|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 27, 2009 16:00:44 GMT -5
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
Watchman? No comment on these Church Father beliefs? Do you too beleive them??? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 27, 2009 23:20:14 GMT -5
Actually it is exactly what we are talking about. If you believe that the bible is inerrant then this must be a true prophesy and the Millennium must be real and literal, if the bible is not inerrant, and this is a false prophesy, then and only then can you side with the Roman Catholic Church in saying that the Millennium will never actually occur. According to you then, Satan was telling the truth when he deceived Eve then, right (that is, if everything in it is absolutely truth)? And, again...no one ever said that the millenium will never occur...just that it's not taught in the bible. Just like The Holy Trinity or Salvation or The Bible isn't in the bible. The Catholic church says the Millennium will never actually take place and unless you think that Johns prophesy is false then you have to disagree with the Catholic chursh, which i do. I believe John and disagree with the Catholic church. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 27, 2009 23:23:02 GMT -5
Faith in Christ is what saves, and we cannot know God at all until we know Christ, yet it is the Father that draws men. Can your feeble mind comprehend that. But The Bible contradict you...it states that one is brought to Jesus Christ "through" God, therefore, they must know God before they can come to Christ. You are completely backwards. You even contradict Jesus. You are putting the horse before the cart. Show me where in The Bible it states that it is "faith" that saves and not grace? In order for you to have that faith, you must first have the grace that God grants you. No one comes to The Son unless The Father brings them to Him...you are first graced and "then" you get faith. It is God's grace that saves you (not faith). Faith is only one of the many works needed as part of salvation, but it is not "the" work because just like Romans 2 says, even those who "don't" believe in God are saved by how they live their lives. Tell me the truth...have you actually read the Bible? I think it's time that we discuss Romans 2 (remember Romans 2? The Chapter I told you to read that you didn't respond to?) I think that I could tell you the sky is blue and you would disagree. That is not the fruit of a christian, disagreeing with obvious truths just to be disagreeable. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 28, 2009 8:31:36 GMT -5
According to you then, Satan was telling the truth when he deceived Eve then, right (that is, if everything in it is absolutely truth)? And, again...no one ever said that the millenium will never occur...just that it's not taught in the bible. Just like The Holy Trinity or Salvation or The Bible isn't in the bible. The Catholic church says the Millennium will never actually take place and unless you think that Johns prophesy is false then you have to disagree with the Catholic chursh, which i do. I believe John and disagree with the Catholic church. Well, again, I'm not too familiar with what The Church's official position is. You probably know better than me.  However, John's vision is left up to "personal interpretation" of The Scripture for you while for me, I have The Church that's been around for 2 Millenia and which not only has the experience, but the priviliage to have been The Church that decided that John's words "were" to be considered "scriptural". I have to believe that God would give the correct discernment of "what" John's words meant to the same Church that He chose to reveal His Word to The World. God would have to be incompetant to have given The Catholic Church the authority to canonize The Holy Bible, but "not" give it the wisdom of discerning it. This would put God's own "judgement" abilities in question. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 28, 2009 8:34:39 GMT -5
I think that I could tell you the sky is blue and you would disagree. That is not the fruit of a christian, disagreeing with obvious truths just to be disagreeable. Ok, but... You think that 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 watchman on Feb 28, 2009 11:17:17 GMT -5
The Catholic church says the Millennium will never actually take place and unless you think that Johns prophesy is false then you have to disagree with the Catholic chursh, which i do. I believe John and disagree with the Catholic church. Well, again, I'm not too familiar with what The Church's official position is. You probably know better than me. However, John's vision is left up to "personal interpretation" No it is not you either believe it or you believe John was a false prophet. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 28, 2009 11:21:23 GMT -5
No it is not you either believe it or you believe John was a false prophet. Did you see what you just said there? That whether or not what John said is true to the world is based on how "you" personally see it. In other words, if the world doesn't believe in John's words like you do, then the world is wrong. That's literally " personal interpretation". ;D It's not whether we believe it or not...from your personal perspective, it's whether we believe it like "you" personally believe it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 28, 2009 14:04:36 GMT -5
I like your quotes from the Church Fathers Cepha.
Watchman, which Bible do you use?
Do you use the Protestant Bible?
I mean we can sit here all day and argue who is obeying the Bible, but I think we need to establish which Bible we are talking about here.
