|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:16:39 GMT -5
Nah...I don't think so. You would provided evidence of it. Putting John's vision with modern day unbiblical interpretations a doctrine does not make. umm yes it is, and i did. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:17:28 GMT -5
As for the answer to your question, neither...we are to have faith in God. Then, everything else comes after. Faith in God is not good enough, Muslims believe in a god, and Jews believe in the God, it does them no good unless they believe on Christ.
John3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Whoever denies the Son is condemned even if they believe on God. John14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. We must believe on christ.
1st John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also Without Christ you have nothing regardless of your opinion on the Father. Read Romans 2...even those that "don't" believe in God are justified to Him by how they live out His word which is written on their hearts. The Bible clearly teaches that it is how we live that determines whether or not God saves us (not how we believe). Again, read Romans 2. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:19:20 GMT -5
Nah...I don't think so. You would provided evidence of it. Putting John's vision with modern day unbiblical interpretations a doctrine does not make. umm yes it is, and i did. Yes, you did put John's vision with modern day unbiblical interpretation. But you never showed us the unbiblican modern day interpretation in scripture. Just John's vision (upon which this post 16th century doctrine was based on that was never canonized by The Church). |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:19:33 GMT -5
Faith in God is not good enough, Muslims believe in a god, and Jews believe in the God, it does them no good unless they believe on Christ.
John3
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Whoever denies the Son is condemned even if they believe on God. John14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. We must believe on christ.
1st John 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also Without Christ you have nothing regardless of your opinion on the Father. Read Romans 2...even those that "don't" believe in God are justified to Him by how they live out His word which is written on their hearts. The Bible clearly teaches that it is how we live that determines whether or not God saves us (not how we believe). Again, read Romans 2. Do you think I do not know what Romans 2 says I could quote it to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:20:20 GMT -5
You bring up a good point...this "remnant" church, why isn't it mentioned "in" The Bible? Or throughout history? It just "appears" in his Watchman's posts...like some secret cult or sect lurking in the shadows. Reminds me of Masonsry.  Yes I belong to a secret cult of people who only trust in Christ and not man made systems of religion, eeewwww sounds scary. You mean like The Five Solas (by Martin Luther...a "man") and Millernarialism (by Miller)?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:21:04 GMT -5
Do you think I do not know what Romans 2 says I could quote it to you. I would love for you to! Especially the last few passages. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:22:54 GMT -5
umm yes it is, and i did. Yes, you did put John's vision with modern day unbiblical interpretation. But you never showed us the unbiblican modern day interpretation in scripture. Just John's vision (upon which this post 16th century doctrine was based on that was never canonized by The Church). There is nothing unbiblical about my ''interpretation'' I believe it as it is written. That the righteous are resurrected first, and the un just will be resurrected 1,000 years later. Revelation 204And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 2 question #1 Is what I said I believe not exactly what this passage say. #2 Is the Bible literal or not? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:27:15 GMT -5
Yes I belong to a secret cult of people who only trust in Christ and not man made systems of religion, eeewwww sounds scary. You mean like The Five Solas (by Martin Luther...a "man") and Millernarialism (by Miller)? first of all I have never to said that i believe the 5 solas nor any thing Martin Luther says, and Millennium is scriptural not created by Miller, who was a lunitic. Jesus taught millenarialism to John the apostle, who taught it to Palycarp who taught it to Irenaeus, |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:27:44 GMT -5
Faith in God is not good enough, Muslims believe in a god, and Jews believe in the God, it does them no good unless they believe on Christ. So, God brings someone to Jesus, this person doesn't believe in God (who is the only One who brings anybody "to" Jesus) and by believing in Jesus first, they are saved? This is what you're saying? What do you think, they have to know Jesus first? That's what saved them? Not God? That is whoever denies Jesus...in order for one to deny Him, they have to actually believe "in" Him first, then they could deny Him. So, this doesn't apply to non-believers...only to believers. That line you quoted was written to Christians (not to non-believers). Only Christians "must" believe "in" Christ. Amazing...God can be put aside in your view when even Jesus told the world that without God, He wouldn't even be here to serve us. Remember what Jesus said about the servant not being greater than The Master? Who do you think is the servant and who is The Master in The relationship between Jesus and God? Therefore, who does Jesus say is greater? And, by Who's authority did Jesus come? You're one of those Christians who put Jesus first, God 2nd. Right? Come one now...admit it (even though The Holy Bible states that it is God that brings a person to Christ...not Christ). |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:31:45 GMT -5
Do you think I do not know what Romans 2 says I could quote it to you. I would love for you to! Especially the last few passages. It says a Jew is not one outwardly but a Jew is a Jew inwardly circumcized in the heart by God. (paraphrase) Basically all true believers are Israel in God's eyes. Which is odd since God teaches us in Ephesians that Jew and Gentile became on new man in Christ that the catholics of the middle ages were killing Jews by the 1,000s |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:33:21 GMT -5
