the church

[glassjester]

I would agree about Joseph Smith and I would put him in the same category as the RCC.

Alright. Then the question remains.
By what means did God reveal to us, which writings are His Word?

The Holy Spirit leads us to truth, but He does not always prevent us from being imperfect in our understanding.

But if you do not believe any erroneous Christian doctrine,
then in what sense is your understanding imperfect?

(I mean this as a sincere query. I hope it does not come across as a challenge or taunt.)

 

[glassjester]

Wow, you're making a case that Dave Hunt was right. Good job.

Peter never went to Rome, as far as the Bible records.

But there are Scriptural reasons to believe that "Babylon" refers to Rome.
And there are numerous historical writings that refer to Peter's presence in Rome.
Do you deny them all, on the basis that they are without explicit mention in the Bible?

Do you believe Columbus crossed the Atlantic?
That isn't mentioned in the Bible...

 

[chrysostom]

But there are Scriptural reasons to believe that "Babylon" refers to Rome.
And there are numerous historical writings that refer to Peter's presence in Rome.
Do you deny them all, on the basis that they are without explicit mention in the Bible?

they deny the church Jesus built on a rock -
they deny the only authority Jesus left us with

 

[TulipBee]

 

[Right Divider]

Alright. Then the question remains.
By what means did God reveal to us, which writings are His Word?

God has revealed it by His Spirit. It did not come, as is repeatedly claimed, by decision of the RCC.

But if you do not believe any erroneous Christian doctrine,
then in what sense is your understanding imperfect?

I do not claim perfect knowledge of all things. But that I do claim is a perfect Word of God.

(I mean this as a sincere query. I hope it does not come across as a challenge or taunt.)

Of course it's a "challenge" or you would not post it. The problem with all of your challenges is they do not get to the primary problem, which is the complete lack of legitimate authority of the RCC.

This apparently leads you to believe that God cannot have an understandable Bible without some organization like the RCC to "help".

Your "church" is a horrible mishmash of false doctrines that you should immediately depart from.

 

[Right Divider]

But there are Scriptural reasons to believe that "Babylon" refers to Rome.

Then why don't you POST them right HERE ---->

 

[musterion]

He won't. Scripture never says Peter even left what we call the M.E., nor would he have had reason to given his ministry being confined to the circumcision (Gal 2:8-9). Paul was the one finally sent forth to the rest of the world, not the 12.

But if he insists that Peter not only went to Rome but founded the church there, and for some reason spoke in code and called it Babylon when Paul transmitted in the clear and never called it. . . . . .then it's no leap to tie the Babylon of Revelation 17 and the whore riding the beast to his church: a great city (now Vat. City) that has ruled over kings; built upon seven hills; scarlet and purple (bishops and cardinals); cup of filthy abominations (false mass, ever-dying Jesus; prayers to images); drunk on the blood of martyred saints; ruling over a multitude of people of many nations and languages...the whole bit. The RCC fits that bill to a T.

 

[chrysostom]

peter got to rome
-
they put his name on the church

 

[Right Divider]

peter got to rome

Some actual PROOF would be very cool.....

they put his name on the church

He must have made it to Chicago too:
View attachment 24648

 

[chrysostom]

Some actual PROOF would be very cool.....

peter's name is on the church in rome

 

[Right Divider]

peter's name is on the church in rome

It's also on the church in CHICAGO. So what!

 

[musterion]

The RCC claims Peter founded the RCC at Rome, giving them the only true apostolic authority remaining on earth.

Therefore...

Peter's apostolic authority was bequeathed to the RCC by virtue of their claim that he established the church at Rome.

Therefore...

The RCC claims Peter founded the RCC at Rome, giving them the only true apostolic authority remaining on earth.

Therefore...

 

[chrysostom]

The RCC claims Peter founded the RCC at Rome, giving them the only true apostolic authority remaining on earth.

Therefore...

Peter's apostolic authority was bequeathed to the RCC by virtue of their claim that he established the church at Rome.

Therefore...

The RCC claims Peter founded the RCC at Rome, giving them the only true apostolic authority remaining on earth.

Therefore...

it must be a good argument which would explain all those denying that peter made it to rome

 

[Right Divider]

it must be a good argument which would explain all those denying that peter made it to rome

You once (at least once) told us that we need "common sense", but it seems that you only read about it in a book or heard about it on the Internet.

 

[musterion]

it must be a good argument which would explain all those denying that peter made it to rome

Circular arguments are bad arguments.

 

[Danoh]

Circular arguments are bad arguments.

Not always...

Romans 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Other than from within an all black or all white...perspective.

 

[TulipBee]

Not always...

Romans 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Other than from within an all black or all white...perspective.

doesnt tell us anything if he did go to rome

 

[Cruciform]

Note that TP's illustration has everything one might need to be convinced---except, of course, actual biblical texts proving each point. Try again. :doh:

 

[Cruciform]

All these so called churches
on earth today are all fakes. They are built
by the spirits of this world.

Post your proof.

 

[Kott]

Post your proof.

The proof is in the pudding.