|
hookup bar in pomona caThis is a variation on What would you do if you won the lottery? It is fantastic to know what your date would do under those circumstances. aurora dating site Maybe you haven t yet met the loved ones or been introduced to the parents possibly you want to brush up on friendship groups and who s who as you actually turn into aspect of every single other s lives. Immediately after our second date, he said he would like to see me again but never made plans. omegle kinky Speaking about operate, the kids, or household repairs should not be the primary focus of nights when you re attempting to reconnect as a couple. www skipthegamesSo if you happen to be preparing for a initial date, take into consideration adding the following concerns to your dating repertoire. gay dating london ontario Nevertheless, some men and women get fortunate with these sorts of apps so we nonetheless made a list for it. Ongoing app maintenance just after the launch may also add up to about 15 20% of the original project expense per year. fetlife germany Immediately after verifying it we will publish your encounter here. Home Sign In Search Date Ideas Join Forums Singles Groups - 100% FREE Online Dating, Join Now!
| 7/13/2016 4:01:32 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
Now, right here is a point I have tried to make all along---ask ten non-Catholics who the first pope was, and we get ten different answers. Some say the first pope took office in 900, some say 1054, now Cupocheer says 313, when Constantine made Christianity legal. Some other person will doubtless give another year. Anything to avoid the obvious historical fact that Peter was the first pope.
Peter was not the first pope, and no, it's not an obvious historical fact. It's all just Catholic assertions, the doctrines of men.
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 7/13/2016 4:03:08 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
If that sounds like what I said then I am sorry. It's not what I meant. Isna, if that's the way you understood it, I do apologize. What I meant was that people who don't believe that God would ever send anyone to Hell is to make God out to be weak.
God is good. God is very patient with sinners. He calls, invites, even begs them to give up their sins and return to Him. If some people do not accept the invitation then they themselves in effect have chosen Hell, and on Judgment Day God merely ratifies their choice.
There is no Hell.
"The wages of sin is death." Rom 6:23
|
| 7/13/2016 4:05:05 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
The Bible can mean anything anybody wants it to mean or twists it to mean. That's why we need the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
The Big Lie :
The policy or practice of insistently making a false claim which is so emphatic and grandiose that listeners and readers will reckon that the claim must be true because no one would dare to fabricate something so forceful and extravagant; a false claim produced by the application of this policy or practice. -Wiktionary
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler
"What I tell you three times is true." -Lewis Carroll
The [Catholics] follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. -Joseph Goebbels
Jesus sent us the true teaching authority, the Spirit of Truth, to guide us into all truth.
|
| 7/13/2016 5:48:38 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
prophetic774
Winter Haven, FL
67, joined Feb. 2011
|
Ludlow, Louie and the Roman Catholic Church believes that popes are temporarily the Head of the church on earth until Jesus comes again?? But what does God's Word say??
Matthew 28:18-20: Jesus says, "**ALL AUTHORITY** in heaven and **ON EARTH** has been given to **ME**. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you **ALWAYS**, **TO THE VERY END OF THE AGE**!!"
Ephesians 1:19-22: That power is like the working of His mighty strength, which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the **PRESENT AGE** but also in the one to come. And God paced **ALL THINGS** under His feet and appointed Him {Not a pope}to be the ***HEAD*** over **EVERYTHING FOR THE CHURCH**, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way!!
Ephesians 5:23,24: For the husband is the head of the wife as **CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH**, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the **CHURCH SUBMITS TO CHRIST**, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything!!
Ephesians 4:7; 11-16; But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.... It was **HE** {Not the Church or popes} who gives some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ, may be built up untill we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the **TRUTH IN LOVE**, we will in all things grow up into Him who is the **HEAD**, that is **CHRIST** {not a pope!} From Him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work!!
Matthew 16:13,15-18: Jesus asked His disciples "Who do people say the Son of Man is?...Who do you say I am?? Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but **BY MY FATHER IN HEAVEN**. And I tell you that you are Peter {Greek for a stone}, and on this Rock I will build **MY CHURCH**!"
The Greek word for Peter is "Petros" and never means Rock; whereas the Greek word for **ROCK** is "Petra". Many times is God's Word Jesus is called a **ROCK** such as I Corinthians 10:2-4: They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual **ROCK**{Greek-Petra}, and that **ROCK WAS CHRIST**! And so Christ claims that he will build **MY CHURCH** on the spiritual **ROCK**{Greek-Petra} which is the statement that "On this **ROCK**{Greek-Petra} I will build **MY CHURCH!!"{Matthew 16:18}
  
|
| 7/13/2016 6:20:57 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
louie6332
Falkville, AL
75, joined Nov. 2011
|
The popes (“pope”, an Italian word that means “papa”) were the Bishops of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and he was martyred in Rome (they crucified him; when they began to do this, he protested to them that he was not worthy to be crucified like his Lord, and they humored him by turning his cross upside down, and they crucified him upside down. His remains are buried today under the Church of Saint Peter in Rome. ALL of the remains of the Apostles are in the possession of the Catholic Church. It also possess the relics of Christ, including the nails that were used to crucify him, the burial shroud of Christ (the Shroud of Turin) upon which a full body image miraculously appeared, the cloth that his face was wiped with as he carried his cross through Jerusalem (the cloth of Veronica) also upon which an image of his face miraculously appeared, and on and on.
Only the Catholic Church traces its history back through the sands of time to Christ and his Apostles. No Protestant Sect does this or even claims to do this. And the Catholic Church possesses the physical evidence. Martin Luther, Father of the Protestant Revolt, himself admitted this when he led the Protestant Revolt.
My, how far the Protestants have fallen since then. With every schism in the Protestant Movement they got further and further from the original Christian doctrines. The latest Protestants, the New Age Protestants, no longer even believe that Christ created a Church, or that there is a Hell. In a word, they no longer believe anything that Christ taught or revealed. The latest Protestant Sects, including the Unity Church and the Church of Scientology, are Christian in name only. In the Protestant Movement Christianity is slowly dissolving into nothingness.
Louie
|
| 7/13/2016 6:38:24 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
Wow! There's Louie. Where have you been, friend?
Interesting commentary. I read much the same thing on-line while I was doing some archeology studies.
