7-10 (KJV)

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31-32 (KJV)

Those who contradict the words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, are none of His. They have not any authority from Him.

Where is Moses now? Where is his authority? He is gone, but God's word to him is recorded and still with us. It has as much authority now, as it had then. This is because it is the word of God, not man. Again, you will not see this because you do not want to see it. You belong to an institution which claims authority above and beyond the scriptures, thus you must deny the authoritative validity of the same. Is this not why your church persecuted and killed so many throughout history? Yes, because they would not submit to your usurped authority.

Moses' authority was passed to his successor Joshua not to the Torah. Joshua led the tribes of Israel after Moses not a book or an inanimate object. After Joshua God gave each independent tribe Judges to inherit authority over them and ultimately gave them Saul as Israel's first King. Never has God Israel with some inanimate object to hold her authority but always chosen men to give the authority to lead His people.

This will never end, you belong to an institution which exalts humanity above God, therefore you will never accept the authority of God's word above the same. Never mind sharing verse after verse after verse with you to that effect, you will not have it, very well, worship man.

Moses and Joshua received their authority from God, if or when they or anyone else contradicts the words of the same, they have no authority but by fraud, and the willingness of others to listen to and obey them.

19 And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life. 20 And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt: and Moses took the rod of God in his hand. 21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. 22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. Ex 4:19-23 (KJV)

28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the Lord who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him. 29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel: 30 And Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people. Ex 4:28-30 (KJV)

3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. 7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. 8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord. 9 And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord. 10 And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. Ex 19:3-11 (KJV)

1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. 18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.  Ex 20:1-19 (KJV)

1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the Lord, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off. 2 And Moses alone shall come near the Lord: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him. 3 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. 4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words. Ex 24:1-8 (KJV)

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. Ex 34:1 (KJV)

27 And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. Ex 34:27 (KJV)

1 And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Ex 35:1 (KJV)

1 Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast. 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. 6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. 7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. 9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest. Josh 1:1-9 (KJV)

You are willingly ignorant of the truth. I have not ceased to share one scripture after another after another after another with you and yours from one end of the bible to the other concerning the authority of God's word above and beyond that of all humanity at all times, save the humanity of  Christ alone. I have shown you over and over that all the authority of God's prophets and leaders was based upon their adherence and conformity to His word or not. Yet you reject all the same in favor of true authority and power being in the hands of people alone whom God had appointed or not, just so you can support your institutions false claims to that exact authority above and beyond the written word of God. This because your institution contradicts and exceeds the scriptures with no authority to do so, but it's and your own false claims to the same.

The Church persecuted and killed so many? Not exactly western Europe is not so big and has never been populated enough to kill and persecute "so many". Also the Church only became violent after others made her so through violent attacks against her. A weakness yes but the Church is a collection of men and women.

The above is a lie! The true Church did not kill or persecute at all, even while both were being done to her. The false church which you belong to, began to kill and persecute when she gained the favor of emperors and kings and the wealth and power of the world. This is what she did when all was in her favor. These are the ways and methods of this world, and the prince of this world, Satan himself. Certainly not Christ and His followers. Had the church of Rome ever truly received authority from Christ, which she did not, she most certainly lost all such privilege when she became the agent of Satan rather than Christ through massive abuse and persecution.

Do you really want me to start quoting one after another, after another, after another from various historians regarding the numbers involved with the persecutions executed by your institution for over a thousand years. We've been through this before LH. When I start quoting and listing the facts, you delete my posts because you do not want the truth to be seen. You make your false claims, and then when someone can prove them false with real historical facts, you delete them. After having just so many of my posts censored by you and others I took a long break from these boards. Hiding the facts of history will never make your false claims true. It will only make people ignorant, which of course makes them easier to deceive and control.

As a black man I have very little sympathy for American protestants who rode against my people as slave masters and klansmen. The SDA are in no way exempt.

I don't need to be exempt by you for anything. Put your race card back in your deck, I care nothing for it at all. The fact that you are black has no bearing upon what we are discussing at all. What happened to your ancestors at the hands of prejudiced people is no excuse whatsoever for you to believe and defend lies. I bear no guilt whatsoever for the prejudice of anyone but myself, nor do you deserve any special treatment from anyone today, because of the sins of those of the past.

While you are quick to point the finger at professed Protestants owning slaves or belonging to the klan, there were far more who had nothing to do with any of that, and condemned the same. This is not to mention the fact that there were many Catholic slave owners and defenders of the same as well. Perhaps you would like to examine the church of Rome, slavery, and it's support of the south during the war a little more closely. That would be fine with me, it would no doubt be very revealing.

Thus today your church admonishes it's adherents to support it by exalting it's social doctrines and teachings through legislation with or without the will of all concerned.

Truth is not subjected to consent. However you lie about the Church. The only issues that Christians would see taken out of the hands of voters is that of abortion and that is because the Christian Church defines that begins at conception which makes abortion murder. Even still we have not advocated rebellion against the state to save the lives of innocent children.

Yes I know your church has the truth, and it is not concerned with the consent of people it wishes to lord it over. History is replete with examples of your churches abuses in relation to the same.

Why did Obama care get passed? Was it not because it had the support of the Vatican, Catholics, and Catholic politicians? Who can forget Roman Catholic Nancy Pelosi's infamous words, "we need to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it." Is this not because universal health care is more in line with Roman Catholic social doctrine than what we had. Yes it is, and thus we are being transformed into a socialist or fascist nation from within.

Pelosi: Today We Pray To St. Joseph The Worker For This "Life-Affirming Legislation"

All other positions of the Church on social issues (usually relating to human dignity and uplifting the poor) are sought through the political process. The idea of violent revolution against the state is not Catholic. It's history is particularly anti-Catholic. It was introduced into Europe by Protestants and esoterics; the Catholic Church was persecuted by the previous Roman Empire for hundreds of years without calling for a violent revolution. The two groups listed above plotted to violently destroy Catholic states before they were even persecuted. In the modern world violent revolution and totalitarianism has been the craft of atheist influence by so called "enlightened" principles. I refer to Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Than She, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin. I can go on.

Yes the church of Rome seeks to establish her power through the political process as always.

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/politics/vatican-on-catholic-politicians/

More lies. The Catholic church rarely supports violent revolutions against abusive governments because it is usually in bed with the same. She is that institution which commits spiritual fornication with the kings of this earth. Violent revolutions against government during most of her history would be violent revolution against her, since she and governments usually support each other, that together they may have complete control of all in both spiritual and temporal matters.

Protestants only fought against predominantly Catholic forms of government after being abused and persecuted themselves by the same. More by way of self defense, than outright war. The Catholic church on the other hand has called for many crusades, wars, and exterminations. Not to mention sustaining murderous persecutions upon all dissenters for over a thousand years.

The Church has really only stood against a state violently when the state's persecution of the Church was so extreme that people grew desperate or when the state was Catholic and was being threatened by foreign or domestic enemies.

Yes, apparently she had no problem with Hitler or Mussolini, both sympathetic to Rome. Quit lying, the church of Rome has called for many crusades and wars.

So while the Know Nothings, the KKK and others were burning Catholic churches and raping and slaughtering minorities, Catholic priests were dying at hands of military dictatorships in South America, Africa and Asia for their unfailing loyalty to the poor.

More LH whitewashed history lessons I suppose. Here is some more history for you.

http://www.slaverysite.com/Body/morality.htm

The following is taken from The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 English Translation

"We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith -- in order that King Alfonso himself and his successors and the infante.may be able the more zealously to pursue and may pursue this most pious and noble work, and most worthy of perpetual remembrance (which, since the salvation of souls, increase of the faith, and overthrow of its enemies may be procured thereby, we regard as a work wherein the glory of God, and faith in Him, and His commonwealth, the Universal Church, are concerned) in proportion as they, having been relieved of all the greater obstacles, shall find themselves supported by us and by the Apostolic See with favors and graces"

[AVZ]

The French would fight by saying viva la France. I am simply borrowing the term for the glory of the Protestant (good saints) victory over the oppressors.

When you stand before God your nation will not be there with you but the Church will.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum

Ave Maria

Viva La Iglesia 

What victory of the Protestants? The Catholic Church is a billion strong and growing throughout the world while protestants spend their time spouting conspiracy theories online, performing gay marriages and surrendering Europe to Islam and atheism.

I'm not military expert but usually in a fight when one side gains and the other side decreases that's not a victory.

