Page 1:
*...Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15
***The TRADITIONS mentioned in this verse refers to the TEACHINGS Paul had shared with the Thessalonians. The Christians were in constant danger of being swept downstream by the currents of ungodly culture. Paul here tells them to "hold fast" to what they have been taught. What he taught he incorporated in his epistles to the Church...and his epistles are SCRIPTURE and INSPIRED of God. TRADITION is NOT inspired of God and therefore NOT a reliable criteria to base your belief system on...and NULLIFIES the Word of God [Matthew 15:2-9]. The Jews made the mistake of adhering to the TRADITIONS of the elders and NOT the Scriptures. The SAME mistake has been made by the Catholic church down through the centuries...and they have loooong since DEPARTED from the Scriptures. This DEPARTURE has resulted in it's APOSTASY and UNBIBLICAL doctrines with NO support in Scripture.
*On the whole rock business:
1 Samuel 2:2 simply says that there is no rock like God, which is true, but does not further your case.
2 Samuel 22:2 does not say anything about a rock. I just read it. I'm going to assume you are referring to the word "sel'a" which means "a shadow or shelter". The verse does not apply in the manner you wish it to.
2 Samuel 3:3 God is called the Rock of Israel, therefore it does not apply to your case.
Psalm 28:1 is the Hebrew word "zur" which means a refuge. Therefore it does not apply to the case.
Psalm 18:2 uses both the words sel'a and zur and a mountain stronghold. None apply to the case.
Psalm 89:26 calls God the rock of our salvation. That's a no-brainer which doesn't apply to the case.
***My purpose in citing the Scriptures below is to show that Peter CANNOT be...and is NOT the "Rock"...for the Word of God declares that ONLY God is the "Rock."
Here is what the Scriptures declare about the IDENTITY of the ROCK:
"For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a ROCK, save our GOD?" [2 Samuel 22:32]
The OT prophets knew who the ROCK was...it was their God...the God of Israel. The God of Israel is the SAME God as the God of the NT...and that GOD is the Lord Jesus Christ...to wit: "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was WITH God, and the WORD was GOD. The SAME was in the BEGINNING with God. All things were made BY Him, and without Him was NOT any thing made that was made" [John 1:1-3]. Jesus Christ is the WORD of God [Revelations 19:13]...and He is the CREATOR God of [Genesis 1:1].
So if Jesus Christ is the CREATOR God of BOTH the Old and New Testaments...and ONLY God is the ROCK...it is IMPOSSIBLE that Peter can lay claim to that title.
(Continued)
Page 2:
*1 Samuel 2:2 simply says that there is no rock like God, which is true, but does not further your case.
2 Samuel 22:2 does not say anything about a rock. I just read it. I'm going to assume you are referring to the word "sel'a" which means "a shadow or shelter". The verse does not apply in the manner you wish it to.
2 Samuel 3:3 God is called the Rock of Israel, therefore it does not apply to your case.
Psalm 28:1 is the Hebrew word "zur" which means a refuge. Therefore it does not apply to the case.
Psalm 18:2 uses both the words sel'a and zur and a mountain stronghold. None apply to the case.
Psalm 89:26 calls God the rock of our salvation. That's a no-brainer which doesn't apply to the case.
***[1 Samuel 2:2] DOES further my case...because the God of Israel is the ROCK and Jesus Christ IS the God of Israel...so He IS the ROCK.
[2 Samuel 22:2] DOES say something about a Rock...and it DOES apply...and you are BLIND...to wit: "And he said, The LORD is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer." Since Jesus Christ is the God of BOTH testaments...and THAT God is the ROCK...Jesus Christ is the ONLY one who can lay claim to that title...and it's NOT Peter.
[2 Samuel 3:3]...I did NOT cite this verse as you claim.
[Psalm 28:1]...It DOES apply for David is crying out to his God the ROCK...the God of Israel who is Jesus Christ...the Second person of the Triune God.
[Psalm 18:2]...It DOES apply for David is calling upon his God...the ROCK of Israel who is the ONLY one who can save him from his enemies.
