Administrators Jim_Alaska Posted July 4, 2017 Administrators Share Posted July 4, 2017 10 hours ago, swathdiver said: Yes, you fellas are right, the Lord has and does use his enemies for His glory! I'll try to repost on Antioch tomorrow after re-writing it. Maybe a word or phrase is causing the error? I have also had this happen with posts Swath. It is very frustrating. I have even spent hours rewriting and shortening posts so that the forum would accept it. I find that there may be two factors contributing to this problem. One is formatting in any copy and paste, the other is a post that is too long because of multiple quotes from other members included in my post or reply. Ultimately the only way I could make a long post work is to shorten it and break it into numerous different replies. Sorry I can't fix this problem, It must have something to do with the actual forum software, which is coded by Invision Power Services, Inc. They only give administrators and board owners limited ability to make changes. 1Timothy115 and swathdiver 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CelinaCelinaCelina Posted July 5, 2017 Members Share Posted July 5, 2017 On 7/3/2017 at 6:50 PM, swathdiver said: Outside of the bible, men such as Irenaeus (125-192), made 1,800 quotations from the New Testament in his writings and only acknowledge the four gospels as scripture. Clement of Alexandria (150-217) called the books “divine scriptures” and also quoted from the four gospels and most of the other books of the New Testament in his writings. Tertullian (150-220) made over 7,000 references to the New Testament and referred to them as scripture as well. Hello. I saw another article somewhere online mentioning these people. Some catholics claim that these people are Catholics. "Early Fathers" or something. How do we know what they believed and what they practice back in those days? The thing is, I have no idea who they are unless I will google them. Are they important? My point is not to spark debates okay. I seriously want to know. I can't defend this part right here. How do I know that these "people" followed the early Christians who were taught directly by Christ and His apostles? I believe being able to defend the bible is ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS. I do believe that God promised to preserve His word and that the Bible we have now is indeed the word of God. I don't really need explanations. But how can I defend it? I mean, apart from the people mentioned in the scriptures, how can we know those who claim this and this and that book is included should be trusted? Is my point clear? HAHA. I apologize. There is something I'm not getting swathdiver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1Timothy115 Posted July 6, 2017 Members Share Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, CelinaCelinaCelina said: Hello. I saw another article somewhere online mentioning these people. Some catholics claim that these people are Catholics. "Early Fathers" or something. How do we know what they believed and what they practice back in those days? The thing is, I have no idea who they are unless I will google them. Are they important? My point is not to spark debates okay. I seriously want to know. I can't defend this part right here. How do I know that these "people" followed the early Christians who were taught directly by Christ and His apostles? I believe being able to defend the bible is ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS. I do believe that God promised to preserve His word and that the Bible we have now is indeed the word of God. I don't really need explanations. But how can I defend it? I mean, apart from the people mentioned in the scriptures, how can we know those who claim this and this and that book is included should be trusted? Is my point clear? HAHA. I apologize. There is something I'm not getting Have you looked at the OT references to God's Word (particularly with reference to Christ) and then looked at Jesus Christ's confirmation (by use) of these OT scriptures? I do not believe God's own Son would allow the kind of misrepresentation you are saying would be objected to by non-believers. What it comes down to in your particular case is scripture in the NT... Faith... Hebrews 11:6 . God would not leave us without truth about Himself... Isaiah 40:8 and 1 Peter 1:24 . Finally our Lord's testimony Matthew 24:35 . John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." We know that Christ confirmed the OT by quotation on so many occasions and we know the OT was preserved by the Jews. You may never be able to convince a willful nonbeliever so leave them with something like Torrey recommended... "Give a pointed passage of scripture and let it talk for itself and then allow them time to reflect upon it. Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Prov. 29:1 “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."" Edited July 6, 2017 by 1Timothy115 swathdiver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted July 7, 2017 Members Share Posted July 7, 2017 The "Early Fathers" were not Catholic, they were mostly before the Catholic Church existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CelinaCelinaCelina Posted July 7, 2017 Members Share Posted July 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Invicta said: The "Early Fathers" were not Catholic, they were mostly before the Catholic Church existed. How can we prove this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CelinaCelinaCelina Posted July 7, 2017 Members Share Posted July 7, 2017 On 7/6/2017 at 10:58 AM, 1Timothy115 said: Have you looked at the OT references to God's Word (particularly