|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 9, 2009 15:33:15 GMT -5
Yes those that believe in eternally security are less Spiritually guided. Most OSAS believers come from denominations that do not believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit or Spiritual gifts. How can they be led by the Spirit when they themselves do not even believe they can be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 9, 2009 17:51:16 GMT -5
I disagree I believe tha doctrine of salvation is clearly evident in scripture. Oh, ok. Show me where? (and remember, by what the definition of what a "doctrine" is, you must have the complete teaching without interruption in one passage of scripture covering everything on the belief system, not just a verse here and a verse there...Satan did that when he tried to use combined verses to create a false belief to Jesus) But your answer first please...because you said that you believe the Scriptures as written, do you believe that Peter was in Iraq if I provide the scripture, even though Christianity never believed this? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 9, 2009 19:18:58 GMT -5
I disagree I believe tha doctrine of salvation is clearly evident in scripture. Oh, ok. Show me where? (and remember, by what the definition of what a "doctrine" is, you must have the complete teaching without interruption in one passage of scripture covering everything on the belief system, not just a verse here and a verse there...Satan did that when he tried to use combined verses to create a false belief to Jesus) But your answer first please...because you said that you believe the Scriptures as written, do you believe that Peter was in Iraq if I provide the scripture, even though Christianity never believed this? Sure if you show me where the Bible says Peter was in Iraq, I will believe it even if people deny it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 9, 2009 19:20:52 GMT -5
Yes those that believe in eternally security are less Spiritually guided. Most OSAS believers come from denominations that do not believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit or Spiritual gifts. How can they be led by the Spirit when they themselves do not even believe they can be? Amen. (Not slighting only OSASins alone, but also Catholics who have this laxidasical attitude towards their faith. Relativism). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 9, 2009 19:38:05 GMT -5
Oh, ok. Show me where? (and remember, by what the definition of what a "doctrine" is, you must have the complete teaching without interruption in one passage of scripture covering everything on the belief system, not just a verse here and a verse there...Satan did that when he tried to use combined verses to create a false belief to Jesus) But your answer first please...because you said that you believe the Scriptures as written, do you believe that Peter was in Iraq if I provide the scripture, even though Christianity never believed this? Sure if you show me where the Bible says Peter was in Iraq, I will believe it even if people deny it. Are you serious? I ask you a question and you refuse to answer it until I answer a question you posted to me after I asked you my question?  1 Peter 5:13 " The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." Now, your proof that the Doctrine of Salvation is in The Bible. Come on now...stop...  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 9, 2009 19:48:17 GMT -5
#1 that says that Peter wrote a letter to the church in ''Babylon'' and #2 I already showed you that the doctrine of salvation is in Scripture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 9, 2009 20:40:36 GMT -5
#1 that says that Peter wrote a letter to the church in ''Babylon'' and #2 I already showed you that the doctrine of salvation is in Scripture. 1. Wait a second there... I thought you said that you accepted it "as written"? If you did, why does your explaination differ from the written text? You're "personally interpreting" what's there...Peter was sending his greetings from a place he referred to as Babylon. He said , The Church "at" Babylon...they weren't the recipients. They were sending the letter. Here's the whole passage: 1 Peter 5 1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
6Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
8Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
9Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
10But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. 11To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
12By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
14Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.He just named the persons he's with and says that they are at Babylon! You don't see that? What it literally says is "at" Babylon, not "in" Babylon. You are changing the words. Try again, only this time, bend your mind to the scripture, not the scripture to you mind. 2. And...you never posted a doctrine. You posted verses without showing a corillation. I've already posted the definition of a doctrine, so there is no excuse. (and remember, by what the definition of what a "doctrine" is, you must have the complete teaching without interruption in one passage of scripture covering everything on the belief system, not just a verse here and a verse there...Satan did that when he tried to use combined verses to create a false belief to Jesus) |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 9, 2009 21:00:16 GMT -5
2. And...you never posted a doctrine. You posted verses without showing a corillation. I've already posted the definition of a doctrine, so there is no excuse. (and remember, by what the definition of what a "doctrine" is, you must have the complete teaching without interruption in one passage of scripture covering everything on the belief system, not just a verse here and a verse there...Satan did that when he tried to use combined verses to create a false belief to Jesus) You are a weird Guy Romans 10:9-10 is all the scripture i need to understand the doctrine of salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 9, 2009 21:02:11 GMT -5