[Psalm 89:26]...It DOES apply for David had a special relationship with God. It was like a Father-son relationship (cf. 2 Samuel 7:14). Too, God in His unfailing covenant had promised that David's line (dynasty) and throne would last forever (cf. Psalm 89:35-37;2 Samuel 7:12-13, 16]. Again since God is the ROCK and Jesus IS God (the ROCK)...He can make these promises to David and keep them.
BOTTOM-LINE: As a Catholic you are BLIND to the Scriptures and CANNOT understand them because of your UNREGENERATE condition. Too, you do NOT believe them and spout the Catholic party line...thereby condemning yourself.
The rest of your post is a crock and not worthy of comment...so I won't.
Marchello
Originally posted by Boris
Hahaha you say that"The Roman Catholic Church is the church of the ANTI-CHRIST"
Hail Mary is a CATHLOIC prayer... hahhaha.
***Hello hahaha:
That's true, haha...but it's not a Christian prayer. Praying to Mary will get you nothing because there is only one mediator between God and man...the man Christ Jesus. Pray only to Him.
Marchello
Re: Chick Tracts and the Bible why the discrimination?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why is Jack Chick so hated? I know what it is: Jack Chick made a tract that addressed the issue of homosexuality. I posted it and that is when all of the controversy started. The name of the tract is "Gay Blade." Chick.com is the name of the site. Don't go to this site unless you want your sacred cow to be kicked over. Jack Chick's tracts are Bible-based and Christ-centered. Jack's tracts are in numerous foreign languages and are designed to cover many areas of human experience. But the focus is on informing humanity of their sin problem. Jack Chick vividly takes you on a journey through his short stories aimed at capturing your attention. Jack' Chick's tracts draw you into many, varied scenarios all with a central message: all are sinners in need of the Savior. If Jack Chick's tracts offend anyone rest assured that is not his intent. The last thing that Jack wants to do is offend anyone. What would be the benefit of that? Don't let the short stories rub you the wrong way. Let the seed of God's Word concerning Jesus Christ and salvation from sin sink into your heart.
simple. he makes hateful lyrics about certain groups. is it really unfair now to hate a person who hates you for the group you belong to.
oh n btw, your getting full of your crap every passing second. every next sentence is full of itself and the sentences that preceeded it 😄 .
oh n yestreday was my birthday. that alone has more significance now than your entire life's preaching has ever had.
Originally posted by MarchelloIt doesn't say rock as I showed. It says that God is a shelter and refuge and fortress. The word is not rock so it doesn't work.
Page 2:[B]*1 Samuel 2:2 simply says that there is no rock like God, which is true, but does not further your case.
2 Samuel 22:2 does not say anything about a rock. I just read it. I'm going to assume you are referring to the word "sel'a" which means "a shadow or shelter". The verse does not apply in the manner you wish it to.
2 Samuel 3:3 God is called the Rock of Israel, therefore it does not apply to your case.
Psalm 28:1 is the Hebrew word "zur" which means a refuge. Therefore it does not apply to the case.
Psalm 18:2 uses both the words sel'a and zur and a mountain stronghold. None apply to the case.
Psalm 89:26 calls God the rock of our salvation. That's a no-brainer which doesn't apply to the case.
***[1 Samuel 2:2] DOES further my case...because the God of Israel is the ROCK and Jesus Christ IS the God of Israel...so He IS the ROCK.
[2 Samuel 22:2] DOES say something about a Rock...and it DOES apply...and you are BLIND...to wit: "And he said, The LORD is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer." Since Jesus Christ is the God of BOTH testaments...and THAT God is the ROCK...Jesus Christ is the ONLY one who can lay claim to that title...and it's NOT Peter.
[2 Samuel 3:3]...I did NOT cite this verse as you claim.
[Psalm 28:1]...It DOES apply for David is crying out to his God the ROCK...the God of Israel who is Jesus Christ...the Second person of the Triune God.
[Psalm 18:2]...It DOES apply for David is calling upon his God...the ROCK of Israel who is the ONLY one who can save him from his enemies.
[Psalm 89:26]...It DOES apply for David had a special relationship with God. It was like a Father-son relationship (cf. 2 Samuel 7:14). Too, God in His unfailing covenant had promised that David's line (dynasty) and throne would last forever (cf. Psalm 89:35-37;2 Samuel 7:12-13, 16]. Again since God is the ROCK and Jesus IS God (the ROCK)...He can make these promises to David and keep them.