with reference to Christ) and then looked at Jesus Christ's confirmation (by use) of these OT scriptures? I do not believe God's own Son would allow the kind of misrepresentation you are saying would be objected to by non-believers. What it comes down to in your particular case is scripture in the NT... Faith... Hebrews 11:6 . God would not leave us without truth about Himself... Isaiah 40:8 and 1 Peter 1:24 . Finally our Lord's testimony Matthew 24:35 . John 5:39 "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." We know that Christ confirmed the OT by quotation on so many occasions and we know the OT was preserved by the Jews. You may never be able to convince a willful nonbeliever so leave them with something like Torrey recommended... "Give a pointed passage of scripture and let it talk for itself and then allow them time to reflect upon it. Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Prov. 29:1 “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy."" I am amazed just how you will confirm scripture by scripture. I find it joy whenever I see a verse and I'll be able to refer it to somewhere in the OT or vice versa. This is how I believe that these books are from God because there is no way man can ever do such a thing." My objective is to be able to explain to non-believers how reliable the bible is. Isn't it important to win souls for Christ too? And I do understand that those people (who will believe the gospel) will have faith in God when He promised to preserve His word., but I want to have compassion to those who see things differently and want to "confirm" things. I do not doubt that the bible we have now is the word of God. Though I have to admit, in times of solitude, whenever I contemplate about my life, sometimes, I doubt everything I know. And I am ashamed for having those thoughts. I wish my faith is always strong. I live in a country full of Catholics. And I have encountered those people who are open to discuss the bible. Most of these people don't care. They don't read their bibles and they don't really want to know. I just want to be able to defend the bible to non-believers is all. I am the kind of person who will not believe something unless I research about it first. Like I need to prove it myself first. I can analyze things intellectually and Praise God that He removed the scales from my eyes to see the amazing news of the gospel. Romans 1:22 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1 Cor 3:19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. I wish I was clear as to my question though. :/ But I do appreciate your inputs. Thank you very much. 1Timothy115 and swathdiver 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Popular Post DaveW Posted July 7, 2017 Members Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 30 minutes ago, CelinaCelinaCelina said: How can we prove this? I have said very little about this, but I feel like I have to interject at this point. I understand that you are trying to find a way to answer the Catholic claims, but the problem with that is that these people will constantly present as much history supporting their view as you present denying their view. The better way would be to show that the Catholic church doesn’t teach Bible truth now, as that is when we are living. You need to present to them the places where the Catholic church is preaching contrary to the Bible and the Gospel. There are plenty of passages that show commonly known Catholic practices as biblically untrue. For instance: Matthew 23:9 (9) And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Yet they INSIST that you call their priests “Father”. Note that this also covers the idea of a Pope, for this name is simply a Latin form of “Papa” or “father”. 1 Timothy 2:5 (5) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Yet they call Mary a “Mediatrix” – which is simply the female form of mediator. Or how about: 1 Timothy 3:2-5 (2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (3) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; (4) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (5) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Note here that there are several qualifications here of a “bishop” that are specifically stood against by the Catholic priesthood rules. • “Husband of one wife”. (Catholic says: They MUST be celibate – not married) • “Not given to wine”. (Catholic says: They MUST partake of alcoholic wine at least in the communion, if not in other parts of various services) • “ruleth well his own house…children in subjection”. (Catholic says: They are not allowed to have children as a priest.) These are three that are specifically spoken against in the priestly rules that they impose. So, here are three examples of where the Catholic church SPECIFICALLY and DELIBERATELY goes against very specific and particular commands, and these three are areas that are commonly known to be Catholic positions. What the Bible says cannot be denied, and what the Catholic Church commands also cannot be denied. And they are total opposites. So, leave the argument of them “Canonising” the Bible, and ask them why they deny what the Bible says. Edited July 7, 2017 by DaveW Phone spelling and clarity Rebecca, Jim_Alaska, swathdiver and 4 others 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Popular Post DaveW Posted July 7, 2017 Members Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2017 As I was writing, I meant to include another fantastic passage, but got distracted by those other verses. So here it is: Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. And the context makes it plain that it is Jesus. Not Mary, not some "saint", but only Jesus. The