I was checking on the Crusades and how Pope John Paul 2 apologized in 2001 for the sacking of Constantinople and he gave the bones of two "hostage" Saints back to Bartholomew of Constantinople so they could rightly be interred in Istanbul.
Interesting history: early Christianity.
|
| 7/13/2016 7:05:14 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
isna_la_wica
Brantford, ON
63, joined Mar. 2012
|
Been contemplating Mathew 7:14 a lot today.
Matthew 7:13-15 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
13 `Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide [is] the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;
14 how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!
15 `But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep's clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves.
First thing is, the use of Gates as a symbol was very common back then and in Judaism. And there are different expressions and words used to describe gates.
And when putting what was said in context, that he was talking to his disciples who were Jewish, and keeping in mind what he thought of the Pharisees? I wonder if he was talking about the many who think they are on the way to heaven, because they were religious and followed the law like the Pharisees did, but they were not taking the right path.
Notice verse 15, he talks about the false teachers.
And when you read much of that chapter, it seems that he was mostly talking about the Pharisee like path.
Here:
Matthew 7 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
7 `Judge not, that ye may not be judged,
2 for in what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and in what measure ye measure, it shall be measured to you.
3 `And why dost thou behold the mote that [is] in thy brother's eye, and the beam that [is] in thine own eye dost not consider?
4 or, how wilt thou say to thy brother, Suffer I may cast out the mote from thine eye, and lo, the beam [is] in thine own eye?
5 Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 `Ye may not give that which is [holy] to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before the swine, that they may not trample them among their feet, and having turned -- may rend you.
7 `Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you;
8 for every one who is asking doth receive, and he who is seeking doth find, and to him who is knocking it shall be opened.
9 `Or what man is of you, of whom, if his son may ask a loaf -- a stone will he present to him?
10 and if a fish he may ask -- a serpent will he present to him?
11 if, therefore, ye being evil, have known good gifts to give to your children, how much more shall your Father who [is] in the heavens give good things to those asking him?
12 `All things, therefore, whatever ye may will that men may be doing to you, so also do to them, for this is the law and the prophets.
13 `Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide [is] the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;
14 how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it!
15 `But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep's clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves.
16 From their fruits ye shall know them; do [men] gather from thorns grapes? or from thistles figs?
17 so every good tree doth yield good fruits, but the bad tree doth yield evil fruits.
18 A good tree is not able to yield evil fruits, nor a bad tree to yield good fruits.
19 Every tree not yielding good fruit is cut down and is cast to fire:
20 therefore from their fruits ye shall know them.
21 `Not every one who is saying to me Lord, lord, shall come into the reign of the heavens; but he who is doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, have we not in thy name prophesied? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many mighty things?
Think I am off track here?
|
| 7/13/2016 7:14:01 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
prophetic774
Winter Haven, FL
67, joined Feb. 2011
|
Matthew 28:18-20: Jesus says, "**ALL AUTHORITY** in heaven and **ON EARTH** has been given to **ME**. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations...teaching the to **OBEY EVERYTHING** I have commanded you. And surely I am with you **ALWAYS**, **TO THE VERY END OF THE AGE**!!"
Matthew 23:9: Jesus commands, "Do not call **ANYONE ON EARTH **FATHER**, for you have **ONE {SPIRITUAL} FATHER** and He is in Heaven!!"
Do you know of any Satanic Church which disobeys this command of Jesus and calls all their priests and their Satanic pope{spiritual} fathers??
|
| 7/13/2016 7:51:31 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
I don't judge anybody. All I do is speak of the criteria the Lord uses when He judges. Isna, you might make it to Heaven and I might go go Hell. With all my sins my only hope is the love and mercy of Jesus Christ.
I hope you make it to Heaven, Isna. I hope you pass through the narrow gate, that you forsake the broad path that leads to destruction. I hope this for myself. I hope this for all reading this, and for the whole human race. But Jesus---not me---said that only a few would enter the metaphorical narrow gate.
|
| 7/13/2016 8:06:12 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
isna_la_wica
Brantford, ON
63, joined Mar. 2012
|
ludlowlowellI don't judge anybody. All I do is speak of the criteria the Lord uses when He judges. Isna, you might make it to Heaven and I might go go Hell. With all my sins my only hope is the love and mercy of Jesus Christ.
I hope you make it to Heaven, Isna. I hope you pass through the narrow gate, that you forsake the broad path that leads to destruction. I hope this for myself. I hope this for all reading this, and for the whole human race. But Jesus---not me---said that only a few would enter the metaphorical narrow gate.
============================================================
You know Lud I wish you would just think a bit.
This is the problem with Sin Accountants, those that think they lose their Salvation because of sin.
Do, you not think Jesus knows what is in our hearts?
Do all people face the same temptation? would it be just of God, to only judge us on the "act', or the 'sin"?
Look at it this way. I am sitting on my patio right now, had a couple of BBQ burgers for supper, sipping a coffee. I am not sinning right now, nor am I tempted to.
But some where out there, is some body who has no food, is lonely , is fighting addiction.
It just may be, that person even though they steal something tonight, or shoots up, showed more faith in fighting temptation than any of us.
We do not know the struggles other face. Jesus does though, and is their advocate. And he said forgive them father, does that have no meaning?
|
| 7/13/2016 8:15:28 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
What if the thief said, I won't steal that article,because I love God? What if the drug addict said, I will shoot up no more, because I love God? But if we sin out of weakness---and I'm not here to say that I haven't---we can confess our sins and God will welcome home the repentant prodigal son. If the repentant sinner dies before he can go to Confession, he could still be saved, if he had the intention of going.
Some addictions are hard to ovrtcome. People who are at least struggling against their addictions and calling on the Lord for help---I think God might show these people some mercy. Maybe he will purge them in Purgatory.
|
| 7/13/2016 8:17:55 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
*
Maybe the Wizard of Oz will help them in Purgatory which is right down the Yellow Brick Road. Just follow the Easter Bunny and when you see Alice, tell her Ludlow sent you.
|
| 7/14/2016 1:49:47 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
Quote from louie6332... The popes (“pope”, an Italian word that means “papa”) were the Bishops of Rome. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and he was martyred in Rome (they crucified him; when they began to do this, he protested to them that he was not worthy to be crucified like his Lord...