That was a good comeback. But even though things look bleak now God will usher in a revival that will transform nations. The Harvest will be so great that many will have to go to Catholic churches as there won't be any room at the inn. Islam is weakining spiritually the people becoming discontent and we will have victory over the terrorists, what with the elimination of Bin Laden.

I don't think Protestantism is going to be around that much longer especially not in Europe. Christianity is declining and Protestants are a minority which means they'll probably go first. Islam is on the rise due to immigration and nationalism is failing due to a lack proper integration.

In Africa and Asia Protestantism is seen as remnant of colonialism and foreign control. The future of those areas is between Catholics and Muslims. South America is South America of course. At worst people are just not practicing their faith conversion to Protestantism is rare except among young people who like music but the Church is holding its own in that regard to.

Protestantism sowed the seeds of its own desturction in several ways.

1. It doesn't actually stand for anything. To be clear many individual Protestants have official beliefs but their churches do not claim to teach to an unaltered truth given by God.

They venerate the scriptures but since there is no body within the Protestant communities to maintain a common faith people see no necessity in community. The church is a body of believers but ask a groups of Protestants of the same sects or even of a confederation of sects and you will get a thousand contradicting answers.

That is not body united by truth. Thats a body in search of truth.

2. Protestantism was born of discord. All the nations of the Holy Roman Empire were nationalistic. However the Emperor was elected, monarch dynasties married across different kingdoms and there was a system of private property so sometimes noble families within a kingdom could amass more wealth than the crown. This dynamic fusion of nationalism and fraternalism among the crowns and their elected Emperor (coupled with a common faith) provided just enough room for competition within the empire but did enough to prevent full scale wars.

So the English crown could lay calims to the France and the two cronws could fight a little, resolve their issues and things kept moving.

Protestantism changed everything. Protestant rebellions plunged nations into civil war and Europe into full scale wars with one another the likes of which shook the very culture of European infrastructure. Warfare is a despicable and horrifying thing witness. The common people suffered greatly as this reformer claimed that his version of the truth was the truth and that reformer claimed that this reform wasn't radical enough and all the reformers claimed the Catholic Church was evil. Then this king sided those protestants who killed those proptestants and those Catholics to maintain their power. Then the Catholics wiped those protestants for trying to take France and Spain wiped out those guys for question the Inquistion meant to remove Muslims and Jews in hiding from Catholic lands.

And on and on and on ad infinitam. All this new preachingand this random guy claiming to hold the truth apart from the consensus of the Church grew more and more biter as English was mobilized to slaughter more English to slaughter the French to slaughter Spanish to take Rome to take Sweden to defend against the Dutch.

The common people were sucked into a perpetual vaccuum of war with the birth of Protestantism until now, well now most Europeans distance themselves from the faith because they remember how Christianity ripped their country, their family, their homes apart.

If Christianity is to ascend to greater heights in the hearts of Europeans I doubt it will be in Protestants whose faith will simply lock Europe in a never ending tempest of animosity.

As if politics anf false religions aren't enough.

LH,

You have written many posts which where doubtfully educated. This one beats 'm all.

If in Asia Protestantism is seen as a colonial remnant and people turn against it, then for sure Catholicism is losing ground in the Philippines...right?
Since that is not the case, your statement is herewith debunked.

Now I happen to be very closely related to the situation is Asia, so be careful what you preach because I may want you to come up with hard figures to substantiate your claims.

Take for example the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia. Protestantism is in an explosive growth there. Praise the Lord.
There is very little Catholicism to be seen. Same goes for Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and China.
South Korea is largely Protestant in comparison to Catholic. A country like Singapore has far more Protestants than Catholics.
But you know what? This is all totally irrelevant!
These converts are all souls for Christ, and not souls for the Catholic or Protestant Church. Shame on you.

Now before this becomes a game of who is the biggest, it was Jesus who said that the greatest will become the one who serves, and the smallest will be the greatest in heaven.
Then by all means, let the Protestants be the smallest.

With regards to your expectation that Protestantism is fading out. I would like to point you to the end time.
The Bible tells us that there will only be a few left who will call upon the name of the Lord. That includes both Protestants and Catholics.
You may find comfort in the fact that Protestantism may be eradicated first, be assured that Catholicism will follow.
In any case it is absolutely not important and I find your act to make this an issue of debate quite repulsive to be honest.

Then Protestants tumbled Europe into war?
Prior to Protestantism there was about 1600 years of catholic church history. So there is about 500 years of Protestant church history.
The world in all recorded history has not known more that 300-400 years of peace, so your claim cannot even be true mathematically.
Even if we were to attribute 400 years of peace to the catholic church history, we are still left with 1200 years of catholic church history filled with war.

Contrary to your hopes and predictions, I express the hope that Protestants and Catholics will find each other in the future.
The Bible predicts that the times to come will be extremely difficult and I hope that those who come after us will not find it necessary to measure themselves against the other but face these times as brothers in Christ.

But then again, it may be the Catholic Church who will be left over in the end, but be very careful what you wish for.
The Bible also tells us that the Church will stumble into a world religion...hopefully that will not include the Catholic Church.

[LightHammer]

What is interpreting but explaining and defining?

Notice how that is not substituting? Thus my point stands about the irrelevance of your own to winsome. To say the writings of the Fathers do not compare to those of the scriptures is a meaningless waste of server space because no Catholic thinks the writings of the Fathers are equal to the scriptures.

That's like telling a Muslim a hadith is equal to the Quran or an SDA that the writings of Ellen G White are equal to the Bible.

Such are ridiculous accusatiosn not worth taking seriously.

If that which is explained and defined is contrary to, or exceeds that which it is explaining or defining, then a decision must be made concerning the same.

But first a decision must be made regarding whether an interpretation is right or wrong. You did not read the Bible and then the Fathers and judge the Fathers contrary. First off thats impossible because the Fathers are a collection of diverse interpretations of the Bible so to put them under one umbrella and say "this" is wrong only proves the falsehood of your heart since you have never actually read the Fathers in the first place. Secondly you didn't read scripture and determine that the Fathers were wrong you read pieces of the Bible, went to SDA sermons, may have read Ellen G White, skimmed through a few Fathers and then decided that the totality of the Fatehrs were wrong.

Your uneducated view formed by the bias of the SDA sect has been the trademark characteristic since you've been on this forum.

In my experience, it is Catholics that most often, if not almost always are the ones who bring up the writings of the "church fathers". There is a reason for this.

Yes and that is because the Church has studied scripture and written about what it can and cannot mean way beore the 19th century founders of your sect and the 17th century founders of Protestantism.

The reason being, that much of what the Catholic church teaches exceeds or contradicts what the scriptures address.

Again that in and of itself requires a tradition of interpretation. I say that the Catholic Church does not contradict scripture and you say that it does. What is the history of your interpretation and what is the history of mine?

Therein lies God's providence.

Baloney! You are the ones who always refer to them, for the reasons already stated.

The reasons you stated are useless because they are wrong. If you want to be taken seriously then you at least understand ours reasons for what we believe. We take our faith very seriously. In their last moments our martyrs wrote Credo on the spot they died in their own blood.

You will die wasting your life trying to reach people if you don't have the respect and competence to present your claims against what we actually believe.

You are looking for authority supporting your institution apart, above, and beyond that of scripture.

Thats because my institution predates Scripture, wrote scripture and canonized the scriptures. When the Bible was canonized what made each scripture legitimate was the author (Apostles and their successors). The same rule makes biblical interpretation legitimate (Apostles and their successors).

Its a very consistent system God has here.

I have been groomed by no one.

You're an SDA you have obviously been groomed by someone.

I was not raised religious at all, or a part of any denomination or religion at all.

That explains the apparent ignorance of the Christian Church.

I do not seek the approval of any persons or denominations at all, though I belong to one.

I've oticed. However in the Christian faith we are a family, a fraternity of sorts. I have a few friends who are freemasons and they always tell others "To Be One Ask One". The same is the case of Christianity oddly enough. To be a Christian you must accept the faith of the Church which of course you can only be taught by another Christian.

There is no such loner Christianity. We are a collective in thought and action being approved and disciplined by one another.

You are welcomed to join us.

This because they seem to me to most closely adhere to the word of God than any other.

Strange? A nonreligious unaffiliated loner one day thinks he knows enough about a faith 2,000 years old and her scriptures that he can make a shoot from the hip decision about what is or is not sound doctrine all by himself? Insolent child, even the Apostles with all their holiness knew how patiently discern as group.

Nor am I here to promote one denomination as apposed to or above another, but rather the word of God alone.

