/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>583888

First of all, Protestant view the church as a charismatic government, not a bureaucratic one (what continues Christianity is a set of fundamental believes, not the authority of leaders), otherwise will have to confess when the most of church bishops submitted under the Arians, hell overcame the church.

Additionally, protestants don't pretend that the church fathers were homogenous. Many overtly disagreed with icons, perpetual virginity, few called the eucharist as "spiritual food", this is so obvious a writer during the 12th century called Peter Abelard had to address the contradiction among the church fathers. Protestants, as I can tell, acknowledged that the early theologians don't reflect 💯% of their own doctrine, but also similarly recognize that they don't reflect ortholics' either, so they treat the theologians as they were and not have to place them in a little box to conform to their view.

Simply put, protestants believe that Orthodoxes and Roman Catholics are 'Apostolic' by name and nothing else.

As for baptists, who aren't not protestants, are the victims of misfortune, since they lost most of their writings from the sand of time and losing their will to just eat locus & honey, they had to rely on alfalfa sprouts and either vitamin k rich foods.

>>583888

The explanation I've heard is that when Constantine legalized Christianity, a bunch of pagans flooded into the Church with their weird syncretic customs which eventually became doctrine.

>>583892

I lost

>>583900

More like they eventually became traditional practice

>>583888

>When exactly did the Church fall into error?

During the apostolic age. You're viewing history improperly, there isn't a moment where suddenly everything changed, what you have is many many centuries of development. The point at which the Roman church materially apostatized is some time in the high middle ages, and formally apostatized at the Council of Trent.

>when did people decide Jesus was wrong and hell prevailed against His church

fixed

>>583907

Your claim the (((church))) in rome is the one in Matthew 16, even though that took place in Jerusalem and not Italy.

>>583888

The problem begins with the understanding of the word "church". Catholics seem to believe that it refers to some sort of centralized organization whereas Protestants (and I believe the Bible as well) portray it more like a number of largely independent churches that are in conversation with one another. These churches might disagree on some issue and might be rebuked but ultimately there is not some sort of pope that can do whatever he wants and if he wants to invent some new doctrine, like that Mary ascended to heaven then nobody can stop him.

>>583892

So what historical evidence is there for these secret anabaptists who only went public with their beliefs in the 15th century anyways?

Also don't you think that it's absurd to suggest that the Holy Spirit would allow true Christianity to fall off the radar for well over a millennium, even while he worked miracles among the cathodox as he still does today (>>582710) and granted visions to uber-catholic saints like St. Thomas Aquinas and others?

>>583922

>So what historical evidence is there for these secret anabaptists who only went public with their beliefs in the 15th century anyways?

It's a meme you dip

>Also don't you think that it's absurd to suggest that the Holy Spirit would allow true Christianity to fall off the radar for well over a millennium,

It probably didn't. Catholics still said there were heretics teaching that goes against them. Of course none got very popular until Luther

>even while he worked miracles among the cathodox as he still does today (>>582710) and granted visions to uber-catholic saints like St. Thomas Aquinas and others?

Ha no

>>583922

>Also don't you think that it's absurd to suggest that the Holy Spirit would allow true Christianity to fall off the radar for well over a millennium

No, because it didn't due to matthew 16:18. (((They))) have just rewrote history to hide the non apostate christians from modern (((denominations))) of all sorts. But you can't really hide the early church in the Bible because of God preserving His word forever in 1 peter 1:25.

>even while he worked miracles among the cathodox as he still does today (>>582710)

Colossians 3:11

>Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Which is to say it doesn't matter what the people got called by (((them))) in the (((history books))) as long as matthew 12:48-50 was fullfilled and they were christians.

>and granted visions to uber-catholic saints like St. Thomas Aquinas and others?

Well not all catholics were apostate, just most of them like other denoms. There surely were some that only stayed catholic in name for the (((history books))) when removing their existence was too inconvienent for (((them))).

>>583924

>It probably didn't.

It definitely didn't which is my point, to claim that a form of Christianity that history barely attests too for over a millennium is true is to claim that that the Holy Spirit dropped the ball pretty hard. He spoke through the prophets to root out idols in the Temple, so if Catholicism is idolatrous why would he wait over a thousand years to do the same for us? WHY would the "true faith" not get very popular until Luther (technically Jan Hus if you want to be completely historically accurate, or inaccurate, or whatever). And if they were all considered heretics you need to point to a specific, persistent, characteristically baptist breed of heretic, bc afaik most heresies were christological in nature and baptist and catholic christology are afaik in agreement.

>Ha no

I mean ha do some basic research before you meme the heck out friend.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/when-st-thomas-aquinas-likened-his-work-to-straw-was-that-a-retraction-of-what-he-wrote

>On the feast of St. Nicholas [in 1273, Aquinas] was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, "The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me." When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, "I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw." (www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stt03002.htm)

Also check out the link in the thread I quoted, the miracles is real.

>>583925

>Well not all catholics were apostate, just most of them like other denoms. There surely were some that only stayed catholic in name for the (((history books))) when removing their existence was too inconvienent for (((them))).

I quoted Aquinas for a reason, nobody else was a more passionate defender of Catholicism and Catholic practices such as the Eucharest, read the Summa if you want proof. You can dismiss (((our))) history by whatever means you like but I don't really see how you can dismiss the Holy Spirit in action.