BOTTOM-LINE: As a Catholic you are BLIND to the Scriptures and CANNOT understand them because of your UNREGENERATE condition. Too, you do NOT believe them and spout the Catholic party line...thereby condemning yourself.
The rest of your post is a crock and not worthy of comment...so I won't.
Marchello [/B]
I am not Catholic, so you fail there. I have never prayed to Mary, or ever uttered "Hail Mary". Sadly, you failed to answer anything I posted about the word rock and instead hem-hawed about the English translation that does not stand up to analysis of what the Bible says meaning that you continue in your ignorance of what the Scripture actually says. Truly, it's funny that you beat around the bush and won't respond to the literary analysis because, quite simply, you are not the expert you arrogantly claimed to be. Because you are ignorant and "unregenerate" as you call it you did not actually address the issue. The writers of the Old Testament did not call God their rock. I am not saying that salvation comes from anywhere else because it doesn't according to Scripture, nor am I suggesting that Catholic idea of succession from Peter is correct because believe that it isn't. But quite simply, your argument is ignorant and wrong.
Furthermore I did not call Catholic tradition correct. That is a blind, arrogant, ignorant and incorrect assumption that you made. Perhaps you should try understanding and patience to learn and understand before jumping to false conclusions. There is a big difference between tradition and the traditions of man. Sadly, I can name quite a few traditions of man you follow, but it does not matter. Not everything Paul taught was put down in Scripture, nor does Scripture validate itself as sufficient because it is not. The Holy Spirit is also required. You also say that Scripture alone are inspired by God, but this is also incorrect. Prophecy is also inspired and continues after the finality of the canon was reached. Also, we know that the gospel is spread by means other than the written medium and thereby it is obvious that you are again incorrect. Actually, by saying this you are contradicting Scripture. Paul quotes a pagan poet to prove his point, showing that Scripture alone is not a correct doctrine. Matthew 2:23 quotes an oral tradition "He shall be called Nazarene". It is not withing the Old Testament at all.
The unfailing covenant part you mention is correct, and yes Jesus is the eternal high priest. Isn't it awesome how I never contradicted that?
Also, you failed to correctly interpret Jesus instating Peter as a rock. You deny that it is true and make Jesus out to be a liar.
Once again about the rock thing. Yes, God is the only provider and refuge of our salvation. The church is separate from that and Peter is the foundation of that based on his faith and confession of Christ. Peter built the church as Jesus commissioned him in both Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17. He did so in two acts: first in Acts 10 where Peter decided that the Gentiles should be evangelized and was not opposed because of his commission and then in Acts 15 where it was decided by the final judgment of Peter that the Gentiles were not bound to the law of Moses. That is the extent of his foundation in the church. Fortunately, for you, you seem to unwittingly belong to the church. Lucky for you that Peter didn't exercise his right to bind things on earth and declare that the Gentiles were bound to the law. God is THE ROCK, Peter is a rock. Quite simple, and perfectly scriptural unlike your false doctrine.
Furthermore, Catholicism does not condemn anyone. If there are errant beliefs it does not condemn them. Christians believe John 3:16. We also beleive that those that confess Christ as Lord and Savior and that He was come in the flesh and was raised from the dead are saved. Apparently you do not. Scripture does not exclude those that you exclude. And since Scripture is greater than you and inspired by the just, loving, and living God, I believe Scripture and reject your false doctrine of condemnation and ignorance of truth.
Originally posted by Nellinator
It doesn't say rock as I showed. It says that God is a shelter and refuge and fortress. The word is not rock so it doesn't work.I am not Catholic, so you fail there. I have never prayed to Mary, or ever uttered "Hail Mary". Sadly, you failed to answer anything I posted about the word rock and instead hem-hawed about the English translation that does not stand up to analysis of what the Bible says meaning that you continue in your ignorance of what the Scripture actually says. Truly, it's funny that you beat around the bush and won't respond to the literary analysis because, quite simply, you are not the expert you arrogantly claimed to be. Because you are ignorant and "unregenerate" as you call it you did not actually address the issue. The writers of the Old Testament did not call God their rock. I am not saying that salvation comes from anywhere else because it doesn't according to Scripture, nor am I suggesting that Catholic idea of succession from Peter is correct because believe that it isn't. But quite simply, your argument is ignorant and wrong.