Which apparently your denomination taught you is acccurately interpretated by them alone for the most part, ey? Sounds like a whole lot of doublespeak to me.

Tradition be damned, let the word of God reign.

Thats a silly statement. If there is an accurate interpret of scripture then that the continued common faith is the tradition (Sacred Tradition).

It cannot be mutual

Hence the loner.

for though I read and study the words of others, my decision making has nothing to do with backing up or preserving any institution or individual, unless they themselves are complying to the word of God. Let them all be damned, and may I be damned also, if I ever choose an institution or individual above the word of God.

You have a serious case of narcissim. 5,000 people gathered as community to share in the message of Christ. 12 Apostles, 70 disciples and an unknown number of elders gathered in Jerusalem to discern the truth and somehow you think you are so special that God is going to allow you to measure the faith by your personal interpretation of scripture alone?

What is this pagan Greece?

The scriptures were not written to be interpreted by a few, to stand between God and humanity as those needed to correctly understand that which God clearly expressed for all.

A few? Oh you must stuck in the middle ages where only priests could be theologians and therefore interpret scripture? Am i right?

Well seeing how you were not raised Christian and probably are doing everything solo I'll give some back up. There are two reasons why priests were the only ones allowed to interpret scriptiure in the middle ages.

1) Because reading was rare.

2) Because they and they alone emersed themselves in disciplined of scripture.

Prior to the middle ages, where the focus was rebuilding western civilization, there were plenty of nonpriest theologians. Didymus the Blind, St. Boethius etc.

Fast forward to the modern world and you have plenty of lay ministers who actually take the scriptures serious enough to dedicate their entire lives to disciplined devotion to the scriptures. Any layman who wishes to contribute to their thoughts an interpretations of scripture to the one mind of the church may do so.

You need only document your views and send them to your local bishop to be approved for publcation or submit them to a theological journal to be peer reviewed.

Thus your point quoted above is irrelevant as priests once again are no longer the "few" interpretors of scripture. Even if they were I'd rather have them consorted efforts in studying the scriptures over the indvidual ramblings of some guy on the internet whose too self-centered to measure his thoughts on scripture against the collective thoughts of his fellow Christians.

They were written for all to read

Kind of difficult seeing how everyone couldn't read and there were thousands of languages in the world but ok sure.

This is the exact controversy we are addressing, which is not new at all, but has always been the contention between true Protestants, and Catholics.

I have very little stock in "true Protestants". Men and women who slaughter for religious freedom one day, enslave an entire civilization the next and make it home in time to argue amongst themselves enough to splinter into 33,000 different sects.

I see a whole lot of free searching for truth with very little finding truth.

Your institution puts itself above the word of God, and claims authority as sole interpreter of the same.

Of course. The Apostles are not subject to scripture which is a collection of history books, poems and letters. We believe what scripture records but that does not mean we ae subject to scripture. Its an inanimate object, there's nothing to be subject to.

If as a soldier I get a deployment order in the mail from my Captain and then I suit up for my mission that does not make me subject to the piece of parchment that the command is written on. I am subject to my Captain who gave the order not to a piece of paper that codifies his order.

Thus when it had the power to do so, it removed the scriptures from society, maintained it in a dying and eventually dead language concerning the masses, and outlawed it's existence in the vernacular.

Outlawed scripture from a society that couldn't read? Ok lets pretend that makes sense.

Latin was used in the west, Greek in the east, Coptic in Egypt, Armenian in Armenia, Ge'ez in Ethiopia. Pick any one of these languages and I can find a 1 million people in every era that could a full conversation using the language.

How on earth is that a dead language?

You got me on the venacular part. Linguistic experts didn't want to translate the scriptures into common languages because of their dynamic nature(meaning they words change often over time). The KJV is a classic example. Its English but give an American the original 1611 KJV an they will probably need a lexicon or concordance. Designating one language as a language only to be used for sacred purposes prohibits what the KJV has created.

Either way when the demand for scriptures in the local venacular became so great among the upper class the Church should have been more amendable on that one.

All this to establish itself as the sole interpreter and definer of "Christianity" and thus have and maintain control over all professing to be the same.

Well no the Church was already the sole interpreter of the Christianity and recognized as such; or else there's no way she would have been able to do these things in teh first and you "true" Protestants would have noting to protest in the first place.

Try to remain consistent here.

The result being of course dead tradition, and a "Christianity" needing to be maintained and enforced by the state, rather than the Holy Spirit of God by way of personal conviction at the word of God.

A rock is stone, steady and uncompromising but no not dead. So while our tradition does not change it does grow. We have always believed in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit but our definition of procession and begotten have developed with time.

No state need enforce the teachings of the Church. The state need simply not persecute the Church for spreading her message. Let a free people freely choose if they will believe what we believe or not. If Rome had tried that it may still be standing. You would do well to remember that as your camp is the one in power now.

The above sounds strange coming from one who belongs to an institution filled with people who regularly bow before statues, pictures, and even before Popes. Some even prostrate themselves before the Pope. I accept the scriptures as the word of God to humanity, and therefore invested with His authority above the words of all others. I do not reverently bow before them or pray to them. The word of God forbids all such.

It shouldn't be too strange its what the early Christians did. Worship for Christians is not contained in bowing anybody can bow. We worship in Spirit and in truth bowing is nothing more than reverence. Sometimes our reverence seems more powerful than others worship but thats not our problem.

My point about winsome still stands.

The serpent was made to cure the Jews which had been bitten by the poisonous serpents sent by God as judgment upon them, not to nourish them. No one is burning incense to, or bowing down to the scriptures, as your church does to the saints and the Pope. Your institution is not so concerned that people are worshiping the scriptures, but to the contrary, it is concerned that so many place the authority of the scriptures above that of your institution.

1) Cure and nourish; semantics.

2) Again our revernce is greater than others worship not our problem.

3) An inanimate object can not weild authority. An inanimate object at best can record commands, edicts and actiosn of one who has authority but it cannot hold authority.

Religious statues were banned in the east to prevent the spread of worshipers bowing down before the same, as they did already in the west. Those of the east considered this idol worship, and therefore banned the statues to prevent the same from developing among there own.

Ey more or less. Bowing before objects isn't the controversy the east had. It was really a matter of identity. The east didn't want the poeple to confuse Christanity with paganism so they used icons instead of statues. You'll find people bowing and kissing those things just as much as Catholics do statues. 2D and 3D really no difference.

The Teutonic Knights had no right or commission from God to violently take Jerusalem in the first place. Nor therefore any right either, to destroy the same to prevent any false worship. They themselves were false Christians under false Christian leadership. They had no authority, commission, or good reason from new covenant or new testament scripture to go to literal war with anyone over religion. Only a false and usurped authority lead them to do so. One that believed itself to be above the word of God.

They had a right to protect their homeland and their fellow Christians abroad. Spare me your vain attempts at indignation. I will not be patronized by a group of rebells who waged war for thirty years in Europe and hung minorities from trees in America.

Killing is no intrinsic evil. It is inferior to passiveness but it is not morally wrong to kill for a just cause.

The Jesuits became such a fanatical, corrupted, bloody, violent, back stabbing, and just all around trouble causing institution, that even most of the Catholic nations were demanding their dissolution. You certainly have a way of completely white washing history LH.

Not exactly the Jesuits were feared by the elites of societies who wanted to rip Europe apart to increase their own power. The Jesuits as the Church transcended the boundaries and petty competitions of nations so efficiently that they were feared by their enemies and were envied by their contemporaries.

Fanatical? Yes hence the Society of Jesus one's faith must always be radical.

Corrupted? Depends on your interpretation and what side of the battlefield you stand. I'm sure Lucifer would describe himself as bringing light to the world in oppoistion to the corrupt angels following an oppressive aboslutist God whose "dead" because He never changes. Alexander Borgia was perhaps the most corupted Pope we've ever had but his nephew through the Jesuits became so legendary for his devotion to the cross that demons fled from his hands and voice because he emulated Christ.

Bloody? Possibily Protetsants and esoterics had or a long time plotted violent warfare against the Church and Christian nations. From what I understand Jesuits are eagered to be whatever the Church needs them to be even soldiers.

Violent? Again very possible but St. Peter didn't draw his blade against simple protestors but men with swords clubs and chains. Show me the enemies of the Jesuits then show me whats in their hands.

Back stabbing? Nah everyone knows the Jesuits are loyal to only three, God, the Pope and the superior. That loyalty has been the bed rock characteristic of the Jesuits for almost 500 years. It is matched only by their education and competence.