*********************************************************************************
If the word "pope" means "papa" maybe that's what Jesus meant when He said...
CLV Mt 23:9 And `father' you should not be calling one of you on the earth, for One is your Father, the heavenly.
No one should be called "papa" according to Jesus. But then, the Catholic church likes to ignore Jesus, don't they?
If Peter was a Bishop, why does not the Bible use that title for him? Nowhere is Peter called "bishop." Why is that?
If those Catholic lists of "pope" were honest they would say these were called "bishop of Rome" and not "pope."
I have heard (and even read) that story about Peter's death. Of course it is an unsubstantiated rumor. There are other stories about his death.
The Catholic church is corrupt.
|
| 7/14/2016 2:05:27 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
Quote from Stillherehaha... bigd I mean If Jesus is watching from His heavenly place
the Catholic church --
or Jehovahs' Witnesses
or is watching and even cries over all of us--- at this time now---
when he sees we are heading for destruction--
because he doesn't take away our free will---
we choose---
Are we sane enough to choose I ask?
or is the whole world insane with
some sort of ego sickness?
***************************************************************************
This eon or time period is called Man's Day by Paul.
CLV 1C 4:3 Now to me it is into the least trifle that I may be being examined by you or by man's day. But neither am I examining myself.
Man's Day is God allowing mankind to do whatever he likes. It will end with the reign of Jesus Christ, when He returns.
Ever hear the old saying, "give a horse enough rope and he will hang himself"? That is kinda the idea here.
God wants man to have a good chance to do things without Him, and watch how it all turns out.
|
| 7/14/2016 2:05:47 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
*
Ludlow says: "[Pope] Francis is an utter idiot and is one of the worst popes in history."
|
| 7/14/2016 7:14:01 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
All who accept Jesus Christ.
|
| 7/14/2016 10:58:54 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
*
Ludlow says: "[Pope] Francis is an utter idiot and is one of the worst popes in history."
Some popes in history have been better than others, that is true.
|
| 7/14/2016 11:15:54 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
If those lists the Catholic church makes were accurate, they would say Bishop of Rome instead of "pope," until there were "popes." About 900 ad.
It seems we have deviated from the topic at hand.
CLV 1C 15:23 Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence;
24 thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying everyall sovereignty and everyall authority and power.
25 For He |must be reigning until He which should be placing all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy is being abolished: death.
27 For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him.
28 Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.)
How can all be subjected to Christ when some of the all have be terminated?
|
| 7/14/2016 11:57:13 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
So you say that the Church had bishops of Rome from way back, but that the title "pope" was not given until 900? Do you take into account the fact that the pope/bishop of Rome has different titles and names in different languages?
[Edited 7/14/2016 12:00:40 PM ]
|
| 7/14/2016 1:52:15 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
ludlow...
There is no word for "pope/bishop." There is no word "pope" in the Bible under any name.
The word didn't exist until after the Bible was already written. Which proves that Peter could not have been a "pope" or a bishop?
The Catholic church lies every time another Catholic puts out this list of "popes" starting with Peter.
The word "bishop did exist and IS in the Bible. Yet there is no mention of Peter being a bishop.
Why is that? Could it be that Peter was never considered "pope"?
**********************************************************************************
indiandave post this same information that I have in another thread. Thanks bud.
Tertullian, in the early part of the third century A.D., is believed to have been the first person to apply the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff or Pope) to the head of the Catholic Church. He used the term, however, in sarcastic rebuke of Callixtus I (who had authority over the church from 217 to 222) whom he felt was exercising too much unilateral power in the church.
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/origin-of-the-title-of-pope-as-head-of-catholic-church.html
According to the doctored documents from your Catholic church Tertuillian use the word "pope"in the third century. He used this term to rebuke Callixtus. The Bishops of Rome were not yet called "pope."
********************************************************************************
When was the term Pope first used?
According to the original Catholic Encyclopedia on line, the title “pope” has enjoyed continued use in the East to signify priests. In the West, it seems to have designated only bishops. In the fourth century it came to be restricted to the Roman Pontiff.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=74768
The first known use of the term 'pope' was about the 12th century, according to Merriam-Webster. This is in line the fact that the Catholic church officially started about 1054. And yet some...
Historians differ as to when the term “pope” first came to be associated with the bishop of Rome, although it was probably in the late 6th or early 7th centuries. One source indicates that Boniface III first appropriated the term in AD 607.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=74768
Either way, this term comes much too late to be included in the Scriptures. Which proves what I have been saying all along...
There is no 'pope' in the Scriptures.
The term “pontiff” was taken from the old Roman term for high priest, Pontifex Maximus. The term has been traced to the ancient Etruscans and means “bridge builder” or “path maker.” Scholars point out that the term had metaphorical implications in that the high priest was a mediator between the gods and men.
same source.
There is no 'pope' in the Scriptures
The Catholic church is corrupt.
|
| 7/14/2016 3:05:11 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
Peter was a bishop because all the apostles were bishops---see Acts 1:20 in the DR or KJV. Peter was the leader of the apostles, leader of the bishops---what we now call, in English, the pope. Peter went first to Antioch and became its first bishop. Had he stayed there, the succeeding bishops of Antioch would have been the popes. But he didn't, he went to Rome, so the succeeding bishops of Rome are the popes.
Tertullian? I thought you put no store in the Father's of the Church. I thought you called no man father. I thought you said that their writings were extremely unreliable. But if it suits your purpose, you will quote one of them.
|
| 7/14/2016 3:06:51 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
prophetic774
Winter Haven, FL
67, joined Feb. 2011
|
THE HORRIFIC ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITIONS: PAGE 1:
A study of Roman Catholic Atrocities. Revelation 12:11: " They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death."
Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as "Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and most influential component. The Roman Catholic hierarchy has always boldly stated that it is not dependent upon Scripture alone, but also accepts tradition as another pillar of truth -- and where a conflict exists, tradition receives the greater acceptance. Being its own arbiter of what is to be accepted as truth, it accepts no authority as being higher than itself. This explains why the Catholic belief system has been constantly evolving over the centuries.