The Protestant Bible has removed entire books from the Bible, so if you use that one, then you can't really tell use we are "ignoring" a word from a phophetic vision in Revelation if you ignore entire books of the Bible.
If you do use the Protestant Bible, then really you are honoring the "traditions" of men rather than the Church established by God.
Apostolic Fathers
A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160.[15] By the early 200's, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).[16] Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[17] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.[18]
[edit] Greek Fathers
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[19] and he used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[20]
[edit] Latin Fathers
The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[21] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[22] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[23] Likewise, Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[24] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[25] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[26] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[27]
[edit] Reformation Period
Nonetheless, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[28] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.
Evangelicals tend not to accept the Septuagint as the Inspired Hebrew Bible, though many recognize its wide use by Greek-speaking Jews in the first century. They note that early Christians knew the Hebrew Bible, since around 170 Melito of Sardis listed all the books of the Old Testament that those in the Evangelical faiths now use (without mentioning, at least explicitly, the Book of Esther and, on the other hand, explicitly including the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom and Esdras. Melito's canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13–14[29]:
Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.
Melito's account, as well as including the Book of Wisdom, does not determine that the specific documentary tradition used by the Jews was necessarily that which was eventually assembled into the Masoretic text, several centuries later.
St Athanasius is often quoted as endorsing 39 books in his Old Testament, rejecting any apocryphal writings. However his 39 books are a little different from the Protestant canon in that he rejects Esther and includes Baruch.
But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.[30]
Many modern Protestants point to the following four "Criteria for Canonicity" to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament:
Apostolic Origin — attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
Universal Acceptance — acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use — read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message — containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.
The basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity for the New Testament was divine inspiration, and the chief test for this was apostolicity. The term apostolic as used for the test of canonicity does not necessarily mean apostolic authorship or derivation, but rather apostolic authority. According to these Protestants, Apostolic authority is never detached from the authority of the Lord.[citation needed] See Apostolic succession.
(wikipedia)
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 28, 2009 14:12:37 GMT -5
PROTESTANT BIBLE / CATHOLIC BIBLE
When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German, it was the entire Catholic Bible that he translated. In fact, the composer Brahms set some of Luther's deuterocanonical texts to music in his "Vier Ernste Gesange." Some folks are aware that Luther placed the deuterocanonical books at the end of his Bible, with
comments. Luther, however, only later removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament, and put them in an appendix without page numbers - along with Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Initially, he simply transcribed what was
accepted by all Christians of the time as the entire Bible. Later, he acted on his own initiative to remove books he felt were "improper".
Other Protestants reacted strongly to Luther's presumption, and replaced the books that Luther rearranged back into the New Testament but felt comfortable with his
desecration of the Old Testament, because those were the "Jewish books" - and they felt his logic of following the guidelines of the Jewish elders at Jamnia, made some
sort of sense - so they left out the deuterocanonicals from the Old Testament. Today, many Protestants have the completely mistaken impression that Catholics added books to the Bible, when you can see, it was the other way around, Protestants
removed them!
Luther was opposed to the OT Deuterocanonical books on the grounds that the Jewish council of Jamnia rejected them. This was considered a "legitimate" argument by the early Reformers, despite centuries of acceptance by the early Christian Church, until 1947, when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered. When
those writings were finally translated, it was found found that they contain writings, in Hebrew, from every Old Testament book (except Esther), including all of the Deuterocanonical books. The Dead Sea scrolls date back to before the time of Christ. This adds to the evidence against the popular argument that the Catholics
"added" the Deuterocanonical books to the Bible during the Reformation.
While the Dead Sea scrolls are not considered to add anything to canonical scripture, they do help to verify the authenticity of Deuterocanonical books and the validity of their
rightful place in the Bible. In addition, scripture scholars have no doubt at all that the early Christians accepted the Deuterocanonical books as part of its Canon of Sacred Scriptures. For instance, Origen (d. 245) stated that these books were
considered inspired scripture, and affirmed the use of these books among Christians.
The Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant violation of the Bible by deleting the deuterocanonical books, declared an official listing of each individual book, but it certainly did not add those books to the canon. Those who state that there was no
official canon until Trent misunderstand. Trent was reiterating the canon for all time. They were amongst the very first accepted books of the Bible. They had been accepted as canon for centuries. And in fact, Martin Luther and the other Reformers
accepted the presence of those books for decades before the Council of Trent, but then deleted them, when they left the Church, on their own initiative. The apparent reason for the dropping of the deuterocanonical texts is that they support certain Catholic doctrines rejected by the Reformers. For instance, in 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 there is a reference to praying for the dead, a Catholic practice rejected by Luther. Because Luther rejected that practice, it was necessary to deny
the authority of the Books of the Maccabees, and he also attempted to delete Hebrews as well, because there are references to that text. The reason for Luther's treatment of James had to do with the "faith vs. works" issue.
(from http://www.saintbernadettes.org.uk)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 28, 2009 17:12:40 GMT -5
I like your quotes from the Church Fathers Cepha. Watchman, which Bible do you use? Do you use the Protestant Bible? I mean we can sit here all day and argue who is obeying the Bible, but I think we need to establish which Bible we are talking about here. He uses The New King James Bible (a "version" of the King James Version). |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 28, 2009 18:02:41 GMT -5
KJV, or NKJV either one, You may call it the protestant Bible some catholics even call it the Pharisees Bible eewwww, how alarming. However the catholics are no better than the pharisees call up in rituals of man not relationship with God. Do I reject the 6 O.T. book left out of the King James? No, I do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 28, 2009 19:21:54 GMT -5
KJV, or NKJV either one, You may call it the protestant Bible some catholics even call it the Pharisees Bible eewwww, how alarming. . Not so alarming when you think that they are the only Christian Denomination that uses The Pharisees version of The OT while rejecting the Christian version that The Apostles and Jesus used. (especially, since the canon that the Protestants use didn't exist until 90 A.D. when it was decided by The Pharisees...by then, The Christian Church had already accepted The Septuagint which The Pharisees rejected.) You mean like the "ritual" instituted by Christ of The Eucharist? Or The Priesthood which He instituted (which Paul calls himself)? Or perhaps, the "ritual" of one going to a Priest after they have been "healed" by Christ and confessing their sins to that Priest and accepting their prescribed penance that Jesus instituted...these?  No? Ohhh...you must mean like Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide which were started by Martin Luther or Millernarialism, right?  First of all, there were 7 (not 6) books and they weren't "left out" of the King James Bible...at least not out of the first original King James Bibles...they were "in" there and weren't taken out by The Reformers (who were Catholics), but were removed by The Protestants (which were 2nd Generation Reformers and not "born into" Catholicism). Now that it's know that you accept The Entire 73 Book Canon of The Holy Bible, we can talk about Catholic teachings that are found to be there! The Virgin Mary...The Mother of God...Irenaeus" The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 2, 2009 18:12:39 GMT -5
oK, To officially answer your question Watchman about do catholics believe in Millineism, go to EWTN and ask one of the Priests on there. They will answer your question, or you might find the answer under the facts section.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 12:35:15 GMT -5
oK, To officially answer your question Watchman about do catholics believe in Millineism, go to EWTN and ask one of the Priests on there. They will answer your question, or you might find the answer under the facts section. I already know that catholics to not believe in the millennium they created the amillennial view. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 12:59:32 GMT -5
oK, To officially answer your question Watchman about do catholics believe in Millineism, go to EWTN and ask one of the Priests on there. They will answer your question, or you might find the answer under the facts section. I already know that catholics to not believe in the millennium they created the amillennial view. You mean, we don't believe in it the way "you" personally interpret it to be. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 16:49:39 GMT -5
I already know that catholics to not believe in the millennium they created the amillennial view. You mean, we don't believe in it the way "you" personally interpret it to be. No, I mean you do not believe in it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 20:14:40 GMT -5
You mean, we don't believe in it the way "you" personally interpret it to be. No, I mean you do not believe in it at all. That's your personal interpretation of what I believe!  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 20:41:47 GMT -5
No, I mean you do not believe in it at all. That's your personal interpretation of what I believe! Are you stupid or what, either you believe in the millennium or not, if you believe as the RCC teaches then you do not. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 21:03:56 GMT -5
Are you stupid or what... Oh yeah, you're "full of" the spirit...question is, which one?  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 3, 2009 21:38:14 GMT -5
Are you stupid or what... Oh yeah, you're "full of" the spirit...question is, which one? No really are you??? If not you do a good job of pretending. |
|