Faith in God is not good enough, Muslims believe in a god, and Jews believe in the God, it does them no good unless they believe on Christ. So, God brings someone to Jesus, this person doesn't believe in God (who is the only One who brings anybody "to" Jesus) and by believing in Jesus first, they are saved? This is what you're saying? What do you think, they have to know Jesus first? That's what saved them? Not God? No one can know God at all unless they know Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:34:38 GMT -5
You mean like The Five Solas (by Martin Luther...a "man") and Millernarialism (by Miller)? first of all I have never to said that i believe the 5 solas nor any thing Martin Luther says, and Millennium is scriptural not created by Miller, who was a lunitic. Jesus taught millenarialism to John the apostle, who taught it to Palycarp who taught it to Irenaeus, You believe in Sola Scriptura don't you? And Sola Fidei don't you? Quote the scripture where Jesus taught millenarialism to John the apostle? By the way, why didn't you respond to my quotes from Irenaeus and Polycarp on The Catholic Church being the Church they defended? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:35:08 GMT -5
Amazing...God can be put aside in your view when even Jesus told the world that without God, He wouldn't even be here to serve us. Jesus is God the Bible clearly tells us we cannot have the Father unless we have the Son. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:36:30 GMT -5
first of all I have never to said that i believe the 5 solas nor any thing Martin Luther says, and Millennium is scriptural not created by Miller, who was a lunitic. Jesus taught millenarialism to John the apostle, who taught it to Palycarp who taught it to Irenaeus, You believe in Sola Scriptura don't you? And Sola Fidei don't you? Quote the scripture where Jesus taught millenarialism to John the apostle? By the way, why didn't you respond to my quotes from Irenaeus and Polycarp on The Catholic Church being the Church they defended? I did, the Catholic church they defended is not what we know a catholicism but was before catholicism perverted Christianity And No I do not believe in Faith alone James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:37:24 GMT -5
So, God brings someone to Jesus, this person doesn't believe in God (who is the only One who brings anybody "to" Jesus) and by believing in Jesus first, they are saved? This is what you're saying? What do you think, they have to know Jesus first? That's what saved them? Not God? No one can know God at all unless they know Jesus. No wonder you got it wrong...it's in John 6 (that part of The Bible that Anti-Catholics can't accept as spoken of in John 6:66)... John 6:44" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Now, what part of " No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" don't you understand? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 26, 2009 23:38:54 GMT -5
No one can know God at all unless they know Jesus. No wonder you got it wrong...it's in John 6 (that part of The Bible that Anti-Catholics can't accept as spoken of in John 6:66)... John 6:44" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." Now, what part of " No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" don't you understand? I never denied that the Father draws men to Christ. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:42:31 GMT -5
You believe in Sola Scriptura don't you? And Sola Fidei don't you? Quote the scripture where Jesus taught millenarialism to John the apostle? By the way, why didn't you respond to my quotes from Irenaeus and Polycarp on The Catholic Church being the Church they defended? I did, the Catholic church they defended is not what we know a catholicism but was before catholicism perverted Christianity And No I do not believe in Faith alone James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. So The Catholic Church was so powerful that it overran God's Church? ? Was God that weak? I dont' think so. You underestimate God. Anyway, here are The Church Fathers in their own words. We can address them and their defenses of the only Church that existed at that time which still exists today...The Catholic Church: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). " ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna."
Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate.
Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?"
Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Hermas
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).
Ignatius of Antioch
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church"
(Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
Irenaeus
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:44:12 GMT -5
I never denied that the Father draws men to Christ. You just said that "No one can know God at all unless they know Jesus." You're saying that they have to know Jesus "first", but The Bible says that it is God who brings you to Jesus. So since both of those statements contradict each other, which is it? Your's or The Bible's? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:45:34 GMT -5
Yes, you did put John's vision with modern day unbiblical interpretation. But you never showed us the unbiblican modern day interpretation in scripture. Just John's vision (upon which this post 16th century doctrine was based on that was never canonized by The Church). There is nothing unbiblical about my ''interpretation'' I believe it as it is written. That the righteous are resurrected first, and the un just will be resurrected 1,000 years later. Revelation 204And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 2 question #1 Is what I said I believe not exactly what this passage say. #2 Is the Bible literal or not? Your personal belief that a vision is to automatically be interpreted as a doctrine is unbiblical. Show me where in The Bible it says that you're supposed to take this vision as a doctrinal teaching? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 26, 2009 23:46:25 GMT -5
Watchman, let's begin with this quote, shall we?
"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Here is the entire quote:
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles.
Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God.
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.
Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.
Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
Now, we know for a fact that only The Catholic Church has that religious heirchy that you so criticize (bishops, deacons, The Eucharist, etc...). These are uniquely Catholic beliefs that no other Christian church adheres to.
Do you agree or disagree that only The Catholic Church practices these things that are stated 1900 years ago by this Church Father?
|
|