This also explains why a fierce antagonism has always existed between Bible believing Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Rome's frequent spiritual innovations excites the passions of Bible believers, who react adversely to religious modifications that are at odds with the eternal, changeless Word of God. Harboring a supreme confidence in the Book, a trust which reflects their trust in the Holy Spirit who authored the Scriptures, the Bible believers boldly challenge the suppositions of the Catholic hierarchy. In the course of this spiritual warfare, Catholic people are frequently converted from trust in Rome's complex religious system to a childlike faith in the Saviour and a simple reliance on His Word. Many such converts ultimately leave the Church of Rome to join local, New Testament churches. Frequently in history, the trickle of individuals who were making this remarkable transformation turned into a flood. Such ruptures cannot go unchecked by the Catholic hierarchy. As with any bureaucracy, its primary interest is its own protection and propagation.
The nature of its response to the inroads made by spiritual challengers is dictated by its cultural surroundings. The more Catholic the culture, the more severe the response. In past centuries, when Rome's ecclesiastical power was virtually absolute throughout Europe, the intensity of the attacks by the papists upon their spiritual enemies could be equally absolute. Ignoring the injunction of II Corinthians 10:4 ("The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world!"), Catholicism built its own philosophical system to justify the use of carnal (fleshly, human, physical) means to achieve spiritual ends.
Having divorced herself from Biblical absolutes, Catholicism adopted a theology in which she sees herself as the church founded upon the Apostle Peter by Jesus Christ, and alone empowered to bring salvation to the world. Further, she believes herself assigned the daunting task of bringing Christ's kingdom to fruition on earth. With those dogmas forming her philosophical foundation, she seeks her power in the political sphere as well as the religious realm. To whatever degree she achieves political power, to that degree she feels compelled to use her secular influence as a weapon against her spiritual adversaries. Thus, down through the centuries, we see that in those countries in which Catholicism had achieved absolute power, the pope's followers have not hesitated to brutally subdue the enemies of "the Church". Although Jews, Moslems, pagans, and others have felt the wrath of Rome, her special fury has always been reserved for her bitterest and most effective challengers -- Bible believing Christians. Only as the political climate changed in recent centuries did the Catholic hierarchy see it expedient to change tactics and appear to be more tolerant. Yet, to this day we see persecution continuing in those places on the globe dominated by Catholicism. The degree of the persecution is determined by the degree of control.
To what lengths is the Catholic hierarchy prepared to go in its drive to repress opposition and achieve its goal of instituting the kingdom of Christ on earth? To find the answer, one must look to the pages of history.
When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., it immediately achieved expansive influence at all levels of the imperial government. As Bible believing Christians separated themselves from the Church of Rome, which they saw as apostate, they represented a formidable potential threat to the official new imperial religion. Persecution in varying degrees of severity was instituted over the centuries following.
By the 11th century, in their zeal to establish Christ's kingdom, the Roman popes ("pope" is an ecclesiastical office that is the very antithesis of the New Testament ideal of a local church pastor) began utilizing a new tool -- the Crusades. At first, the Crusades had as their object the conquering of Jerusalem and the "Holy Land". Along the crusaders' paths, thousands of innocent civilians (especially Jews) were raped, robbed, and slaughtered. In time, however, the crusade concept was altered to crush spiritual opposition within Europe itself. In other words, armies were raised with the intent of massacring whole communities of Bible believing Christians. One such group of Bible believing Christians were known as the Albigenses.
|
| 7/14/2016 3:15:16 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
prophetic774
Winter Haven, FL
67, joined Feb. 2011
|
THE HORRIFIC ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISTIONS 100 AD to 1600 AD PAGE 2: {Continued}
Pope Innocent III believed that Bible believing dissidents were worse than infidels (Saracens, Moslems, and Turks), for they threatened the unity of ... Europe. So Innocent III sponsored 4 "crusades" to exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist him.
The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Moslems (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).
The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces.
In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own."
At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."
This is but one example from the long and sordid history of Catholic atrocities committed against their bitter enemies, the Bible believing Christians. Much worse treatment of Bible believers was forthcoming during that stage of bloody Catholic history known as the Inquisition.
It is vital, though, that we here define what is meant by the term "heretic". According to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, this is a heretic: "One who holds or advocates controversial opinions, esp. one who publicly opposes the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic, Church." Or, as one author has put it, "Heresy, to a Catholic, is anti-Catholic truth found in the Bible."B Another summarized the official stance as this: "Every citizen in the empire was required to be a Roman Catholic. Failure to give wholehearted allegiance to the pope was considered treason against the state punishable by death."
From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.
Pope Alexander IV established the Office of the Inquisition within Italy in 1254. The first inquisitor was Dominic, a Spaniard who was the founder of the Dominican order of monks.
The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in Spain until 1820.
The Inquisition was a terrifying fact of life to those who lived in areas where it was in force. That domain would eventually include not only much of Europe, but also the far-flung colonies of Europe's Catholic powers.
The Inquisition, led by the Dominicans and the Jesuits, was usually early on the scene following each territorial acquisition of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the 16th and 17th centuries. The methods used, which all too often were similar to those used by Serra in California or the Nazi-backed Ustashis in Croatia, sowed the seeds of reaction and aversion that have proved to be a barrier for true missionaries ever since.
Albert Close writes of the Jesuit mission to Indonesia in 1559 that "conversion was wonderfully shortened by the cooperation of the colonial governors whose militia offered' the natives the choice of the musket ball or of baptism."
|
| 7/14/2016 3:16:56 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
prophetic774
Winter Haven, FL
67, joined Feb. 2011
|
THE HORRIFIC ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITIONS 1100 AD to 1800 AD!! {Contined page 3}
It is important here to emphasize Rome's role in the brutality of the Inquisition. Roman Catholic apologists are quick to point out that it was the state that put heretics to death. This is an alibi meant to excuse the Vatican's role in the atrocities. However, Dollinger, the leading 19th century Catholic historian, stated: "The binding force of the laws against heretics lay not in the authority of secular princes, but in the sovereign dominion of life and death over all Christians claimed by the Popes as God's representatives on earth, as [Pope] Innocent III expressly states it."
In other words, the secular arm of the state acted only as it was pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their kingdoms.