>Which is to say it doesn't matter what the people got called by (((them))) in the (((history books))) as long as matthew 12:48-50 was fullfilled and they were christians.

I mean I personally don't doubt that, mostly because I don't like to think that everyone who had their Christology messed up in the early church got damned for it, but this isn't simply about faith in Jesus, it's about the true, capital C Church and whether or not it has been granted the it claims through scriptural interpretation.

>>583941

And It slipped my notice that that quote don't work, so whatever here's the link. https://www.messengerofpadrepio.com/testimony

largely ignored bc then they would get woke to the apostolic church

when I was a prot some guy told me “Augustine had some good points but be careful bc he was catholic and therefore wrong” like wtf? Him being Catholic somehold invalidates objective fact? Ok kid

>>583942

<You can dismiss (((our))) history by whatever means you like

>unironically admitting to changing history and being a kike

Guess I shouldn't really be suprised.

>but I don't really see how you can dismiss the Holy Spirit in action.

>nobody else was a more passionate defender of Catholicism and Catholic practices such as the Eucharest

Very simple, he was practicing a physical communion against what romans 8:7-8 says. He also was completely ignoring that fact that of 1 corinthians 11 it is of the spirit in it can only be talking of in hebrews 5:12-14 and john 6:43-58. This is because of how 1 corinthians 15:44 is worded for having eyes to see and a mouth to eat see also mark 4:9 amongst many others.

>>583941

>to claim that a form of Christianity that history barely attests too for over a millennium is true

Israel wasn't very famous at all either boi. Did the HG drop the ball on that?

>To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, "The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me." When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, "I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw." (www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stt03002.htm)

Uhh what? That's a miricle?

>>583910

i mean, you can read a book about the history of Western Christianity, nothing stopping you. prior to Luther, it's all the history of the Catholic Church

>>583956

Yeah I know they were the dominating force. I never said they weren't

>>583959

was there some other church in jerusalem with full apostolic succession I'm not aware of? and why aren't you apart of that denomination instead of being an american southern baptist?

>>583961

>with full apostolic succession

>implying apostolistic succession exists

>>583965

>Jesus makes apostles

>ok go and make independent fundamentalist baptist preachers

>printing press won't be around until the 1500s give or take

>oh, holy scripture won't be around for a few hundred years either

>just wing it, my friends

Christ sure takes it easy!

>>583949

>Guess I shouldn't really be surprised.

its only joke. why you haf to be mad?

> physical communion against what romans 8:7-8 say

wat

>He also was completely ignoring that fact that of 1 corinthians 11 it is of the spirit in it can only be talking of in hebrews 5:12-14 and john 6:43-58. This is because of how 1 corinthians 15:44 is worded for having eyes to see and a mouth to eat see also mark 4:9 amongst many others

Ok I'm going to need you to actually put together theological argument against the Eucharest because you're just quoting Bible verses and stringing them together with poor grammar. I know you have an argument and even if it isn't relevant to the thread I don't want to dismiss it, but you need to be better at articulating it dude. And again, how do you account for the fact that arguably the most Catholic philosopher in history was given personal revelation like so many other Catholics?

>>583952

>Israel wasn't very famous at all either boi. Did the HG drop the ball on that?

I mean there's historical evidence that Israel existed and was persistently guided by the Holy Spirit for starters. Again, you need to point to a persistent, characteristically baptist strain of Christianity that did not originate with the Reformation seeing as, historically, it is a post-Reformation development AND you need to account for the miracles that have been an integral part of Catholicism since ever if you want to claim that the Church isn't the true church.

>Uhh what? That's a miricle?

Are miraculous revalations not miracles anymore? Ok then.

>>583970

you're talking to large group of people who have to pretend Church history prior to the 1500's is all a big papish/romish lie

>they believe that the Church kept the Bible from everyone…

except there was no printing presses around until that very same century as the reformation

>the Church kept people illiterate on purpose

except, all you had to do was learn Latin, a lingua franca of classical education that was taught all around the west for thousand+ years

>the Church somehow made up and kill all…independent fundamentalist baptists

except, holy scripture wasn't compiled at least for a 100 years after the Resurrection or so. whatever was taught or passed on from this is…uh, suspect I guess?

>>583967

What does that have to do with apostolistic succession?

>>583976

dude let up and let them make their points first, they hate us enough as it is.

>>583977

apostolic succession = passing on of the church hierarchy/teachings established by Jesus Christ for His Church

or do you really want to imply Our Lord intended for His Church to just be made up of..random congregations until the KJV was compiled or something?

>>583970

I'm saying how because Israel wasn't bug at all and not many knew the truth.

>have been an integral part of Catholicism since ever if you want to claim that the Church isn't the true church.

Again there are none

>Are miraculous revalations not miracles anymore? Ok then.

So because he claimed he got a revelation? You know what flase prphets are right? And the woman that started 7th fay advenists said she got revelations also. Also Satan can oerform miricles and he will in the end times.

>>583888

I would say during Gregory II's reign combined with monasticism over the years

>>583982

We did not have Holy Scripture for a hundred years plus after the Passion of Our Lord. How would the early Church survive, except that the Apostles appointed a multitude in their place?

>>583980

>You know what false prophets are right?