It wields authority that neither you yourself or anyone else will escape the judgment of. All different religions and denominations do the things you spoke of above, none of that makes them true, or any authority above or apart from God's word. When God's own do the same, it is at the commission and expressed will of God contained in scripture. No laws or instructions make that which they rule or instruct happen. Though they are the authority, those who believe in that authority make it happen. You believe in your institutions claims to have authority above and beyond the scriptures, thus you are here arguing with me to that effect, and I with you to the opposite effect.

No it does not weild authority because it can't use authority. God weilds authority scripture records some of the authoritative actions and commands of God but it does not weild authority your pastor does.

[FireSword]

The French would fight by saying viva la France. I am simply borrowing the term for the glory of the Protestant (good saints) victory over the oppressors.

When you stand before God your nation will not be there with you but the Church will.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum

Ave Maria

Viva La Iglesia 

What victory of the Protestants? The Catholic Church is a billion strong and growing throughout the world while protestants spend their time spouting conspiracy theories online, performing gay marriages and surrendering Europe to Islam and atheism.

I'm not military expert but usually in a fight when one side gains and the other side decreases that's not a victory.

That was a good comeback. But even though things look bleak now God will usher in a revival that will transform nations. The Harvest will be so great that many will have to go to Catholic churches as there won't be any room at the inn. Islam is weakining spiritually the people becoming discontent and we will have victory over the terrorists, what with the elimination of Bin Laden.

I don't think Protestantism is going to be around that much longer especially not in Europe. Christianity is declining and Protestants are a minority which means they'll probably go first. Islam is on the rise due to immigration and nationalism is failing due to a lack proper integration.

Protestantism will always exist. Even if they burn down all the major denominations, the believers will go underground. Since Protestantism is anyone who is not in communion with Rome and maybe also in addition does not practice some form of mass, since Orthodox are not in communion with Rome , but not called Protestants, which sounds like favouritism to me.
But the point being that even though Rome and the RCC church would condemn these people, the Lord would gracefully accept them into his flock, because he is far more mercyful than the RCC and He is the savior, not the Pope or the RCC, trying to scuttle before him, like Peter.

In Africa and Asia Protestantism is seen as remnant of colonialism and foreign control. The future of those areas is between Catholics and Muslims. South America is South America of course. At worst people are just not practicing their faith conversion to Protestantism is rare except among young people who like music but the Church is holding its own in that regard to.

In some areas maybe, but Protestatism is growing leaps and grounds, especially as it appeals to the black soul, who love to worship and praise the Lord with joy and dance, which is very Protestant and Jewish flavourings.
There is also concern in the south America in the RCC over the explosive Protestant growth. I heard that some nations are wary of the RCC due to it's political clout but are more welcome of Protestant churches as they are less political.

Protestantism sowed the seeds of its own desturction in several ways.

1. It doesn't actually stand for anything. To be clear many individual Protestants have official beliefs but their churches do not claim to teach to an unaltered truth given by God.

They venerate the scriptures but since there is no body within the Protestant communities to maintain a common faith people see no necessity in community. The church is a body of believers but ask a groups of Protestants of the same sects or even of a confederation of sects and you will get a thousand contradicting answers.

That is not body united by truth. Thats a body in search of truth.

One reason I love Protestantism, is that is constantly searches the truth and digs into the scriptures, thus a body of truth seekers are much more likely in Protestant communities, as opposed to Catholics who are often born into the faith and many fall away into outright rebellion, becoming the biggest antichrist promoters.

2. Protestantism was born of discord. All the nations of the Holy Roman Empire were nationalistic. However the Emperor was elected, monarch dynasties married across different kingdoms and there was a system of private property so sometimes noble families within a kingdom could amass more wealth than the crown. This dynamic fusion of nationalism and fraternalism among the crowns and their elected Emperor (coupled with a common faith) provided just enough room for competition within the empire but did enough to prevent full scale wars.

So the English crown could lay calims to the France and the two cronws could fight a little, resolve their issues and things kept moving.

Protestantism changed everything. Protestant rebellions plunged nations into civil war and Europe into full scale wars with one another the likes of which shook the very culture of European infrastructure. Warfare is a despicable and horrifying thing witness. The common people suffered greatly as this reformer claimed that his version of the truth was the truth and that reformer claimed that this reform wasn't radical enough and all the reformers claimed the Catholic Church was evil. Then this king sided those protestants who killed those proptestants and those Catholics to maintain their power. Then the Catholics wiped those protestants for trying to take France and Spain wiped out those guys for question the Inquistion meant to remove Muslims and Jews in hiding from Catholic lands.


I think you confusing National disputes with religion. A lot of these wars have nothing to do with religion, it is more to do with monarchial disputes. Revolution such as the French revolution were not even Protestant they were done by the antiChristian forces, who hated church.  As nations Protestants had much better policies than the Catholic ones.

And on and on and on ad infinitam. All this new preachingand this random guy claiming to hold the truth apart from the consensus of the Church grew more and more biter as English was mobilized to slaughter more English to slaughter the French to slaughter Spanish to take Rome to take Sweden to defend against the Dutch.

The common people were sucked into a perpetual vaccuum of war with the birth of Protestantism until now, well now most Europeans distance themselves from the faith because they remember how Christianity ripped their country, their family, their homes apart.

If Christianity is to ascend to greater heights in the hearts of Europeans I doubt it will be in Protestants whose faith will simply lock Europe in a never ending tempest of animosity.

As if politics anf false religions aren't enough.

What wars did Protestant fought in? I know cheks defended their land against the crusades and defeated them.
Aethists always say religion causes most wars, when talking about Christianity or Protestatism, but they do not have a good track record, their is the worst. Other religions like Islam, is known for violence, while other religions are not even big enough to make a sizeable impact, apart on one or two countries. The Catholics only have peace as of late because the Protestant taught them how to behave respecfully as Christ would have them.

[AVZ]

You are looking for authority supporting your institution apart, above, and beyond that of scripture.

Thats because my institution predates Scripture, wrote scripture and canonized the scriptures. When the Bible was canonized what made each scripture legitimate was the author (Apostles and their successors). The same rule makes biblical interpretation legitimate (Apostles and their successors).

Its a very consistent system God has here.

You are sorely mistaken.
The Jewish people and faith existed before the Law and the Prophets, yet it would be unthinkable if these scriptures would be subjected to their successive interpretation or approval.

The only (erroneous) consistency here is that both the Pharisees and the Catholic Church assume they are the only institutes who have the appointment of interpretation.

At the beginning of the Scriptures stands God...and not the Catholic Church!

[LightHammer]

Actually, the children of Israel insisted upon having a King, which request God granted them as a final response to their continual rejection of His authority, though warning them against the dangers thereof. By choosing to have a King, they were rejecting God's leadership through His prophets.

1) No they weren't as the prophets were not leading at this time. The Judges were.

2) By requesting a King the Jews were not rejecting God's leadership, they were requesting that God lead them through one supreme office as opposed through the splintering offices of the Judges who often were at odds with one another.

3) Your quote complete ignores the point that the authority of Moses not to some inanimate object but ultimately to other men.

God never intended for kings to rule over Israel for the reasons stated above, but His rebellious people once again rejected Him and His authority through His prophets in favor of another. This to Judaism and Catholicism have in common, both having chosen the leadership of a man above that of God. Both leading to terrible abuse and suffering at the hands of unconverted power hungry men usurping the authority of God.

1) Wrong. God never intended for a simple man to be king over Israel. Christ was always meant to be King.

2) Again you are completely ignoring that Moses' authority did not pass to some inanimate object but to men. God invests in people not books.

None of these men had any authority from God or His word to support their abusive behavior. All their subjects had the perfect right to reject whatever authority they claimed or exercised which was in contradiction to the already expressed and written will of God. It is only because people will not do so, that such evil prevails in this world. Countless Christians and Jews sacrificed their own lives rather than bow to the usurped authority of their leaders against the expressed will of God. The scriptures verify this truth, and history verifies the same in relation to the abusive authority of your own institution towards those who would not submit to them.

False. David Solomon and the Kings of Israel were all valid kings and blessed by God. The authority they weilded came from Moses through Samuel, the Judges and Saul. God blessed King Saul in combat and David and Solomon and strengthen their rule when they were strong in faith.

My point still stands that Moses' authority passed on to men and not to an animate object.