Dollinger continues: "It was the Popes who compelled bishops and priests to condemn the heterodox to torture, confiscation of their goods, imprisonment, and death, and to enforce the execution of this sentence on the civil authorities, under pain of excommunication,"
Will Durant informs us that in 1521 Leo X issued the bull Honestis which "ordered the excommunication of any officials, and the suspension of religious services in any community, that refused to execute, without examination or revision, the sentences of the inquisitors." Consider Clement V's rebuke of King Edward II: "We hear that you forbid torture as contrary to the laws of your land. But no state law can override canon law, our law. Therefore I command you at once to submit those men to torture.
The methods used by the Inquisition ranged from the barbaric to the bizarre.
When the inquisitors swept into a town an "Edict of Faith" was issued requiring everyone to reveal any heresy of which they had knowledge. Those who concealed a heretic came under the curse of the Church and the inquisitors' wrath. Informants would approach the inquisitors' lodgings under cover of night and were rewarded for information. No one arrested was ever acquitted.
Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt duty-bound to identify from the lips of the victims themselves any deviance from sound doctrine. Presumably, the more excruciating the torture, the more likely that the truth could be wrung from reluctant lips. The inquisitors were determined that it was "better for a hundred innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free".
"Heretics" were committed to the flames because the popes believed the Bible forbade Christians to shed blood. The victims of the Inquisition exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of Christians and Jews who had suffered under pagan Roman emperors.
This wanton slaughter of innocent people was justified by Catholic theologians such as "Saint". Thomas Aquinas, who said, "If forgers and other malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for putting to death one convicted of heresy." In 1815, Comte Le Maistre defended the Inquisition by advocating: "The Inquisition is, in its very nature, good, mild, and preservative. It is the universal, indelible character of every ecclesiastical institution; you see it in Rome, and you can see it wherever the true Church has power."K Such a viewpoint could only be expressed by one so brainwashed as to think that the cruel, torturous deaths of dissidents to Catholicism is preferable to the survival and propagation of those who would challenge the Vatican's authority.
Yet, not all Romanists have been comfortable with the totalitarian nature of their "church". Even Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims."L Historian Will Durant stated, "Compared with the persecution of heresy in Europe from 1227 to 1492, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first 3 centuries after Christ was a mild and humane procedure. Making every allowance required by an historian and permitted to a Christian, we must rank the Inquisition, along with the wars and persecutions of our time, as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast."
Catholic apologists attempt to downplay the significance of the Inquisition, saying that relatively few people were ever directly affected. While controversy rages around the number of victims that can be claimed by the Inquisition, conservative estimates easily place the count in the millions. This does not include the equally vast numbers of human beings slaughtered in the various wars and other conflicts instigated over the centuries by Vatican political intrigues. Nor does it take it account the Holocaust wrought upon the Jews by the Nazis, led by Roman Catholics who used their own religious history to justify their modern excesses. As one secular history explains, "As the Germans instituted a bureaucracy of organized murder, so too did Torquemada, the first Grand Inquisitor, a worthy of predecessor of Heydrich and Eichmann."
Because her basic doctrinal premises remain in place, Rome can yet again rise up against her spiritual enemies at some future date when she again wields exclusive ecclesiastical control of a region. In fact, the "Holy Office" of the Inquisition still exists within the Vatican (known today as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), awaiting the day in which it can stamp out "heresy". As recently as 1938, a popular Catholic weekly declared:
Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the state has a right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same that concedes to the spiritual authority the power of life and death over the archtraitor.
The Inquisition proved how Catholicism will react when it has possession of absolute power.
|
| 7/14/2016 3:17:46 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
*
Thanks very much for this post, Proph. If there's more to this, please post it.
It's clear that the Roman Catholic church is an abomination from the pits of Satan's domain.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss," and now, with an "utter idiot" for a leader, according to Ludlow the Catholic tool.
|
| 7/14/2016 4:07:45 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
CLV Ac 1:20 "For it is written in the scroll of the Psalms, Let his domicile become desolate, And let no one be dwelling in it, and 'Let his supervision be taken by another.'
Acts 1:20 does NOT say all the Apostles were bishops.
The Catholic church is corrupt.
|
| 7/14/2016 4:10:22 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
In the DR and the KJV it does.
|
| 7/15/2016 2:02:27 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
Well there you have it. If the KJV and DR have it then it must be wrong.
These are two of the few English versions that use the word "hell" intermittently.
How many words does the DR version use to represent 'sheol'? The KJV uses three.
hell
pit
grave
I think they played darts to decide which verse would get it. The guy who was "pit" didn't play very well. He only got three.
|
| 7/15/2016 12:52:24 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
louie6332
Falkville, AL
75, joined Nov. 2011
|
According to Prophetic, “ALL” does NOT mean ALL. Christ, for example, possessed ALL authority in Heaven and on Earth, but, according to him, NOT the authority to delegate his authority to a prime minister in his absence, NOT the power to delegate his authority to forgive sin in the name of God to his Apostles, and so on. In the eyes of Prophetic, ALL in the Bible definitely does NOT mean ALL.
Prophetic says: “Those who classify themselves as Christians can be divided into 2 broad groups: those who have chosen to allow the Bible to be their final authority and those who have chosen to allow men to be their final authority. For sake of simplicity, I shall refer to the first group as "Bible believing Christians." The latter group has always been best represented by Roman Catholicism, by far its largest, most powerful, and most influential component.”
Let’s look at that for a moment Prophetic. Martin Luther's doctrine of Bible as sole authority, which is one of the two pillar doctrines of Protestantism, is found nowhere in the Bible and is even explicitly contradicted by the Bible when it names the Apostles as the authority that is be believed, you know: “Go forth and teach all nations what I have taught you, those who hear you, hear me, and those who despise you, despise me,” which is the very authority that Martin Luther was trying to get around when he proposed the Bible as sole authority. The word “Bible” is not even in any of the books of the Bible, and, in fact, the official Christian Bible did not even exist until it was compiled about the beginning of the fourth century by the Catholic Church and made part of its canon. So this pillar doctrine of Protestantism is founded upon contradiction and is therefore NECESSARILY false.