He didn't actually preach anything from it, he just had a beatific vision (as is a well attested phenomenon in the cathodox tradition) and realized that theology is nothing in comparison to the reality of God. It literally stopped him from preaching and he died three months later, hardly a good move on the devil's part if you ask me.

>Also Satan can perform miracles and he will in the end times.

Would you like a stronger case? Here ya go.

https://www.messengerofpadrepio.com/testimony

>>583985

ah here we go.

the >commonly misunderstood John 4:48-58

just so commonly misunderstood for over 2,000 years! it was probably some evil pagan that gave us the eucharist! it was all just a metaphor about believing in Jesus Christ, the jews were just being mean when they called it a hard teaching!

>>583983

The Holy Ghost guiding christians of course, see 1 thesselonians 1:5 and 2 peter 1:21.

>>583989

and it just so happened the Holy Spirit guided the Holy Catholic Church for over 2,000 years in unbroken succession!

For surely, Christ would not leave behind a corrupted Church? You know this, right?

>>583988

>just so commonly misunderstood for over 2,000 years!

Yea, 2000 years of faked history by (((them))).

>it was probably some evil pagan that gave us the eucharist!

No, it was carnal men who don't understand the literallness of 1 corinthians 15:44.

> it was all just a metaphor about believing in Jesus Christ,

No it was literal and this is not a arguement nor a way to account for hebrews 5:12-14 and 1 corinthians 3:6 in your interpretation.

>the jews were just being mean when they called it a hard teaching!

They are not jews, but fake jews that are actually babylonian chaldeans of the synagogue of satan mentioned in revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

>>583899

The Fathers are consistent on a lot of things. Even on Sacraments themselves. This doesnt mean the Fathers are all just the same, Catholics happily accept that they are different hence consensus patrum. But even then, to exaggerate the differences in the Fathers is a Protestant tactic and one even used by John Owen to argue against trusting the Church and the Pope when it comes to disputes.

Yet, when one looks at the Fathers themselves, they are very clear on the need for unity in doctrine and the authority of the Church as eventhough the word "infallible" is not used, is clear that what the Church teaches must be followed or one is cut off. The Fathers also trust in the reliability of their own predecessors. Something the Protestant wouldnt do in light of White's own statements in the Marian Dogmas debate where he essentially made an argument as to why one should just go to Scripture instead.

There is also no right of private judgement as Turretin and Hodge both argue for despite acceptance of church goverance which none of the Fathers as far as I can tell, endorsed

>>583991

>Yea, 2000 years of faked history by (((them))).

Prove it.

>No, it was carnal men who don't understand the literallness of 1 corinthians 15:44.

Then by what scandal did Christ lose disciples? By what scandal did the Jews toss their heads at Christ?

>They are not jews, but fake jews that are actually babylonian chaldeans of the synagogue of satan mentioned in revelation 2:9 and 3:9

Regardless of who they are, why did they call it a hard teaching? Why would this even be recounted in scripture?

>>583990

But, we just examined the bad fruit i.e matthew 7:15-20 of the so called catholics over 2000 years of what is told to us as history by (((them))). The catholics tend to ignore verses like hebrews 5:12-14 and 1 corinthians 3:6 in their intepretation because it is convienent for them. Or atleast according to (((them))). Because of 1 peter 1:25 we can be sure of God's word the Bible telling the truth of the early church. But what happened after that is unknown because (((they))) are very adapt liars considering (((their))) leader is the father of lies, Satan due to matthew 4:8-10 and john 8:44

So all these Burpists have managed to cook up are a few graphs depicting their church as though it was founded by Jesus Himself, and throwing their arms up in the air over a nonexistant conspiracy?

>>583985

>The communion was never meant to be physical nor could it be beacuse of those in the flesh being unable to please God due to romans 8:7-8.

You're going to need to be more specific about what you mean by "in the flesh." The carnal mind is specifically referring to base desires, not flesh in it's entirety. Certainly we are called to be spiritual creatures but the entire thrust of our faith is that God became flesh and that in the end we will be redeemed soul AND body, certainly these are not things that would displease God because they are his plan. I don't see how 1 corinthians 15:44 does anything but support this and quite frankly this almost seems gnostic in it's approach.

>>583993

>prove it

The proof is in their fruit, lies and deceit.

>Then by what scandal did Christ lose disciples? By what scandal did the Jews toss their heads at Christ?

What are you talking about?

>why did they call it a hard teaching? Why would this even be recounted in scripture?

I assume you are reffering to 2 peter 3:16, and it is recounted for our understanding.

>>583994

>But, we just examined the bad fruit

The bad fruit? Of what, Scripture? Without the Church, there would be no scripture. Churches? Defending Christendom? Or, would you rather throw your hat in with the Orthodox?

>Because of 1 peter 1:25 we can be sure of God's word the Bible telling the truth of the early church

…what. yeah, it was the catholics who preserved it. you don't know even know what the "fruit" is. your sect is the fruit of Martin Luther.

>>583995

anything before the 1500's is incredibly inconvenient for them

>>583998

>The proof is in their fruit, lies and deceit.

ok, so you're just giving up here.

>What are you talking about?

If Christ wasn't telling people they will need to take the Eucharist, then what was He saying? And how would this NOT be a hard teaching? It's so hard, many of you deny it to this day.