Your quotes show how the state and the Church voted to deal with criminals. The same was the case in the Old Testament which means that such is not intrinsically evil (that means it is not always wrong no matter). Killing heretics in an orthodox community is not always wrong if it were God would not have specifically ordered the deaths of sinners to Israelbecause God would never sanction something that is evil.

It is only evil when it is abused or when God has designated that mercy should be the norm. Catholic monarchs took oaths of loyalty to preseve the true faith and Catholic subjects took oaths of allegiance to the same. Whle the New Covenant places an emphasis on mercy that does not automatically make the Pope's orders wrong.

Trying to pretend otherwise is unbiblical and an attempt to supplement truth with sentiment.

I doubt you expect me to consider a baptist minister from England seriously in a time where Protestants were still enslavig blacks in America.

His bias is self-evident as is his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the population of his own continent.

Give the scriptures, and we will examine your point above.

Matthew 23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

What Jewish custom was Peter imposing on Gentile converts? If you are referring to the incident concerning the Jews remaining separate from the Gentiles while eating, you are mistaken.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Gal 2:11-14 (KJV)

Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. This because Peter had no authority when doing that which was against God's expressed will, thus Paul could rightly oppose him to his face. It is the opposite of what your are claiming, Peter did lose authority concerning that which he was practicing.

Read the whole thing again and not just the part you highlighted. No where does the verse say that St. Peter lost any of his authority. It shows that he infact had authority even when his policy wasn't the best. How is this? One because the people were actually doing what he said. If he had not authority he would not need be obeyed. This would've been taught to the peopel and they would've known not to obey St. Peter. Secondly St. Paul confronted St. Peter personally as opposed to simply commanding the people to the contrary. If my commander sees my sergeant giving us a bad command, as his superior he issues the correct command and speaks with my sergeant in private later.

The leaders were wrong when they commanded that which contradicted God's word, and the people were wrong when they obeyed those commands.

No St. Peter wasn't wrong because his actions contradicted some scripture because scripture wasn't even written yet. St. Peter was wrong because St. Peter was wrong. He still had the authority to implement policy even if it was bad policy. What true Christians do is what St. Paul as a true Christian did and thats in private reason with your leadership with regards to abuse or misuse of authority.

Your way of thinking does not work because it can not be applied to the entire history of the Church. Truth is consistent it is not simply applicable to one time. The truth is the Church predates scripture and God produced scripture through the Church. The Church can't be contained by something it predates. She can however be expressed by such and that is what scripture is. Not some book of authority but an expression of the Church's history, her teachings and her heritage. Her authority is vested in her men and women.

This will never end, you belong to an institution which exalts humanity above God

Oh goodness this coming rom a group of people who created humanism and a man who thinks himself moved alone by God to discern to the truth for himself apart from God's collective.

I have not ceased to share one scripture after another after another after another with you and yours from one end of the bible to the other concerning the authority of God's word above and beyond that of all humanity at all times, save the humanity of  Christ alone.

Amo who do you think you're talking to? You think you can quote a few lines with a few highlighted sections and pretend your self an arbiter of biblical doctrine? Any idiot with half a brain can copy and paste scriptures. That does nothing for me. I sing the psalms everyday. I meditate on the scriptures themselves in open fields.

I am not unfamiliar with the texts my ancestors wrote and codified them; guided by God to identify them from contemporary gnostic texts and the like. You don't impress with a few sentences under a quotation. The truths we are arguing are not reducable to your rudimentary ploys.

I can quote scriptures for days to and write my interpretation underneath them and talk to down to you for not accepting my interpretation as the true expression of God's word.

I don't need to do that. I don't have to present my claims because yours are easily countered. Thats the point you never seem to get. Your faith is so flimsy that I need not cast the pearls of my own. You believe a book weilds authority. You think that the netire Church fell away until it was saved by a gorup of European militants who have contributed more to the downfall of Christianity than to spreading it.

Nevermind defending the faith its easier to prick at the clay stone you stand on. So before we go on lose the attitude. Don't try to come here with your frustration thinking if you shotgun a bunch of scriptures that somehow I'll be amazed and think your interpretation of those scriptures are somehow valid.

The above is a lie!

I'm sure you will try to make it seem that way.

The true Church did not kill or persecute at all, even while both were being done to her.

Please. The Church is made of men and women. We have always had true Christians baptized and struggling with their own holiness who have done things they shouldn't. During the Great Perseuction some vengeful Christians burned a group of pagans inside a temple by using pig fat as fuel for fire. Once Christians became free they feared a return to the persecution so greatly that they often viewed pagans with extreme prejudice and passed laws against them.

To act like the true Church excludes men of weakness is ridiculous and indicative of something living under a rock.

The false church which you belong to, began to kill and persecute when she gained the favor of emperors and kings and the wealth and power of the world.

Not exactly. The Church didn't really persecute until the Middle Ages when it was forced to purge the remnant of Muslim invaders from Spain and the rest of Europe by way of the Inquisition. Any conflcit before that was really self-defense. Constantine fought the Emepror in the East because he started persecuting Christians even after he swore to protect the religious freedom of all his people. The Emperor Theodisius fought against the Visigoth Emperor but that is because he was an Arian who was attempting to sack Rome.

No there was no real Christian persecution until much later in her history and even then that "persecution" was the state executing its legal rights in a way equal to the Old Testament authorities.

Had the church of Rome ever truly received authority from Christ, which she did not, she most certainly lost all such privilege when she became the agent of Satan rather than Christ through massive abuse and persecution.

It seems you hate Rome alot both the people and its regions. It wouldn't surprise me given the history of racism and discrimination amongst Protestanst in the past. I wonder how long it will the Italians that to realize that the elites and powers of Europe are dominated by a gorup of men who quite literally hate them as people?

You mention Rome every single chance you get. Not Satan, Rome. For you Rome is Hell on Earth, the seat of evil himself. You poor soul. I don't know what is worse; that your faith compels you to hate a city and its people so much or that you are so niave that you think you can isolate evil's ruling chair to one location.

No its not in the hearts of people. Its in Rome where evil reigns.

Do you really want me to start quoting one after another, after another, after another from various historians regarding the numbers involved with the persecutions executed by your institution for over a thousand years.

I wouldn't really call them "historians" more like paid propaganda spreaders employed by anti-Catholic regimes throughout Europe. If you're that uneducated that you fail to see te distortion of history then by all means do ahead.

We've been through this before LH. When I start quoting and listing the facts, you delete my posts because you do not want the truth to be seen. You make your false claims, and then when someone can prove them false with real historical facts, you delete them. After having just so many of my posts censored by you and others I took a long break from these boards. Hiding the facts of history will never make your false claims true. It will only make people ignorant, which of course makes them easier to deceive and control.

I delete you? Wait when I have ever deleted anything from you? Let me stop. You do realize that thats impossible right? I don't have the ability to simply delete someone's posts or threads. As a moderator I can remove a post or thread from the boards but that is only by transferring them to the Dumpster. The Dumpster still holds all of the removed content on this website. The Dumpster is often peer reviewed by the other moderators which would make deleting random messages of antiCatholics impossible. I am after all the only Catholic moderator in this site's history. Furthermore I actually have a moderator log that tracks what I do as a moderator so I wouldn't even be able to hide if I were being prejudice or not.

Then there's the fact that I honestly don't think that you're that important. I man to dedicate energy to simply deleting your posts would mean I would have to follow you and your activity. Do you know how low I hold the SDA faith? Of all the sects that have come out of the Protetsant movement, I find the SDA about as threatening as Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, Unitarians and Oneness Pentcostals. If you didn't notice those two deny that the Trinity. When I here protetsant the ones who I take seriously are the Lutherans, the Methodists and a certain group of Baptists.

Your psuedo-masonic doctrines are not worth censuring in my opinion so don't pretend yourself so important that I would compromise my honor by censuring a group of people who have tried and failed to prophesy the times of scriptures.

I mean really the sheer arrogance of some people.

I don't need to be exempt by you for anything. Put your race card back in your deck, I care nothing for it at all. The fact that you are black has no bearing upon what we are discussing at all. What happened to your ancestors at the hands of prejudiced people is no excuse whatsoever for you to believe and defend lies. I bear no guilt whatsoever for the prejudice of anyone but myself, nor do you deserve any special treatment from anyone today, because of the sins of those of the past.

While you are quick to point the finger at professed Protestants owning slaves or belonging to the klan, there were far more who had nothing to do with any of that, and condemned the same. This is not to mention the fact that there were many Catholic slave owners and defenders of the same as well. Perhaps you would like to examine the church of Rome, slavery, and it's support of the south during the war a little more closely. That would be fine with me, it would no doubt be very revealing.