Now let’s look at the claim that Protestants are “Bible believing”. When Martin Luther led the Revolt against the Catholic Church and against the authority of its Apostles to teach all nations what Christ had taught them, he proclaimed the Bible as sole authority in an effort to get around this authority. When he did this, he thought that everyone would read the Bible and all come to the same conclusion of what it meant (namely the same opinion as his). But that didn’t happen. Disagreements over the meaning of the Bible almost immediately popped up, leading to schism after schism within Protestant ranks. This so scandalized Martin Luther that he regretted having broken away from the Catholic Church and seriously considered rejoining her. But Martin Luther was a very proud man, and his pride would not let him, he was a slave to his pride. Anyway, there followed schism after schism within Protestant ranks, schisms fueled by disagreements over the meaning of the Bible, until today we have tens of thousands of Protestant Communions and Sects worldwide, all claiming the Bible as their sole authority, but holding to thousands of different and conflicting doctrines. They cannot agree among themselves on what it was that Christ taught. And yet, these Protestant Sects, ironically, describe themselves as “Bible believing” (you know, in contrast to the Catholic Church, which compiled the official Christian Bible and made it part of its canon). This diversity of doctrine in Protestant ranks is a scandal to non-Christians on the outside looking in. And Catholics cannot see how this scandalous diversity of doctrine among Protestants could possibly be considered a “reform” of the Church. Christ taught only one doctrine, and he desired unity among his followers--you know, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, etc.
Note: I was once mystified as to how ten thousand different Protestants could read the same identical Biblical passage and get a thousand different conflicting meanings out of it. But then I heard a Protestant guest on talk radio say of a particular passage: “This passage seems to say this, but I think it means that”. Like this guy, they proceed to allegorically reinterpret the literal meaning of the passage to say what they want it to say. But when you do that, it is no longer God’s word, but your own word. They are effectively rewriting the Bible to suite themselves, and this includes ignoring passages they do not like, they ignore some passages and rewrite others. This violates the first and fundamental rule of exegesis (rules of correct interpretation), which is to take it literally unless it is clear from the context or from related passages that it is to be taken otherwise, a rule based on the premise that God is not a liar, that he says what he means, and means what he says, that he does not deceive.
Protestants, with few exceptions, do not adhere to this cardinal rule of exegesis when the passage in question is not saying what they WANT it to say. Instead they reword the passage by allegorically reinterpreting the literal meaning of the passage to say what they WANT it to say. But when you reword one passage, you end up having to reword most passages to maintain internal consistency, and you end up have to effectively rewrite the whole Bible. So instead of having the official Christian Bible, you end up with “The Bible according to Jane Doe” or whatever. Allegorical interpretation is totally subjective: there are potentially as many allegorical interpretations as there are people. The literal interpretation, on the other hand, is objective, it is unique, so those who interpret it literally tend to agree with one another on the meaning. So yes, the Bible IS understandable, but only as long as you take it literally, God is not a liar.
So while it is true that Christianity in the West today is generally divided into two general groups, Protestant and Catholic, it’s laughable to call Protestants “Bible believing”. Protestants are the great pretenders, they pretend the Bible is their sole authority, when they themselves are their own sole authority, they are, in effect, their own popes.
Louie
|
| 7/15/2016 2:35:40 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
prophetic774
Winter Haven, FL
67, joined Feb. 2011
|
According to Prophetic, “ALL” does NOT mean ALL. Christ, for example, possessed ALL authority in Heaven and on Earth, but, according to him, NOT the authority to delegate his authority to a prime minister in his absence.
Louie
Ludlow, Louie and the Roman Catholic Church believes that popes or prime ministers are temporarily the Head of the church on earth until Jesus comes again?? But what does God's Word say??
Matthew 28:18-20: Jesus says, "**ALL AUTHORITY** in heaven and **ON EARTH** has been given to **ME**. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you **ALWAYS**, **TO THE VERY END OF THE AGE**!!"
Ephesians 1:19-22: That power is like the working of His mighty strength, which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the **PRESENT AGE** but also in the one to come. And God paced **ALL THINGS** under His feet and appointed Him {Not a pope}to be the ***HEAD*** over **EVERYTHING FOR THE CHURCH**, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills everything in every way!!
Ephesians 5:23,24: For the husband is the head of the wife as **CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH**, His body, of which He is the Savior. Now as the **CHURCH SUBMITS TO CHRIST**, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything!!
Ephesians 4:7; 11-16; But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.... It was **HE** {Not the Church or popes} who gives some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ, may be built up untill we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the **TRUTH IN LOVE**, we will in all things grow up into Him who is the **HEAD**, that is **CHRIST** {not a pope!} From Him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work!!
Matthew 16:13,15-18: Jesus asked His disciples "Who do people say the Son of Man is?...Who do you say I am?? Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but **BY MY FATHER IN HEAVEN**. And I tell you that you are Peter {Greek for a stone}, and on this Rock I will build **MY CHURCH**!"
The Greek word for Peter is "Petros" and never means Rock; whereas the Greek word for **ROCK** is "Petra". Many times is God's Word Jesus is called a **ROCK** such as I Corinthians 10:2-4: They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual **ROCK**{Greek-Petra}, and that **ROCK WAS CHRIST**! And so Christ claims that he will build **MY CHURCH** on the spiritual **ROCK**{Greek-Petra} which is the statement that "On this **ROCK**{Greek-Petra} I will build **MY CHURCH!!"{Matthew 16:18}
|
| 7/15/2016 2:41:15 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
According to Prophetic, “ALL” does NOT mean ALL.
But louie. According to you ALL does not mean ALL.
“All”, of course, means All. But in the Bible “All” does not always mean All.
louie doesn't know enough about translation to identify any problems like that.
The Catholic church is corrupt.
|
| 7/15/2016 3:53:25 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
Bigd, can you translate the word "presbyteros" into English for us, please?
[Edited 7/15/2016 3:54:20 PM ]
|
| 7/15/2016 4:16:38 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
Do you have a learning g disability, LUD.
"No Greek lexicons or other scholarly sources suggest that "presbyteros" means "priest" instead of "elder". The Greek word is equivalent to the Hebrew zaqen, which means "elder", and not priest."
The word "presbyteros" translates in English "member of these Presbyterian faith".
"presbyteros" doesn't translate from Latin into "priest" "father" or "pope", either.
You keep asking the same questions over and over. Do think the definition is going to change with each response?
I have answered this question 3 times, myself.