Also I'm just going to repost a post I made a few days ago because quite frankly a few of us need to cool ourselves off and soak in the buttery voice of a Mr. Troy McClure for a second.

Stop trying to insult each other out of your flocks. Anon's on this board, like the rest of humanity, tend to be horrible at debating their points because they would rather play with the splinters lodged in their brother's eyes than patiently try to take them out and meet the qualifications Jesus laid out to do so. If the wise are those whose houses are built on rock and the fools are those who's houses are built on sand then our job as evangelists is foundation repair. If you don't take that process slowly and gently, replacing the sand one brick at a time and taking care not to disturb the sand that is supporting the house until absolutely necessary, and doing this all with professional precision, the house they care so much about will collapse and they will drive you off what remains of their property with a shotgun because why the hell would they ever trust you or your company or your EMPLOYER to try again? I don't want you guys to think I'm being self righteous with this, I only started thinking this way because my conscience has driven me to apologize too many times for behaving like a jackass on this board, but if we fail to win people over to our side (baptist, catholic, whatever), 90% of the time we only have ourselves (and that Satan guy) to blame. Be perfect, as our Father is perfect.

>>583997

I mean literally in the flesh as stated in romans 8:8. Have another verse since you seem to still not understand

romans 3:20

>Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

No flesh, none at all can be justified. They that are in the flesh cannot please God. That is all there is to it.

>>583999

>…what. yeah, it was the catholics who preserved it

No God preserved His word because of 1 peter 1:25. Stop trying to take glory away from God.

>The bad fruit? Of what

The people who practice physical communion against what romans 8:7-8 says.

>your sect is the fruit of Martin Luther.

I am not a sect or denomination. I am a christian who does what God says in the Bible, why do you try to take glory away from God? Hath ye not read 2 corinthians 10:17? But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

>>584001

>If Christ wasn't telling people they will need to take the Eucharist, then what was He saying?

He was, but not the physical one you guys take due to romans 8:7-8, but the one that references scripture in hebrews 5:12-14 and 1 corinthians 10:4.

>>584003

Not an arguement.

>>584006

Hath ye not read? Jesus came by both water and blood, by spirit and flesh. Read john 19:30-35 and 1 john 5:5-8. Then read the Bible more.

>>584007

>I am not a sect or denomination. I am a christian who does what God says in the Bible

Surely, not the KJV like the Baptists do, right?

>>584007

>Not an argument.

Correct, it's an attempt to keep the peace and stop the sinning.

>Jesus came by both water and blood, by spirit and flesh.

Yes as we are called to be. How does this support the argument that "They that are in the flesh cannot please God," when God specifically told his son Jesus, who was in the flesh, that he was well pleased with him. And how does that invalidate the Eucharest?

>>584009

I am open to other interpretations, but the KJV is the only english version I am aware of that doesn't make God a liar if it were true, which it is.

>>584010

>How does this support the argument that

This isn't an arguement, this is me literally quoting scripture in romans 8:8

>So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Either believe what is wrote down in the Bible or don't. But if you don't believe then why are you here?

>God specifically told his son Jesus, who was in the flesh, that he was well pleased with him.

Jesus was also in the spirit if you had read john 19:30-35 and 1 john 5:5-8 you would understand this.

>And how does that invalidate the Eucharest?

It doesn't, its just that communion is by definition of romans 8:8 existing, not physical or of the flesh. But it is spiritual, of which is defined in hebrews 5:12-14 and 1 corinthians 10:4 due to the wording of john 4:55

>>583899

>that video

Alot of talk about nothing

>what continues Christianity is a set of fundamental believes, not the authority of leaders

Apostolics believe this

>otherwise will have to confess when the most of church bishops submitted under the Arians, hell overcame the church

<most

>Additionally, protestants don't pretend that the church fathers were homogenous. Many overtly disagreed with icons, perpetual virginity,

Neither do apostolics hence Consensus Patrum, also the church fathers didn't have the hindsight we do today

> few called the eucharist as "spiritual food"

This isn't against or contrary to the understanding of apostolic belief of the eucharist

>As for baptists, who aren't not protestants, are the victims of misfortune, since they lost most of their writings from the sand of time and losing their will to just eat locus & honey, they had to rely on alfalfa sprouts and either vitamin k rich foods.

now ur making me think im replying to bait

>>584012

>This isn't an arguement, this is me literally quoting scripture in romans 8:8

We're talking about the Eucharist, not just any old flesh but a specific instance of flesh that God specifically said was in fact pleasing, and therefore is not covered by this verse. Plus let's go back just two verses "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." What do you thing that Paul was referring here too, literal flesh and spirit, or two opposing states of mind? The correct answer is mental state because that is explicitly what he refers too that you are misinterpreting the verse and it's implications for the Eucharist.

>>584013

>Troy McClure

>nothing

repent

>>584017

>not just any old flesh but a specific instance of flesh that God specifically said was in fact pleasing, and therefore is not covered by this verse.

You are correct in this specific instance, but only because Jesus' physical body was the sacrifice on the cross and needed to be perfectly in line with the old testament leviticul priesthood to God in order to be sacrificed physically. Also see hebrews 7.

>What do you thing that Paul was referring here too, literal flesh and spirit, or two opposing states of mind?

Yes, literally two opposing states of mind. Hath ye not read romans 7:13-25?

>Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

>For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

>For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

>If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

>Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

>For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

>For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

>Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

>I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

>For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

>But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

>O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

>I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

>>584013

Wait no i misquoted in hasty defense of Troy McClure. Nothing wrong with that.

>>584021

I'm sorry but where is there an argument against the Eucharest in this?

>>584024

>I'm sorry but where is there an argument against the Eucharest in this?

I am not argueing against it, I am argueing it is not physical due to romans 8:8, and is spiritual due to john 4:55, hebrews 5:12-14, and 1 corinthains 10:4. You asked me questions here >>584017 which I greentexted in my post here >>584021 as to adress your questions.

>>584026

At the end of the day the body which was given up for us and the blood which was shed for us was not only spiritual but physical as well, as body and blood tend to be. A passage from Paul on the inclinations of sinful minds has no bearing on that and the fact that it was spiritual as well does not exclude that.

>>584027

Well yea exactly. Hence why romans 8:8 is so applicable to us, but Jesus being a exception. Because care not for things of the flesh but for things of the spirit like romans 8:5 says

>For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Jesus came by blood and water due to john 19:30-35 to fullfill the law as stated in matthew 5:17-18

>Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

>For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There was two things to fullfill, where there is no law no sin is imputed as stated in romans 5:13. So Jesus created a new testament with his death spiritually on the cross due to the wording of hebrews 9:15. But with his physical death on the cross he forgave the sins of 1 corinthians 15:54-57. But which one is the one that matters to be forgiven? Read 1 corinthians 15:50

>Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

>>584029

Also very relevant is 1 john 1:9-10

>If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

>If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

>>584029

>Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

I think this is where we end up differing on this matter. Certainly this verse is true, yet it is true only because our flesh and our blood are corrupt in sin. But Adam's body was not initially corrupt, Jesus's body was never corrupt, and after the last judgement both of our bodies will not be corrupt. The incarnation was not just a matter of sacrifice, absolutely cruxial as that was, but also to show us that no, the flesh, as corrupt as it is, does not have to be corrupt and, in the end, will be redeemed just as the spirit is because as a creation of God it is fundamentally good. But the key point is that Jesus's body was not corrupt, and therefore when he says "This is my body" in reference to the Eucharist he means it not in part but in totality.

>>584032

>both of our bodies will not be corrupt.

Which body 1 corinthians 15:44?

>but also to show us that no, the flesh, as corrupt as it is, does not have to be corrupt

Wrong because of romans 8:8 and 1 corinthians 15:50, flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God nor can they in the flesh please God for corruption does not inherit incorruption. Did you never ever read 1 corinthians 15 all the way though? It seems so.

>because as a creation of God it is fundamentally good.

Wrong, God creates both good and evil see Isaiah 45:7

>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

>>584034

Dude read revelations and genesis. The body was created and God said it was good, then it fell, not because of God's doing but because of Adam's. It will die, as even Jesus's did, but will be raised anew at the last judgement free of sin. None of this is in conflict with the idea that corrupted flesh, FALLEN flesh, cannot inherit the kingdom because the Bible says that God wants too and WILL redeem it at the end of time.

>>583888

You're expecting them to have a reason. Most Proddys are from a church where some layman just decided to pick up a bible and think he was qualified to teach the word of God. They have no context or knowledge of history of why they do anything.

>>584036

Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 1 corinthians 15:36.

Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 corinthians 15:46-49

>FALLEN flesh, cannot inherit the kingdom

Hath ye not read galatians 2:16?

>Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. Jesus came to fullfill the law though as stated in 5:17-18 being the only exception due to the wording of it.

>>584038

>They have no context or knowledge of history of why they do anything.

Well if they are christians then they would only be doing things if it were in faith, for whatsoever that is not of faith is sin romans 14:23.

>>584039

>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Gen 1:27

>And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. -Gen 1:31

So unless God somehow didn't make the body i'm pretty sure that, at least in the prototype phase, it was good, at least according to the Bible.

>Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. -Rev 21:1

So are we just going to be watching this unpopulated new earth from afar as incorporeal spirits in heaven then? Seems like a waste of good matter to me.

The body was good. The body will be good again.

>>584046

>So are we just going to be watching this unpopulated new earth from afar as incorporeal spirits in heaven then? Seems like a waste of good matter to me.

Why have you not read 1 corinthians 15 all the way through yet? You would understand the answer to your own question if you would just read the Bible more. the answer is 1 corinthians 15:51-58 and luke 24:37-43

>>584052

>We will rise from the dead, clothed in new immortal forms.

>Jesus, the ideal man, rose from the dead into immortal body

Im pretty sure I understand the answer to my own question, thanks for giving it some extra scriptural suppourt though. Try Ezikiel 37 if you want to see how God raises the dead.

>>583941

>WHY would the "true faith" not get very popular until Luther

He was just one branch of the state church, albeit one that didn't inherently screw up salvation. Before Trent and the counter-reformation, there was less polarization between the state church people on these things. But they were all still state churches who baptized to keep inventory on their populations instead of doing it as the Bible says. It's just all the truly garbage ones remained with the Roman one after the counter-reformation.

>bc afaik most heresies were christological in nature and baptist and catholic christology are afaik in agreement.

Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)

1.6.2

>Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.