And the sins of bad Catholics are likewise "no excuse whatsoever yfor you to believe and defend lies".

Actually you do need to be exempt for several reasons. You are trying to lead me away from the Church into your denomination by showing the sins of some Catholics while Protestants are responsible for the greatest atrocitiy done against my people.

Furthermore unlike Protestants whose individual sins stain Protestantism (a perosnal faith) a great deal more the Church has its bishops and their Pope to speak on matters such as slavery. Every Pope of the era of slavery condemn the slave trade and prohibited slavery. It was the Church in Rome who ordained the first west African bishop and the first African America priest when American Catholics were under the ignorant influence of the dominating White Anglo Saxon Protetsants.

So maybe you don't want to walk down that path with me.

Why did Obama care get passed? Was it not because it had the support of the Vatican, Catholics, and Catholic politicians? Who can forget Roman Catholic Nancy Pelosi's infamous words, "we need to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it." Is this not because universal health care is more in line with Roman Catholic social doctrine than what we had. Yes it is, and thus we are being transformed into a socialist or fascist nation from within. 

Uhh Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas and oh I don't know the entire USCCB.

We're being turned into a socialist state because the anti-Catholic left wants to subdue religion until we become what Europe has become under the Protestant/Freemason order; a bunch of Hellenist pagan loving semi-homosexuals who do drugs and talk about how great life is while supporting abortion and how horrible religion is while starting revolution after revolution. Or have you not read the New York Times lately. You neo Know Nothing kasbkasb.

Protestants only fought against predominantly Catholic forms of government after being abused and persecuted themselves by the same.

Negative. Catholics didn't start the war in England, or Germany or Holland. All Protestants. Catholics rebelled in defense of their monsateries and traditions against King Henry VII.

While Catholic governments did punish heresy with death Protestants were planning the destruction of the Church before they were even attacked.

Liever Turks dan Paaps as the Dutch said as they turned to Muslims to destroy Catholic Spain. A rebellion influenced by Protetsant England.

The Catholic church on the other hand has called for many crusades, wars, and exterminations.

The Crusades were requested by the East to help protect them from invading Muslim armies. I know that means nothing to you because the Orthodox are just another false church who are only good for joining hands in oppostion to the Catholic Church when it seems fit.  To us it mean more. To the Church it meant protecting its homeland from the invading Ottomans and a chance for a long sought after unity with the east.

To a man who forms his faith on his own this sobornost and familial love means little.

Yes, apparently she had no problem with Hitler or Mussolini, both sympathetic to Rome. Quit lying, the church of Rome has called for many crusades and wars.

Yes Hitler the flaming psuedo-masonic occultist who organized concentration camps where ST.Maxmillian the Confessor was martyred. Hitler whose assasination was led by Colonel Stauffenberg of nobel Catholic ancestry. Hitler whose enlightened republicans attempted to enslave Europe and fill the world with statues of the great Arian race. Whose swatchka was used by the Protestant klan.

And oh Mussolini the psychopath whose only "sympathy" to Rome was to enslave the Church to his will. What a serpents tongue you let surim behind your teeth.

The following is taken from The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455 English Translation

"We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit -- by having secured the said faculty, the said King Alfonso, or, by his authority, the aforesaid infante, justly and lawfully has acquired and possessed, and doth possess, these islands, lands, harbors, and seas, and they do of right belong and pertain to the said King Alfonso and his successors, nor without special license from King Alfonso and his successors themselves has any other even of the faithful of Christ been entitled hitherto, nor is he by any means now entitled lawfully to meddle therewith -- in order that King Alfonso himself and his successors and the infante.may be able the more zealously to pursue and may pursue this most pious and noble work, and most worthy of perpetual remembrance (which, since the salvation of souls, increase of the faith, and overthrow of its enemies may be procured thereby, we regard as a work wherein the glory of God, and faith in Him, and His commonwealth, the Universal Church, are concerned) in proportion as they, having been relieved of all the greater obstacles, shall find themselves supported by us and by the Apostolic See with favors and graces"

What white washing? That bull is authorization to use Muslims and pagan conquered in war for slave labor for the rest of their lives.

1) It did not include my ancestors because we were not fighting against Europeans that was the Muslims of Northern African. Muslims governments who at the same time had been promoting slavery for nearly 1000 years by way of the Arab Slave Trade.

2) The enslavement of conquered warriors was an ancient custom which was preferrable to death and did not usually mean that the children of slaves were to be slaves as well. "Perpetual slavery" in this letter was a life sentence for the conquered not hereditary slavery for their families.

You need to get your facts straight and stop pulling qutes off the interent. The Popes had always stood against slavery and the slave trade. It only allowed it for Portugese because they were defeating Muslim armies and the goal was to prevent city wide slaughters that had occured in other successful campaigns against Muslims.

The Arabs Muslims had been sucking the lower citizenry of North Africa and Sub Saharan Africa away into slavery before the Crusades even began. The Muslims got off lucky.

[LightHammer]

You are looking for authority supporting your institution apart, above, and beyond that of scripture.

Thats because my institution predates Scripture, wrote scripture and canonized the scriptures. When the Bible was canonized what made each scripture legitimate was the author (Apostles and their successors). The same rule makes biblical interpretation legitimate (Apostles and their successors).

Its a very consistent system God has here.

You are sorely mistaken.
The Jewish people and faith existed before the Law and the Prophets, yet it would be unthinkable if these scriptures would be subjected to their successive interpretation or approval.

The only (erroneous) consistency here is that both the Pharisees and the Catholic Church assume they are the only institutes who have the appointment of interpretation.

At the beginning of the Scriptures stands God...and not the Catholic Church!

Why are you talking to me?

[LightHammer]

Protestantism will always exist. Even if they burn down all the major denominations, the believers will go underground. Since Protestantism is anyone who is not in communion with Rome and maybe also in addition does not practice some form of mass, since Orthodox are not in communion with Rome , but not called Protestants, which sounds like favouritism to me.
But the point being that even though Rome and the RCC church would condemn these people, the Lord would gracefully accept them into his flock, because he is far more mercyful than the RCC and He is the savior, not the Pope or the RCC, trying to scuttle before him, like Peter.

1. Protestantism wasn't instituted by Christ as Martin Luther, John Wesley, Zwingli, Calvin none of them were hand picked by Christ to lead. Therefore whatever organizations built upon their interpretatiosn fo scripture probably will not endure. In Germany a prominent Lutheran Church was abandoned bought by Muslims and turned into a Mosque. Anglicaism's days are numbered ever since it started ordaining women and performing gay marriages. There is nothing unique about Protestant communities anymore. Just some guy standing on a platform sharing his thoughts on scripture.

2. Being Protestant does not simply mean you are not in communion with Rome. The Orthodox united with Constantinople aren't in communion with Rome. Call the wrong one Protestant and he's likely to shatter your teeth in you jaw depending on how much he hates the west.

In some areas maybe, but Protestatism is growing leaps and grounds, especially as it appeals to the black soul, who love to worship and praise the Lord with joy and dance, which is very Protestant and Jewish flavourings.

Appeals to the black soul? Where exactly? I'm black so please enlighten me. The only black protestant strong hold in the world is the African American community. It was only so strong because once slaves were free in a country doimnated by white anglo saxon protestants protestantism was adopted as quickly as the slave owners last name. Not to mention Prince Hall Freemasonry served as the glue for the black protestants and the anti-Catholic sentiment. However that is completely shattering. Prince Hall Freemasonry is on a downward plummet in membership (or at least thats what my friends tell me) and as black churche sbecome more and more left they become less and less places of Christian worship and more places of socio-political propganda.

African is compeltely Catholic or Muslim. Protestants may be dominant in the smallest of countries. Vocations to the priesthood are the highest in Africa than any other place in the world. Jesuits, Franciscans, Redemptorists, monks of every order. Colonial Africa is dying and in Africa Protestant/Freemasonry is seen as the remnant of old colonial rule. Conspiracy theorists go crazy over it.

There is also concern in the south America in the RCC over the explosive Protestant growth. I heard that some nations are wary of the RCC due to it's political clout but are more welcome of Protestant churches as they are less political.

Name one country. Give me one country where the Church is fearful of Protestantism in any form.

One reason I love Protestantism, is that is constantly searches the truth and digs into the scriptures, thus a body of truth seekers are much more likely in Protestant communities, as opposed to Catholics who are often born into the faith and many fall away into outright rebellion, becoming the biggest antichrist promoters.