I can list the words for "priest" if you like. Dayum. Look shut up yourself if you don't have a hardcover published volume.
|
| 7/15/2016 4:27:42 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
Cupocheer, Bigd, everyone: I invite you to go to Online Translator, Latin to English, and punch in presbyteros under Latin, and see what you get in English.
|
| 7/15/2016 4:30:32 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
I've already told you: no.
I have the book.
Internet translates contain numerous errors and misinformation.
|
| 7/15/2016 4:34:24 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
You won't look it up for fear of what you might find, aren't you?
|
| 7/15/2016 4:38:01 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
Quote from ludlowlowell...Bigd, can you translate the word "presbyteros" into English for us, please?
*************************************************************************
What is your deal with this? Why should we care?
I thought I did that under another thread.
You were wrong about the word "pope". And you were wrong about Peter ever being a "pope." And now you are saying the apostles were all bishops. You are wrong about that as well.
|
| 7/15/2016 4:47:40 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
Are you afraid to punch in "presbyteros" on the Online Translator?
|
| 7/15/2016 4:53:42 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
You won't look it up for fear of what you might find, aren't you?
Yep. That's exactly correct... A Latin translation.
Erroneous at best.
Translate it from ancient Hebrew or Greek. They came before Latin.
[Edited 7/15/2016 4:54:34 PM ]
|
| 7/15/2016 5:24:54 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
An elder is a presbyter is a priest is a presbyteros. You guys may not agree, but every dictionary I consulted does.
|
| 7/15/2016 5:26:48 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
1951 Webster's!
|
| 7/15/2016 5:28:16 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
An elder is a presbyter is a priest is a presbyteros. You guys may not agree, but every dictionary I consulted does.
The important thing is that you just keep saying it over and over and over again.
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler
"What I tell you three times is true." -Lewis Carroll
The [Catholics] follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. -Joseph Goebbels
|
| 7/15/2016 5:38:18 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
Latin: priest (meaning ELDER)
Sacerdos (priest/priestess)
Mysta
Flamen
Antistita (priestess)
Vates
Magestar sacrorum
Praeminister
Praefater (magician, wizard)
Prophetes (prophet)
Aedituus
Amminister
Clericus
[sp]
English: presbyteros
A Christian Church governed by ELDERS
A member of the Presbyterian Church
[Edited 7/15/2016 5:38:58 PM ]
|
| 7/15/2016 6:23:28 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
Go to Online Translator, Latin to English, and punch in "presbyteros", and it will translate as " priests". Look up "priest" in Webster's Dictionary and it will say, in the etymology section, that the derivative word in Latin and Greek is "presbyteros".
|
| 7/15/2016 6:29:12 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
Go to ancient Hebrew which is what the original scriptures were written in, and you will find the wird: zagen (elder).
Final answer.
|
| 7/15/2016 6:54:16 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
In the New Testament, a priest and an elder are the same thing. Most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, scholars think (at least scholars can't find any Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts), and when Greek is translated into English "presbyteros" is translated as either "priest" or "elder" at the translator's discretion, because a priest and an elder are the same thing. Since scholars have no extant copies of any New Testament writings in Hebrew, the Hebrew word for priest is beside the point.
But just for the record, could you check and see what the Hebrew word for "priest" is?
[Edited 7/15/2016 6:56:41 PM ]
|
| 7/15/2016 6:57:35 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
In the New Testament, a priest and an elder are the same thing. Most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, scholars think (at least scholars can't find any Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts), and when Greek is translated into English "presbyteros" is translated as either "priest" or "elder" at the translator's discretion, because a priest and an elder are the same thing. Since scholars have no extant copies of any New Testament writings in Hebrew, the Hebrew word for priest is beside the point.
But let's say some scholar, digging away at some archeological site somewhere, does find a copy of James in Hebrew, and it says that, if there is any sick among you, let them take him to the "zagen" of the Church. Would you then be convinced that an elder is a priest?
Now what are you saying? 
Biblical scholars have multitudes of Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic 'documents' to research from.
Where is your head?
|
| 7/15/2016 7:42:21 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
They don't have any copies Books of the New Testament in Hebrew, to my knowledge. If I am wrong, let me know---which one or ones do they have?
|
| 7/15/2016 7:43:27 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
Cupocheer, did you know that Catholic priests, even today, are sometimes called "presbyters"?
|
| 7/15/2016 7:47:10 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
LUD, I am not Catholic. It doesn't matter to me what they are called.
I know what the Hebrew & Greek word for elder is in the Bible and it is not "pope" or "presbyteros".
|
| 7/15/2016 7:56:22 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
They don't have any copies Books of the New Testament in Hebrew, to my knowledge. If I am wrong, let me know---which one or ones do they have?
LUD, Where, or when, do you believe the New Testament was recorded and from what reference(s) was it compiled?
I will be covering all of this in, somewhat, chronolilogical order in my foundation thread when I finish answering your simple word games.
|
| 7/15/2016 8:27:56 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
ludlowlowell
Panama City, FL
65, joined Feb. 2008
|
By "recorded" do you mean when were they written?
|
| 7/15/2016 8:53:46 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
[]Quote from cupocheer:[/][]LUD, Where, or when, do you believe the New Testament was recorded and from what reference(s) was it compiled?
I will be covering all of this in, somewhat, chronolilogical order in my foundation thread when I finish answering your simple word games.[/]
=============================================================================
Cup, give this youtube a watch please. It's by a real bible scholar:
https://youtu.be/pfheSAcCsrE
|
| 7/15/2016 8:58:42 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
Thanks FJO... But I actually enjoy researching my own material. I let God stear my course so then I can express it in my understanding and be about to respond about why I posted as I did. I can't defend someone else's position, but I can explain mine. I appreciate the offer.
|
| 7/15/2016 9:08:38 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
Bart Denton Ehrman (born October 5, 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of North America's leading scholars in his field, having written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also achieved acclaim at the popular level, authoring five New York Times bestsellers. Ehrman's work focuses on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.
Education[edit]
Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973. He began studying the Bible and its original languages at Moody Bible Institute, where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[1] He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.[2]
Career[edit]
Ehrman became a fundamentalist Christian as a teenager. In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and also textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1]
Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.[2]
Ehrman currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E. J. Brill), co-editor-in-chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs. Ehrman formerly served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press).[2]
Ehrman speaks extensively throughout the United States and has participated in many public debates, including debates with William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, Mike Licona, Craig A. Evans, Daniel B. Wallace, Richard Swinburne, Peter J. Williams, James White, Darrell Bock and Michael L. Brown.