#1 that says that Peter wrote a letter to the church in ''Babylon'' and #2 I already showed you that the doctrine of salvation is in Scripture. 1. Wait a second there... I thought you said that you accepted it "as written"? If you did, why does your explaination differ from the written text? You're "personally interpreting" what's there...Peter was sending his greetings from a place he referred to as Babylon. He said , The Church "at" Babylon...they weren't the recipients. They were sending the letter. Here's the whole passage: 1 Peter 5 1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
6Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
7Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
8Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
9Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
10But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you. 11To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
12By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
13The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
14Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.He just named the persons he's with and says that they are at Babylon! You don't see that? What it literally says is "at" Babylon, not "in" Babylon. You are changing the words. Try again, only this time, bend your mind to the scripture, not the scripture to you mind. There is nothing in that passage that would cause me to think that Peter is in Babylon when writing this letter. Maybe he went their maybe he didn't but this passage you gave doesn't say he was there. I really do not know what your trying to prove? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 9, 2009 23:21:52 GMT -5
You are a weird Guy Romans 10:9-10 is all the scripture i need to understand the doctrine of salvation.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.You mean this one? Where is the discussion about works and their relation to salvation? It's not there. That's why there has to be a doctrine. You've only posted a couple of verses and they don't address the entire doctrine. I see that I'm going to have to further explain what a doctrine is: doc·trine 1archaic :
teaching , instruction
2
a: something that is taught
b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c: a principle of law established through past decisions
d: a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e: a military principle or set of strategiesNow, we all know how there were persons who did this (confessed that Jesus was their Savior) and they were condemened to eternal damnation, so confessing alone doesn't save one...in fact, James 2 teaches us that "faith alone" doesn't save you for it is dead. So, if you only went by this couple of verses, you'd be missing out on the "entire" truth of what the Doctrine of Salvation is. For example, in that same chapter, it says (just a couple of lines after the ones you chose): 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But Jesus says... Matthew 7 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Didn't they "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus? What happened there? If Paul's teaching is enough for you, doesn't that make Jesus wrong? Again, that's whey an entire "doctrine" is required (not just individual teachings). A Christian cannot pick and choose what they want to believe, they have to accept the entire "body of teachings" when believing...and you know what a "body of teachings" is? A doctrine. And we know how Paul feels about doctrines... 1 Timothy 1 3As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 1 Timothy 6: 3If 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; So, as you can see, doctrines were definitely defended by Paul. And, by the very verses you chose to use as proof of The Doctrine of Salvation, Jesus' own words contradict them saying that "that" alone (confessing His name and Him to be Lord) will not save one. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that you're not right.l And that's whey The Doctrine of Salvation was developed. There were so many conflicting personal interpretations, that a clear united teaching had to be developed to keep Churches all on the same page. Paul even preached against these Churches misinterpreting the Scriptures and Doctrinal Teachings that they passed onto them and spoke against it and spoke as to how The Church was supposed to speak with "1" voice: 1 Corinthians 1 10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? If you believe that the only thing a person has to do is to believe and call Jesus their Lord, Jesus Himself proves that that's not accurate. That's why God revealed The Doctrine "to" The Church...so that there'd be no excuses for miscommunications or mistranslations or misunderstandings. There is only one truth...not one for each person.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 9, 2009 23:27:23 GMT -5
There is nothing in that passage that would cause me to think that Peter is in Babylon when writing this letter. Maybe he went their maybe he didn't but this passage you gave doesn't say he was there. I really do not know what your trying to prove? So Peter writes a letter and sends his greetings from Babylon and you don't believe he was in Babylon when he signed off on that letter he was writing? Then you aren't accepting what Peter wrote. When Peter said The Church that is at Babylon (or even "in" just for the sake of argument) sends it's greetings notice that he said it in the present tense...meaning that "he" was speaking for The Church (as he's always done). How could he speak for it if he wasn't there? In Babylon? Babylon of course is "in" Iraq. So Peter sends greetings from Babylon and you don't believe he was in Babylon when he sent them? Even though The Scriptures literally say it? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 9, 2009 23:29:42 GMT -5
Wait, I just realized, you said "maybe" he went there?