This is true. One of the reasons why Satan is so formidable as an opponent is because he was once one of the highest angels in all of heaven. Likewise when Catholics fall away Satan gets the best of the best to add to his ranks.

I think you confusing National disputes with religion. A lot of these wars have nothing to do with religion, it is more to do with monarchial disputes. Revolution such as the French revolution were not even Protestant they were done by the antiChristian forces, who hated church.  As nations Protestants had much better policies than the Catholic ones.

I think thats debatable. Can you give an example?

What wars did Protestant fought in? I know cheks defended their land against the crusades and defeated them.
Aethists always say religion causes most wars, when talking about Christianity or Protestatism, but they do not have a good track record, their is the worst. Other religions like Islam, is known for violence, while other religions are not even big enough to make a sizeable impact, apart on one or two countries. The Catholics only have peace as of late because the Protestant taught them how to behave respecfully as Christ would have them.

Look up the Thrity Years War, the Dutch Revolt and the Pilgrim Army in England.

[AVZ]

You are looking for authority supporting your institution apart, above, and beyond that of scripture.

Thats because my institution predates Scripture, wrote scripture and canonized the scriptures. When the Bible was canonized what made each scripture legitimate was the author (Apostles and their successors). The same rule makes biblical interpretation legitimate (Apostles and their successors).

Its a very consistent system God has here.

You are sorely mistaken.
The Jewish people and faith existed before the Law and the Prophets, yet it would be unthinkable if these scriptures would be subjected to their successive interpretation or approval.

The only (erroneous) consistency here is that both the Pharisees and the Catholic Church assume they are the only institutes who have the appointment of interpretation.

At the beginning of the Scriptures stands God...and not the Catholic Church!

Why are you talking to me?

Because I think there is still hope for you?

[AVZ]

Actually, the children of Israel insisted upon having a King, which request God granted them as a final response to their continual rejection of His authority, though warning them against the dangers thereof. By choosing to have a King, they were rejecting God's leadership through His prophets.

1) No they weren't as the prophets were not leading at this time. The Judges were.

2) By requesting a King the Jews were not rejecting God's leadership, they were requesting that God lead them through one supreme office as opposed through the splintering offices of the Judges who often were at odds with one another.

3) Your quote complete ignores the point that the authority of Moses not to some inanimate object but ultimately to other men.

God never intended for kings to rule over Israel for the reasons stated above, but His rebellious people once again rejected Him and His authority through His prophets in favor of another. This to Judaism and Catholicism have in common, both having chosen the leadership of a man above that of God. Both leading to terrible abuse and suffering at the hands of unconverted power hungry men usurping the authority of God.

1) Wrong. God never intended for a simple man to be king over Israel. Christ was always meant to be King.

2) Again you are completely ignoring that Moses' authority did not pass to some inanimate object but to men. God invests in people not books.

The correct answer can of course be found in the Bible.

LH says: "Wrong. God never intended for a simple man to be king over Israel."

Deuteronomy 17 however says...
When you come to the land the LORD your God is giving you and take it over and live in it and then say, "I will select a king like all the nations surrounding me," you must select without fail a king whom the LORD your God chooses. From among your fellow citizens you must appoint a king – you may not designate a foreigner who is not one of your fellow Israelites.
Moreover, he must not accumulate horses for himself or allow the people to return to Egypt to do so, for the LORD has said you must never again return that way.
Furthermore, he must not marry many wives lest his affections turn aside, and he must not accumulate much silver and gold.
When he sits on his royal throne he must make a copy of this law on a scroll given to him by the Levitical priests.
It must be with him constantly and he must read it as long as he lives, so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and observe all the words of this law and these statutes and carry them out.
Then he will not exalt himself above his fellow citizens or turn from the commandments to the right or left, and he and his descendants will enjoy many years ruling over his kingdom in Israel.

Hence a king was definitely in Gods plan for Israel.

LH says: "By requesting a King the Jews were not rejecting God's leadership, they were requesting that God lead them through one supreme office as opposed through the splintering offices of the Judges who often were at odds with one another."

Samuel 8: 7-8 however says...
The LORD said to Samuel, "Do everything the people request of you. For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is Me that they have rejected as their king.
Just as they have done from the day that I brought them up from Egypt until this very day, they have rejected Me and have served other gods. This is what they are also doing to you.

[LightHammer]

Actually, the children of Israel insisted upon having a King, which request God granted them as a final response to their continual rejection of His authority, though warning them against the dangers thereof. By choosing to have a King, they were rejecting God's leadership through His prophets.

1) No they weren't as the prophets were not leading at this time. The Judges were.

2) By requesting a King the Jews were not rejecting God's leadership, they were requesting that God lead them through one supreme office as opposed through the splintering offices of the Judges who often were at odds with one another.

3) Your quote complete ignores the point that the authority of Moses not to some inanimate object but ultimately to other men.

God never intended for kings to rule over Israel for the reasons stated above, but His rebellious people once again rejected Him and His authority through His prophets in favor of another. This to Judaism and Catholicism have in common, both having chosen the leadership of a man above that of God. Both leading to terrible abuse and suffering at the hands of unconverted power hungry men usurping the authority of God.

1) Wrong. God never intended for a simple man to be king over Israel. Christ was always meant to be King.

2) Again you are completely ignoring that Moses' authority did not pass to some inanimate object but to men. God invests in people not books.

The correct answer can of course be found in the Bible.

LH says: "Wrong. God never intended for a simple man to be king over Israel."

Deuteronomy 17 however says...
When you come to the land the LORD your God is giving you and take it over and live in it and then say, "I will select a king like all the nations surrounding me," you must select without fail a king whom the LORD your God chooses. From among your fellow citizens you must appoint a king – you may not designate a foreigner who is not one of your fellow Israelites.
Moreover, he must not accumulate horses for himself or allow the people to return to Egypt to do so, for the LORD has said you must never again return that way.
Furthermore, he must not marry many wives lest his affections turn aside, and he must not accumulate much silver and gold.
When he sits on his royal throne he must make a copy of this law on a scroll given to him by the Levitical priests.
It must be with him constantly and he must read it as long as he lives, so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and observe all the words of this law and these statutes and carry them out.
Then he will not exalt himself above his fellow citizens or turn from the commandments to the right or left, and he and his descendants will enjoy many years ruling over his kingdom in Israel.

Hence a king was definitely in Gods plan for Israel.

LH says: "By requesting a King the Jews were not rejecting God's leadership, they were requesting that God lead them through one supreme office as opposed through the splintering offices of the Judges who often were at odds with one another."

Samuel 8: 7-8 however says...
The LORD said to Samuel, "Do everything the people request of you. For it is not you that they have rejected, but it is Me that they have rejected as their king.
Just as they have done from the day that I brought them up from Egypt until this very day, they have rejected Me and have served other gods. This is what they are also doing to you.

You can't have it both ways. Either God did not plan for them to have a man as king over them and so they were rejecting Him by insisting that they have a king or God did intend for them to have a king.

1) You are actually reading Deuteronomy 17 wrong. It does not say that God intended to place Israel under a king of men. It says that once He delivered Israel to the promised land that "they" would request a king and God would indulge their request.

Its prophetic of Israel's future desire for a king not a revelation of any plan on the part of God to give them one.

2) Yes I know that ultimately the jews were rejecting God and His plan by insisting that they have a king, hence I argue above that a king of men was not God's plan for Israel in the first place.

However the Jews did not know that. They had no idea what God was thinking. All they knew was that the judges were splintering the tribes apart and a king to unify them was the best option available. So from their point of view they weren't rebelling against God's plan for them because it was not known they were simply rebelling against Samuel's broken dynasty in their eyes. Which is why God tells Samuel that in reality the Jews weren't rebelling against him as they thought but against God Himself.

Thus my point stands.

[FireSword]

Look up the Thrity Years War, the Dutch Revolt and the Pilgrim Army in England.

These wars were unfortunate, but something had to be done to change the balance of power from the Holy[unholy] Roman empire. It took rebellious Protestants to bring down this evil empire once and for all. Once this empire was out of the way Europe has enjoyed a measure of peace bringing the reconiassaince and explosion in the arts and science and bibles available to the poor which also improved literacy and reading skills.

Unlike previous rebellions against the RCC, where they simply wiped them out, Protestantism had a great leaders like Henry 8th who were strong enough to defeat the threats of the RCC and united Britain, to become one of the greatest nations of all time and led to America also one of the greatest and the RCC was not the proudfull leader, but this time took a secondary role, which suits it much better, to keep her humble.