>If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime – provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime – shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6

>>583961

>full apostolic succession

This is an anachronism, there is no such concept in the word of God. The only two offices that were set up for the church were that of pastor (bishop/overseer) and deacon. The Apostles proper had no successors, because they are still the Apostles today just in heaven. Nobody succeeded their authority. It's them we look to for how to run a New Testament church. And if you even think of turning to Acts 1, the Apostles did not perish and get replaced like Judas Iscariot did. I don't see how you would dare to suggest otherwise.

>>583976

>except, holy scripture wasn't compiled at least for a 100 years after the Resurrection

The word of God does not have to be written in a single book to be valid. It doesn't even have to be written down to be valid or preserved, and the fact that Jesus' words hadn't been written down yet the instant after He said them has no bearing on their validity. The words hadn't been lost. And they still haven't. Because they can be transferred from mouth to ear or from pen to paper to eyes, it's still the exact, precise same word of God. As spoken by the Lord God Jehovah himself, His words shall never pass away, they will stand for all time, and we will never lose them. See Matthew 24:35, Isaiah 40:8, Isaiah 59:21, 1 Peter 1:25.

>>584064

are any of the KJV-ites gonna actually answer any of my points about what we know of history without going into nutjob circular arguments based on their own interpretation of scripture?

i don't think so

>>584064

>the Apostles did not perish and get replaced like Judas Iscariot did

sure pastor bob, sure

>>584069

>what is faith, the post

Also see hebrews 11:1

>>584070

>the Apostles did not perish and get replaced like Judas Iscariot did

Hath ye not read Mark 12:24-27?

>And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

>For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

>And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

>He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

>>584073

The Apostles were martyred. They left priests in their wake, to carry on the Church, that their congregations may have the forgiveness of sins, and share in the Eucharist of Christ. Why are you so deceived?

>>584069

All of your questions so far have been answered as far as I am aware. Do you have any more?

>>584077

>>584076

How in God's blue world is that an applicable answer to my question about the ultimate fate of the Apostles, and the apostolic succession?

>>584079

Yes it is an answer, the apostles are still alive hence no succession, they are just waiting for revelation to happen like the rest of the believers who have gone to heaven instead of hell as stated in revelation 6:11.

God is the God of paul, and of mark, and of matthew, and of abraham, and of isaac, and of jacob. Not of the dead, but of the living. Ye therefore do greatly err.

>>584079

The Apostles are the twelve plus Paul. They're still alive in the presence of the Lord, they still have all the authority given to them and it has not been ceded to another person. So this concept of successionism is found nowhere in the NT and is to be rightly called trash because it displaces the apostles from their rightful position.

>>584082

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? -John 21:15-23

>>584088

What is your point? Did you forget 1 corinthians 15:36 so quickly?

>Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

Do you think 1 corinthians 15:49 is false? Those in the flesh can not inherit the kingdom of God 1 corinthians 15:50. Hence why 1 corinthians 15:36 is said. Because there is two deaths due to revelation 20:14.

>>584092

It's another case of 1 Corinthians 2:14, m'afraid

>>584092

Once again, you're going to need to be more specific with your arguments because I don't see how they contraditct apostolic succession or Jesus's words, or how they're even relevant to this subject for that matter.

>>583906

>>583892

Dankest memes ITT tbh.

I hear a lot of "Catholic church founded in x by emperor Constantinople".

Can someone please give me some proofs of this?

>>584092

After all this time, I'm starting to agree with you tbh. At least your doctrines make a lot of sense, and no one has managed to prove you wrong yet.

Would it be possible for you to write a confession of faith, with scriptures to back it up? I'm curious to hear your full system.

>>584208

>posts vaguely unrelated scripture that in no way shape or form is related at all to topic at hand

you're interested in the rhetorical device of quoting scripture with no context and getting uppity about it

>>584092

>Some random bible verses about flesh

>No context

Please do explain, because I can as well say that I Corinthians 15:50 proves that Elijah and Enoch were not taken into heaven but died on the spot.

>>584077

Friend, Satan himself quotes a bible verse when he meets Jesus.

May that be a lesson to you and your careless biblical reading.

>>584208

So to be clear you think that these doctrines make sense in the light of Genesis saying the body is good, Revelation saying that we won't just have a new heaven but a new earth, implying we will have new flesh in addition to new spirit, and Ezekiel 37 foreshadowing the resurrection at the end times as a very physical phenomenon?

>>584218

>So to be clear you think that these doctrines make sense in the light of Genesis saying the body is good,

You mean was good and not is good, God Himself repented of creating men back in genesis 6:7

>Revelation saying that we won't just have a new heaven but a new earth, implying we will have new flesh in addition to new spirit

>what is 1 corinthians 15:51-58 and luke 24:37-43's example of Jesus being in flesh and spirit

>and Ezekiel 37 foreshadowing the resurrection at the end times as a very physical phenomenon?

No, it did not forshadow it as a purely physical phenenom. Read Ezekiel 37:12-14

>Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD;Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

And ye shall know that I am the LORD,when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,

>And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

>>584212

Care to tell me your interpretation of 1 corinthians 15:50 then?