But he literally sent his greetings "from" Babylon.
And, what I was trying to prove is that you don't accept what you read there.
You refuse to accept the scripture as it is written.
Peter sends greetings from Babylon
Plain and simple.
So, if as you claim, you accept the scripture as written, you have to accept that Peter was in Iraq.
It's "in" The Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 12:18:03 GMT -5
You are a weird Guy Romans 10:9-10 is all the scripture i need to understand the doctrine of salvation.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.You mean this one? Where is the discussion about works and their relation to salvation? It's not there. That's why there has to be a doctrine. You've only posted a couple of verses and they don't address the entire doctrine. I see that I'm going to have to further explain what a doctrine is: doc·trine 1archaic :
teaching , instruction
2
a: something that is taught
b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c: a principle of law established through past decisions
d: a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e: a military principle or set of strategiesNow, we all know how there were persons who did this (confessed that Jesus was their Savior) and they were condemened to eternal damnation, so confessing alone doesn't save one...in fact, James 2 teaches us that "faith alone" doesn't save you for it is dead. So, if you only went by this couple of verses, you'd be missing out on the "entire" truth of what the Doctrine of Salvation is. For example, in that same chapter, it says (just a couple of lines after the ones you chose): 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But Jesus says... Matthew 7 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Didn't they "confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus? What happened there? If Paul's teaching is enough for you, doesn't that make Jesus wrong? Again, that's whey an entire "doctrine" is required (not just individual teachings). A Christian cannot pick and choose what they want to believe, they have to accept the entire "body of teachings" when believing...and you know what a "body of teachings" is? A doctrine. And we know how Paul feels about doctrines... 1 Timothy 1 3As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. 1 Timothy 6: 3If 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; So, as you can see, doctrines were definitely defended by Paul. And, by the very verses you chose to use as proof of The Doctrine of Salvation, Jesus' own words contradict them saying that "that" alone (confessing His name and Him to be Lord) will not save one. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that you're not right.l And that's whey The Doctrine of Salvation was developed. There were so many conflicting personal interpretations, that a clear united teaching had to be developed to keep Churches all on the same page. Paul even preached against these Churches misinterpreting the Scriptures and Doctrinal Teachings that they passed onto them and spoke against it and spoke as to how The Church was supposed to speak with "1" voice: 1 Corinthians 1 10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? If you believe that the only thing a person has to do is to believe and call Jesus their Lord, Jesus Himself proves that that's not accurate. That's why God revealed The Doctrine "to" The Church...so that there'd be no excuses for miscommunications or mistranslations or misunderstandings. There is only one truth...not one for each person. Yet you used scripture to support everything you said. What I refuse to accept is when people teach things and have no scripture that supports said teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 12:19:56 GMT -5
So Peter writes a letter and sends his greetings from Babylon and you don't believe he was in Babylon when he signed off on that letter he was writing? O.K. Peter was in Babylon....What is your point? |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 10, 2009 15:16:09 GMT -5
Sorry to interrupt...
I'm pretty sure his point is that the Bible literally says Peter was in Babylon--but he wasn't!
Without any knowledge of what was really going on behind the scenes (such as through the writings of the Church Fathers, or Apostolic Tradition) that is, Sola Scriptura, one could easily conclude that St. Peter was in modern-day Iraq--that's what it says after all. But he wasn't. He was in Rome. He used the word "Babylon" as a code that the Believers (esp. the Jewish believers) would understand as "Rome".
Now, the issue of Babylon/Rome is not very significant as far as our eternal salvation is concerned. But what if there were other parts of scripture that were hard to understand and easily confused?
I don't understand why people don't believe they can be led by the Spirit either. Perhaps some of them have seen "abuses" of the gifts and are afraid? Still, let's pray that the Holy Spirit will open up their hearts to His gifts.
But watchman, one verse cannot be enough to understand the doctrine of salvation! First of all, how do you know who Jesus is in this verse? How do you know what salvation is in this verse (saved from what? saved for what?)
Perhaps for someone that was raised in American and had at least a basic knowledge of what these words mean, it could be enough. But what about someone that was from, say Mecca? Could he just read this verse and understand the doctrine of salvation?