In some areas maybe, but Protestatism is growing leaps and grounds, especially as it appeals to the black soul, who love to worship and praise the Lord with joy and dance, which is very Protestant and Jewish flavourings.

Appeals to the black soul? Where exactly? I'm black so please enlighten me. The only black protestant strong hold in the world is the African American community. It was only so strong because once slaves were free in a country doimnated by white anglo saxon protestants protestantism was adopted as quickly as the slave owners last name. Not to mention Prince Hall Freemasonry served as the glue for the black protestants and the anti-Catholic sentiment. However that is completely shattering. Prince Hall Freemasonry is on a downward plummet in membership (or at least thats what my friends tell me) and as black churche sbecome more and more left they become less and less places of Christian worship and more places of socio-political propganda.

African is compeltely Catholic or Muslim. Protestants may be dominant in the smallest of countries. Vocations to the priesthood are the highest in Africa than any other place in the world. Jesuits, Franciscans, Redemptorists, monks of every order. Colonial Africa is dying and in Africa Protestant/Freemasonry is seen as the remnant of old colonial rule. Conspiracy theorists go crazy over it.

You are Amercian so probably fed a lot about the history which seems to keep a lot of resentment and bitterness among the youth, even though their grandparents were respectful and joyfull people in the midst of persecution. In Affrica they are always praising the Lord and are not as resentfull and welcome the Queen of Britannia with open arms and celebration

Ever heard of Reinhard Bonnke, this man reaches out to millions of Affricans and many become saved. That's just one evangelist.

Name one country. Give me one country where the Church is fearful of Protestantism in any form

Iran. Heard of the pastor that is jailed for his faith?
[/color]

[winsome]

Look up the Thrity Years War, the Dutch Revolt and the Pilgrim Army in England.

These wars were unfortunate, but something had to be done to change the balance of power from the Holy[unholy] Roman empire. It took rebellious Protestants to bring down this evil empire once and for all. Once this empire was out of the way Europe has enjoyed a measure of peace bringing the reconiassaince and explosion in the arts and science and bibles available to the poor which also improved literacy and reading skills.

Unlike previous rebellions against the RCC, where they simply wiped them out, Protestantism had a great leaders like Henry 8th who were strong enough to defeat the threats of the RCC and united Britain, to become one of the greatest nations of all time and led to America also one of the greatest and the RCC was not the proudfull leader, but this time took a secondary role, which suits it much better, to keep her humble.

In some areas maybe, but Protestatism is growing leaps and grounds, especially as it appeals to the black soul, who love to worship and praise the Lord with joy and dance, which is very Protestant and Jewish flavourings.



Appeals to the black soul? Where exactly? I'm black so please enlighten me. The only black protestant strong hold in the world is the African American community. It was only so strong because once slaves were free in a country doimnated by white anglo saxon protestants protestantism was adopted as quickly as the slave owners last name. Not to mention Prince Hall Freemasonry served as the glue for the black protestants and the anti-Catholic sentiment. However that is completely shattering. Prince Hall Freemasonry is on a downward plummet in membership (or at least thats what my friends tell me) and as black churche sbecome more and more left they become less and less places of Christian worship and more places of socio-political propganda.

African is compeltely Catholic or Muslim. Protestants may be dominant in the smallest of countries. Vocations to the priesthood are the highest in Africa than any other place in the world. Jesuits, Franciscans, Redemptorists, monks of every order. Colonial Africa is dying and in Africa Protestant/Freemasonry is seen as the remnant of old colonial rule. Conspiracy theorists go crazy over it.

You are Amercian so probably fed a lot about the history which seems to keep a lot of resentment and bitterness among the youth, even though their grandparents were respectful and joyfull people in the midst of persecution. In Affrica they are always praising the Lord and are not as resentfull and welcome the Queen of Britannia with open arms and celebration

Ever heard of Reinhard Bonnke, this man reaches out to millions of Affricans and many become saved. That's just one evangelist.

Oh yes, the Protestant Cromwell brought a lot of peace to Ireland - basically by slaughtering the Catholic population.

Protestant England under Henry and ELizabeth was a police state with spies everywhere and persecution of Catholics.

And what about the thousands of innocent women who were slaughtered in the Protestant witch hunts?

Very peaceful people Protestants at that time - I don't think.

[FireSword]

Oh yes, the Protestant Cromwell brought a lot of peace to Ireland - basically by slaughtering the Catholic population.

Protestant England under Henry and ELizabeth was a police state with spies everywhere and persecution of Catholics.

And what about the thousands of innocent women who were slaughtered in the Protestant witch hunts?

Very peaceful people Protestants at that time - I don't think.

Don't be jealous of Great Brittania who has been and still is the light of the world.

[mclees8]

God never intended for kings to rule over Israel for the reasons stated above, but His rebellious people once again rejected Him and His authority through His prophets in favor of another. This to Judaism and Catholicism have in common, both having chosen the leadership of a man above that of God. Both leading to terrible abuse and suffering at the hands of unconverted power hungry men usurping the authority of God.



1) Wrong. God never intended for a simple man to be king over Israel. Christ was always meant to be King.

2) Again you are completely ignoring that Moses' authority did not pass to some inanimate object but to men. God invests in people not books.


Mike
Who dare aregue with logic like yours LH. How ever you are alwasys  good at confusing the issues

[LightHammer]

Oh yes, the Protestant Cromwell brought a lot of peace to Ireland - basically by slaughtering the Catholic population.

Protestant England under Henry and ELizabeth was a police state with spies everywhere and persecution of Catholics.

And what about the thousands of innocent women who were slaughtered in the Protestant witch hunts?

Very peaceful people Protestants at that time - I don't think.

Don't be jealous of Great Brittania who has been and still is the light of the world.

The light of the world?

No that would be the Church.

Matthew 5:14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Not to mention that Winsome is British.

[LightHammer]

Look up the Thrity Years War, the Dutch Revolt and the Pilgrim Army in England.

These wars were unfortunate, but something had to be done to change the balance of power from the Holy[unholy] Roman empire. It took rebellious Protestants to bring down this evil empire once and for all. Once this empire was out of the way Europe has enjoyed a measure of peace bringing the reconiassaince and explosion in the arts and science and bibles available to the poor which also improved literacy and reading skills.

Unlike previous rebellions against the RCC, where they simply wiped them out, Protestantism had a great leaders like Henry 8th who were strong enough to defeat the threats of the RCC and united Britain, to become one of the greatest nations of all time and led to America also one of the greatest and the RCC was not the proudfull leader, but this time took a secondary role, which suits it much better, to keep her humble.

In some areas maybe, but Protestatism is growing leaps and grounds, especially as it appeals to the black soul, who love to worship and praise the Lord with joy and dance, which is very Protestant and Jewish flavourings.

Appeals to the black soul? Where exactly? I'm black so please enlighten me. The only black protestant strong hold in the world is the African American community. It was only so strong because once slaves were free in a country doimnated by white anglo saxon protestants protestantism was adopted as quickly as the slave owners last name. Not to mention Prince Hall Freemasonry served as the glue for the black protestants and the anti-Catholic sentiment. However that is completely shattering. Prince Hall Freemasonry is on a downward plummet in membership (or at least thats what my friends tell me) and as black churche sbecome more and more left they become less and less places of Christian worship and more places of socio-political propganda.

African is compeltely Catholic or Muslim. Protestants may be dominant in the smallest of countries. Vocations to the priesthood are the highest in Africa than any other place in the world. Jesuits, Franciscans, Redemptorists, monks of every order. Colonial Africa is dying and in Africa Protestant/Freemasonry is seen as the remnant of old colonial rule. Conspiracy theorists go crazy over it.

You are Amercian so probably fed a lot about the history which seems to keep a lot of resentment and bitterness among the youth, even though their grandparents were respectful and joyfull people in the midst of persecution. In Affrica they are always praising the Lord and are not as resentfull and welcome the Queen of Britannia with open arms and celebration

Ever heard of Reinhard Bonnke, this man reaches out to millions of Affricans and many become saved. That's just one evangelist.

Name one country. Give me one country where the Church is fearful of Protestantism in any form

Iran. Heard of the pastor that is jailed for his faith?
[/color]

Iran is dominated by the Assyrian Church of the East. Those Christians have zero to do with anything Protestant.  What are you talking about?

Africa welcomed Britain. Ever heard of apartheid? What type of revisionist education did you receive?