In 2006 and 2009 he appeared on The Colbert Report,[3][4] as well as The Daily Show,[5] to promote his books Misquoting Jesus, and Jesus, Interrupted (respectively).
Ehrman has appeared on the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Dateline NBC, CNN, and NPR's Fresh Air and his writings have been featured in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post.[6]
Works[edit]
Ehrman has written widely on issues of New Testament and early Christianity at both a academic and popular level, with 30 books including three college textbooks and five New York Times bestsellers: Misquoting Jesus,[7] Jesus, Interrupted,[8] God's Problem,[9] Forged,[10][11] and How Jesus Became God.[12] Much of his work is on textual criticism and the New Testament. His books have been translated into 27 languages.
In The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman argues that there was a close relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New Testament. He examines how early struggles between Christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "proto-orthodox Christianity".[13]
In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Ehrman argues that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher and that his main message was that the end of history was near, that God would shortly intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on earth, and that Jesus and his disciples all believed these end time events would occur in their lifetimes.[14]
In Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Ehrman expands on his list of ten historical and factual inaccuracies in Dan Brown's novel, previously incorporated in Dan Burstein's Secrets of the Code.[15]
In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman introduces New Testament textual criticism. He outlines the development of New Testament manuscripts and the process and cause of manuscript errors in the New Testament.[16][17]
In Jesus, Interrupted, he describes the progress scholars have made in understanding the Bible over the past two hundred years and the results of their study, results which are often unknown among the population at large. In doing so, he highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and his belief that Christian doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity were latter inventions.[18][19]
In Forged, Ehrman posits some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.[20] His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery, is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature. It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery", looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and the broader phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world.[21]
In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, defending the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely fictitious being.[22]
2014 saw the publication of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee which examines the historical Jesus, who according to Ehrman neither thought of himself as God nor claimed to be God, and how he came to be thought of as the incarnation of God himself.[23]
|
| 7/15/2016 9:17:19 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
cupocheer
Assumption, IL
69, joined May. 2010
|
I'll read all of it in a minute. I need to take personal.
|
| 7/15/2016 10:49:40 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
followjesusonly
Kingman, AZ
75, joined May. 2012
online now!
|
[]Quote from cupocheer:[/][]
I'll read all of it in a minute. I need to take personal.[/]
=============================================================================
No problem. You may not want to read it at all. It's just the biography of the bible scholar whose video I suggested you might learn something from watching, but which you declined so that you could do your own research.
|
| 7/17/2016 1:57:28 AM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
In the New Testament, a priest and an elder are the same thing. Most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek, scholars think (at least scholars can't find any Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts), and when Greek is translated into English "presbyteros" is translated as either "priest" or "elder" at the translator's discretion, because a priest and an elder are the same thing. Since scholars have no extant copies of any New Testament writings in Hebrew, the Hebrew word for priest is beside the point.
But just for the record, could you check and see what the Hebrew word for "priest" is?
I have already given you the Hebrew for "priest."
H3548 kohen ko-hane'
active participle of H3547;
literally, one officiating, a priest; also (by courtesy) an acting priest (although a layman).
G2409 hiereus hee-er-yooce'
from G2413;
a priest (literally or figuratively).
G4245 presbuteros pres-boo'-ter-os
comparative of presbus (elderly);
older; as noun, a senior; specially, an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian "presbyter".
Strong's shows "priest" and "elder" to be two different words.
You are wrong again ludlow.
|
| 7/17/2016 1:26:37 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
prophetic774
Winter Haven, FL
67, joined Feb. 2011
|
*WHEN WILL THE LOST BE JUDGED AND SENT TO HELL*?
John 12:48: Jesus says, “There is a Judge for the one who rejects Me and does not accept My words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the *LAST DAY*!!”
2 Thess 1:1,6-10: ‘To the *CHURCH* of the Thessalonians…God is just; He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen *WHEN* the Lord Jesus is *REVEALED* {See I Peter 1:13} from heaven in blazing fire…. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting *DESTRUCTION* and shut out from the presence of the Lord *ON THE DAY HE COMES* to be glorified in His holy people!!” {THE LAST DAY-See Rev 20:11-15}
Matt 25:31-34,41: Jesus says, “*WHEN* the Son of Man comes in His glory,{On the Last Day} and all the angels with Him {See Matt 24:29-31}, He will sit on His throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another……He will put His sheep on His right and the goats on the left. *THEN the King {Jesus} will say to those on His right, “Come you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the worlew Heaven and a New Earth, the home of righteousness!!.. *THEN He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire!”
John 5:28,29: Jesus says, “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming {The Last Day} when *ALL* {Both OT & NT Saints} who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.”
Daniel 12:1b,2,7b: “There will be a time of distress {The Great Tribulation} such as not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time {The Last Day} your people--*EVERYONE* whose name is found written in the Book {Both OT & NT Saints}—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt…It will be for a time. times and half a time {1260 days-Rev 12:6,14, or 42 {30-day} months-Rev 13:5-{Not 7 years} *ALL* these things will be *COMPLETED.
Actually there are many similarities between Revelation 20:11-15 and the Judgment of **ALL** the lost in Matthew 25:31-46 on the Day that Jesus comes again: Matthew 25:31-34,41,46: “**WHEN** the Son of Man {The Lamb} comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on **HIS THRONE** in Heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on the left.” “*THEN* the King will say to those on the right, “Come you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.” {The New Jerusalem with its New Heaven and New Earth—See Rev 21:1-5 & 2 Peter 3:10-13} “**THEN* He will say to those on His left, “Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” ....”*THEN* they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Matthew 13:40-43: Jesus says, “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the END OF THE AGE. The Son of man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. **THEN the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
|
| 7/17/2016 3:21:39 PM |
Does ALL mean ALL? | Page 2 |
|
bigd9832
Chicago, IL
65, joined Oct. 2007
|
There is no "hell"in the Scriptures so no one can be "sent" there.
There is no Ancient word for "hell."
|
|
|