Furthermore I did not call Catholic tradition correct. That is a blind, arrogant, ignorant and incorrect assumption that you made. Perhaps you should try understanding and patience to learn and understand before jumping to false conclusions. There is a big difference between tradition and the traditions of man. Sadly, I can name quite a few traditions of man you follow, but it does not matter. Not everything Paul taught was put down in Scripture, nor does Scripture validate itself as sufficient because it is not. The Holy Spirit is also required. You also say that Scripture alone are inspired by God, but this is also incorrect. Prophecy is also inspired and continues after the finality of the canon was reached. Also, we know that the gospel is spread by means other than the written medium and thereby it is obvious that you are again incorrect. Actually, by saying this you are contradicting Scripture. Paul quotes a pagan poet to prove his point, showing that Scripture alone is not a correct doctrine. Matthew 2:23 quotes an oral tradition "He shall be called Nazarene". It is not withing the Old Testament at all.
The unfailing covenant part you mention is correct, and yes Jesus is the eternal high priest. Isn't it awesome how I never contradicted that?
Also, you failed to correctly interpret Jesus instating Peter as a rock. You deny that it is true and make Jesus out to be a liar.
Once again about the rock thing. Yes, God is the only provider and refuge of our salvation. The church is separate from that and Peter is the foundation of that based on his faith and confession of Christ. Peter built the church as Jesus commissioned him in both Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17. He did so in two acts: first in Acts 10 where Peter decided that the Gentiles should be evangelized and was not opposed because of his commission and then in Acts 15 where it was decided by the final judgment of Peter that the Gentiles were not bound to the law of Moses. That is the extent of his foundation in the church. Fortunately, for you, you seem to unwittingly belong to the church. Lucky for you that Peter didn't exercise his right to bind things on earth and declare that the Gentiles were bound to the law. God is THE ROCK, Peter is a rock. Quite simple, and perfectly scriptural unlike your false doctrine.
Furthermore, Catholicism does not condemn anyone. If there are errant beliefs it does not condemn them. Christians believe John 3:16. We also beleive that those that confess Christ as Lord and Savior and that He was come in the flesh and was raised from the dead are saved. Apparently you do not. Scripture does not exclude those that you exclude. And since Scripture is greater than you and inspired by the just, loving, and living God, I believe Scripture and reject your false doctrine of condemnation and ignorance of truth.
***I agree with you...you are "crazy"...a complete nut-job.
Marchello
Originally posted by Goddess KaliHe's just upset that his errant English-Bible Baptist theology got disproved and he has no valid rebuttal other than logically fallacious ad homs.
[b]Marcello you fkn idiot, you alienate everyone even fellow Christians. You are a complete moron, and need to get the hell out of here. Find something better to do, or someone else to harass. [/B]
Originally posted by Nellinator
He's just upset that his errant English-Bible Baptist theology got disproved and he has no valid rebuttal other than logically fallacious ad homs.
I am sick of the way he attacks people.
He attacks you, myself, Shakymunison, Debbiejo, Regret, Feceman, and other people that I like.
And every single person he attacks has always come up with an intelligent argument against his, and he only responds with insults and personal judgements to which he has no right.
He has no business here. He forces his intepretations upon everyone, and then makes a complete mockery of the Faith that you and other Christians are trying to expose.
Originally posted by Marchello
***Concession? I am conceding NOTHING...you are delusional. I am agreeing with the fact that you are a "crazy" canuck [as you refer to yourself in the title]...and a nut-job in your aberrant theology.Marchello
And I reserve that word for the dumbest, most douchelike individuals.
Originally posted by Goddess KaliMeh, people like him are more amusing than abrasive to me.
I am sick of the way he attacks people.He attacks you, myself, Shakymunison, Debbiejo, Regret, Feceman, and other people that I like.
And every single person he attacks has always come up with an intelligent argument against his, and he only responds with insults and personal judgements to which he has no right.
He has no business here. He forces his intepretations upon everyone, and then makes a complete mockery of the Faith that you and other Christians are trying to expose.