And like Cepha said, what would that man do when he read the words of Jesus:
But if you insist that you just read the Bible without interpreting it, then I ask you again, what about the Eucharist? This is one of the top reasons I became Catholic. Because when I read scripture, I really saw that there was more to the Lord's Supper than what the Churches I was attending explained.
Just read. Don't interpret, and your life will be changed:
26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body."
27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
(Matthew 26)
16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Corinthians 10)
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
27Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
28But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.
30For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
31But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. (1 Corinthians 11)
This, to me is perhaps the biggest conundrum that Evangelical Christianity faces. How can it take everything in the Bible at face value, claiming to let the Bible speak for itself, yet with such an important issue as the Eucharist, it seems to hold it's ears and pretend not to hear. The language is so plain, so simple, and even if the language were not plain, we have the entire history of the Church to show us that Christianity has always--until the "Reformation"--believed that the Eucharist is Truly the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus.
How and why would God let the Entire Church for 1500 years be deceived about something so important?
25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"
(Luke 24)
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 20:29:17 GMT -5
So are you telling me that cepha tried to get me to admit that Peter was in Babylon so he could say he was not...lol...some people will do anything to try and prove an unprovable point. If you want me to accept catholic traditions not taught in scripture, you might as well give up now it will never happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 10, 2009 20:33:04 GMT -5
I have nothing against the Eucharist or Communion or what ever you want to call it, and if you want to think that you are eating the actual body of Christ then that is your prerogative.
I believe the Bible as written and I take it literally, however I am not plucking out my eye or my arm to keep from going to hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 21:08:57 GMT -5
I have nothing against the Eucharist or Communion or what ever you want to call it, and if you want to think that you are eating the actual body of Christ then that is your prerogative. I believe the Bible as written and I take it literally, however I am not plucking out my eye or my arm to keep from going to hell. I understand that this teaching is too difficult for you to hear, but you cannot pick and choose when you want to interpret the scripture literally or when it means what it says. Others did that too... John 6 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? And what happened to them? John 6:66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Notice the chapter and verse ( 6:66  )of those who "don't" believe that whoever eats the consecrated bread is truly eating Jesus's flesh. Jesus as the One through Whom all things were made can redefine bread into anything He wants to. If Jesus wants to call bread His flesh, who am I to question or not believe His words? I bend my understanding to His words and accept them as written. And, the reason for Jesus saying that one should pluck out their eye is for them to stop sinning, not for them to pluck out their eye. Jesus doesn't want you to pluck you eye out. If you stopped allowing it to cause you to sin, you wouldn't have to. Plucking out the eye is the cop out for the sinner who doesn't want to do the hard work which is to change his spirit that controls the eye, not allow the eye to control his spirit. What's better? To stop sinning with your eye? Or to pluck it out? Both give you the same result, but which do you think Jesus prefered? And, you seriously contradicted yourself...you said that you take the Scripture as written...but that you're not going to pluck out your eye. Does your eye cause you to sin? Then pluck it out. Otherwise, you are "picking & choosing" which Scriptures you will obey and which you'll ignore. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 21:12:38 GMT -5
So are you telling me that cepha tried to get me to admit that Peter was in Babylon so he could say he was not...lol...some people will do anything to try and prove an unprovable point. If you want me to accept catholic traditions not taught in scripture, you might as well give up now it will never happen. I told you clearly that Christianity doesn't believe that Peter was ever in Iraq. There was no ploy there, remember? But you are the only one who believes that Peter was in Iraq now, because the Scripture says so and you said that you accept the Scripture "as" written, right? So, you believe that Peter was in Iraq.(that is, "if" you choose to accept that Scripture as it is written) Let's forget the Rome thing...the rest of Christianity accepts that Babylon was used as a code word for Rome because the Christians couldn't reveal where they were at the time that they were written (remember, they were being persecuted, hunted down and killed). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 10, 2009 21:13:53 GMT -5
So Peter writes a letter and sends his greetings from Babylon and you don't believe he was in Babylon when he signed off on that letter he was writing? O.K. Peter was in Babylon....What is your point? My point is that Peter was never in Iraq. But now, because of how you personally choose to interpret the Scripture (literally), you are stuck with that belief. |
|
)of those who "don't" believe that whoever eats the consecrated bread is truly eating Jesus's flesh.