>>584213

My point being that the apostles aren't dead because God is the God of the living. Since they aren't dead your supposed apostle'ic succession is impossible because it is not neccessary for them to be succeeded while they still live. That and apostle'ic succession is not mentioned once in the Bible, only the office of a bishop in 1 timothy 3. I am still confused about your emphasis on john 21:18, as that verse is explained by verse 19 saying it was the way peter was going to die physically. But he is not dead spiritually as peter is in heaven waiting for revelation 6:11 like the rest of the saints.

>>584208

Don't agree with me, agree with what God says in His word, the Bible. Simply put whatever the Bible literally says is what I believe as what God says is the truth. I think you can get a gist of the idea from this thread though. The only thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that not everyone has the 1 corinthians 15:44 due to ecclesasties 3:18-21 existing. This topic dives into the biblical definition what non-christians are which is in 2 kings 8:13, Isaiah 56:10, 1 samuel 17:43, 2 samuel 16:5,9, and then see matthew 15:26. Because they in the flesh can not recieve the things of God due to 1 corinthians 2:14

>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Then you need to figure out there is more the one definition of men or man due to Genesis 19:1,5,12 and 1 samuel 29:9. Then verses like 1 thesselonians 3:12,5:12 and 1 timothy 2:4 start making a whole lot more sense, biblically speaking.

>>584303

>You mean was good and not is good, God Himself repented of creating men back in genesis 6:7

Yes because we corrupted the body, not because he corrupted the body. As I said, the body was good, otherwise God would not have made it so integral to his creation, and the body will be good again as a part of the new creation. None of this invalidates anything the Bible says about our fallen flesh.

>what is 1 corinthians 15:51-58 and luke 24:37-43's example of Jesus being in flesh and spirit

And we will be made anew in flesh and spirit too, because if we were not made anew in flesh then there would be no need for a new earth. I have already stated this and the fact that you think I interpret Ezekiel 37 as a purely physical phenomenon shows that you need to read my posts closer.

>My point being that the apostles aren't dead because God is the God of the living

"Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

>>584331

>qouting john 21:23 again

I don't think you understand, physical death, also known as sleep 1 kings 2:10, is not permenant nor a truly real death. Jesus rose from physical death and as did lazarus in john 11. Real death, one you never come back from, is the one mentioned in revelation 20:14.

Or if I misunderstand you again. Then if we agree about what God says in His word, why do you still use a catholic flag?

>>584336

>I don't think you understand, physical death, also known as sleep 1 kings 2:10, is not permenant nor a truly real death.

Right because it is death of the flesh, but that flesh, as the Bible shows, will be raised anew into the goodness it was meant for.

>>584343

Going by your presumption of it being flesh, it probably won't be the same corrupt flesh, it will be a new flesh as otherwise romans 8:8 would apply. Just like a new earth and new heaven in revelation 21:1. But the only proof of such for this arguement is the "the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." part of 1 corinthians 15:52 and the example of Jesus's perfect body in luke 24:37-43. This is all assuming it is by flesh and spirit that other body will come, as then still does 1 corinthians 15:44 apply. But it can't be just by flesh or then romans 8:8 would apply.

>>584350

Literally I have been arguing this exact same post for multiple posts now and have even pointed out how it is not just flesh multiple times. So thank you.

>>584352

you do know you're arguing with a guy whose sole authority on anything is his own personal interpretation right

Holy Scripture wasn't made for this. Not directing this at you, btw.

>>584352

Just to clarify, you do realise that due to 1 thesselonians 5:23

>And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That spirit and soul and body are three different things correct? If you recognize this. then why you are using a catholic flag? Or how you can even profess catholicism if you recognize the existence of all this and 1 thesselonians 5:23?

>>584357

What is your interpretation in line with what 2 peter 1:20 says?

>fall of man, paradise lost

>…

>God makes a covenant with Abraham

>…

>Moses frees the Israelites, is given the law

>…

>David united the tribes

>…

>throughout all of this, there is a prophecy of a Messiah

>israel falls into apostasy and disarray and they're conquered and thrown around like a whore

>eventually, the Messiah, Christ, who is God Himself comes into the world, as prophecied by Isaiah

>He lives a perfect life, establishes that Israel is the church, the body of Christ

>He offers Himself as a sacrifice for our sins, and fulfills the law so that by walking in Him, we are seen as righteous in the day of judgment

>Christ is resurrected in three days, proclaiming victory over death, and proceeds to appear to many people, then returning to the Father

>the Holy Spirit comes in form and guides the Apostles through their evangelism

>nobody but da joos really minds Christians since basically everyone is a pantheist until they start claiming that there is only one God and deny the diety of the Emperor. You even get gnostics trying to co-opt this "new" religion

>Christians are persecuted

>despite this, Christianity surges

>eventually, Emperor Constantine converts to Christianity, stopping its persecution

>now that they're not being persecuted en masse, a new heresy rears its head with Arians

>Constantine, knowing nothing about theology, decides to get all the leaders of both groups together to settle it out, seeing as a split in Christianity would mean a split in the empire

>Arian gets BTFO by Santa Claus

>…

>Rome gets sacked, but the Church survives, functioning as a guiding light for Europeans post-Rome, securing the continuation of civilization

>…

>eventually, there are increasingly large fights between the Latin church and the Greek church, including issues pertaining to the increasing power of the Pope, icons, and general cultural differences, leading to a split known as the Great Schism

>shortly after, the hordes of mudslimes became too much to handle, so the Greeks call upon the help of the Latins, leading up to the Crusades

>ever-increasingly, the Latin church becomes too invested in political matters and power, reaching into heresy (e.g., indulgences), abuses (e.g., lots of killing)

>somewhere in here, the printing press is invented, making it much easier to produce Bibles

>one priest gets so pissed off, he decides to blow some steam and write down some complaints

>this ends up pissing off the Pope, which Luther didn't intend to

>eventually he gets treated like shit and excommunicated, and doubles down on pissing off the Pope

>a lot of other guys join this rebellion, some with genuine intentions like Calvin, others just looking for an excuse, like Henry

>there's a lot of fighting between the two factions of the Latin church (RCC and Protestant)

>somewhere around here, the Bible gets translated into the local language, and thanks to the printing press, is able to be mass produced

>some madman discovers technology to sail across the ocean

>this creates a craze for evangelism across the world

>eventually, Christianity conquers the soul of most of the world's believers and most of the world's geographical locations, fulfilling a promise told to Abraham

>you are here

>…

>…

>…

>…

>…

>Christ returns to judge the world and bring bring forth the New Jerusalem

>>584361

>this creates a craze for (((evangelism))) across the world

>eventually, Babylonians of the synagogue of Satan conquers the soul of most of the world's believers and most of the world's geographical locations, fulfilling scripture told to Abraham

Fixed. There's a bunch of other stuff wrong with it too, but those are the main parts.

>>584358

>Or how you can even profess catholicism if you recognize the existence of all this and 1 thesselonians 5:23?

Because, you know, we teach that.

>>584370

But if you recognize all this then you accept Peter is still alive in heaven just like the other saints awaiting revelation 6:11. Thereby you reject the non-authority of the pope due to it being unbiblical. Thereby you are not catholic.

>>584380

Care to address John 21:15-23 then?

>>584380

are you really using the communion of saints to attack apostolic succession?

>>584366

HI /pol/LARPer

FYI - "evangelism" means spreading the gospel. Paul was an evangelist. The apostles were evangelists. It's not the meme strawman that /pol/ throws around. Evangelist churches refers to churches that have a focus on evangelism. Some just happen to be cancer thanks to being highly politicized.

>>584386

John 21:15-23

>So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

>He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

>He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

This is just Jesus telling peter to do what every other christian should be doing, which is to say matthew 10:6. Unless you are going to argue because of matthew 10:6 that every christian is a pope. But here is john 21 continued.

>Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

>This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

>Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

>Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

>Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

>Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

This is just Jesus telling peter how he would physically die due to verse 19. Then going on to speak of how he will not truly be dead due to mark 12:25-27

>>584389

There is a difference between spreading the gospel and doing matthew 23:15

>Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

>>584396

This is just Jesus telling peter how he would physically die due to verse 19. Then going on to speak of how he will not truly be dead due to mark 12:25-27

And it's also an explicit statement from Jesus that somebody else will act in Peter's stead as the rock on which the Church is built and the keeper of the keys after his death. Nobody thinks that Peter is truly dead, least of all the Popes, but he isn't on earth anymore because he is too old and somebody needs to act in his stead.

>>584204

Proof: protestants didn't pay attention to History classes.

>>584410

Guess who will act in his stead according to the Bible? See matthew 10:5-6

>hese twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

>But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

See romans 12:4-8

>For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

>So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

>Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

>Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;

>Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

There is no office of the pope, as the only other one even mentioned is a bishop in 1 timothy 3

But now you will mention matthew 16:18

>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But you will ignore verse 19

>And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And blatantly ignore revelation 1:18

>I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Where is hell? It is located in the kingdom of heaven, what is that you ask? It is the kingdom of heaven due to the adjective "of" defining the pro-noun "kingdom" being a subset of the noun "heaven"

Guess who owns the kingdoms of heaven? Satan in matthew 4:8-10. Also see luke 11:18

>If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

Satan clearly owns the kingdoms of heaven due to the arrangement of the words combined with luke 11:18 and matthew 4:8-10. I only mention this because obviously hell can't be located in the kingdom that is of God because corruption doth not inherit incorruption 1 corinthians 15:50.

All of this to say, Jesus is talking about himself in matthew 16:18-19 after stating "thou art Peter,". Because then he arbitralily brings up "this rock" which can be in reference to Jesus due to verses like romans 9:32-33. While then going on to say "giving the keys of the kingdom of heaven" of which hell is located in, and of which Jesus also has the keys to in revelation 1:18. Hence why peter has no more authority then any other christian. The servant can not be greater than his lord after all john 13:16

>>584422

>>584204

Proof Protestants think the Da Vinci Code is non-fiction

>>584426

>Satan clearly owns the kingdoms of heaven

>The kingdoms of the world= the kingdoms of heaven

>Satan's kingdom=God's kingdom

>Jesus is talking about himself in matthew 16:18-19 when Jesus literally gave Simon the new name Peter, which in greek is Petros, which derives from the greek petra for rock

ok I'm done ty

>>584431

Satan gets authority from God i.e romans 13, have you not read job 1 or isaiah 45:7? God has a kingdom, of God. Satan however owns all the kingdoms of the world underneath, or of, heaven because he gets authority from God. But Satan is trying to overcome the church and overthrow/rebel against God.

>>584431

Satan's kingdom does not equal God's kingdom. To make the above post very plain.