fantastic part of this verse is that it clearly leads in to discussion on salvation, which should always be our goal. Invicta, Jim_Alaska, Rebecca and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Invicta Posted July 7, 2017 Members Share Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, CelinaCelinaCelina said: How can we prove this? The Catholic Church developed from the time of Constantine. From that time pope after pope added things to their teaching. If you can find a copy in a library, try looking at Plantina's list of the popes. (Not sure if that is the correct title, but something like that.) he says how one pope added something to the doctrine, and the next something else, and the next, etc. All very slow and gradual. And subtle. Reminds me of a book someone sent me by Terry Virgo, hoe he introduced charismatic teaching into his church. He started a separate study with one family on a separate evening from the usual bible study, then when they we indoctrinated ha added a few others, then a few more, very gradual and subtle.. Gen 3:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? The early writers were mostly before Constantine, but that doesn't mean that they were all 100% sound, none of them were anymore than anyone is today. Elliott says that when Constantine arrived you would have found a simple gospel service, but in 50 years the churches were full of flowers and incense. Edited July 7, 2017 by Invicta swathdiver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members swathdiver Posted July 8, 2017 Members Share Posted July 8, 2017 On 7/5/2017 at 0:02 AM, CelinaCelinaCelina said: Hello. I saw another article somewhere online mentioning these people. Some catholics claim that these people are Catholics. "Early Fathers" or something. How do we know what they believed and what they practice back in those days? The thing is, I have no idea who they are unless I will google them. Are they important? My point is not to spark debates okay. I seriously want to know. I can't defend this part right here. How do I know that these "people" followed the early Christians who were taught directly by Christ and His apostles? I believe being able to defend the bible is ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS. I do believe that God promised to preserve His word and that the Bible we have now is indeed the word of God. I don't really need explanations. But how can I defend it? I mean, apart from the people mentioned in the scriptures, how can we know those who claim this and this and that book is included should be trusted? Is my point clear? HAHA. I apologize. There is something I'm not getting In the context of my post to you, that they quoted from the Old and New Testaments, no, it is not important what they believed. The fact is they quoted from the bible, knew of all 66 books long before the Catholic Church came into being. It is good to know the history of the bible and the bible itself. However, you will never convince a lost person, especially a militant Catholic, that they are wrong by going tit for tat with facts. You can win every time and not sway their opinion. Do you know why? Because you are trying to get the truth to their brain through logic. These are spiritually blind people. They cannot understand the scriptures the way a Christian does as they do not have eyes to see with; nor the Holy Spirit to guide them in the truth! The proper way to witness is to bypass their brains and go straight for their hearts! Know how I know? Why, the bible tells me so... "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts..." - Romans 2:14-15 “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.” - Romans 3:20 “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” - Romans 10:10 Having said all of this, you can break a leg on their stool of belief for those hardened ones. Break one leg and their belief system becomes unstable. Break two and they'll fall down. Pick any of the verses posted in this thread and use it on those poor Catholics to break the legs of their stool. Then, maybe, they might be more receptive to that glorious gospel of truth. Please also read and hide in your heart Ma'am, Galatians 3. Once a person realizes that he has broken the Ten Commandments and is guilty before God, deserving of hell, then will you have bypassed his brain and brought the truth to his heart. The Holy Spirit can then wrought his work and the poor sinner will then choose to keep living like the devil or to surrender his life to Christ and make repentance to God. 1Timothy115 and CelinaCelinaCelina 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CelinaCelinaCelina Posted July 9, 2017 Members Share Posted July 9, 2017 On 7/8/2017 at 2:26 PM, swathdiver said: In the context of my post to you, that they quoted from the Old and New Testaments, no, it is not important what they believed. The fact is they quoted from the bible, knew of all 66 books long before the Catholic Church came into being. It is good to know the history of the bible and the bible itself. However, you will never convince a lost person, especially a militant Catholic, that they are wrong by going tit for tat with facts. You can win every time and not sway their opinion. Do you know why? Because you are trying to get the truth to their brain through logic. These are spiritually blind people. They cannot understand the scriptures the way a Christian does as they do not have eyes to see with; nor the Holy Spirit to guide them in the truth! The proper way to witness is to bypass their brains and go straight for their hearts! Know how I know? Why, the bible tells me so... "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts..." - Romans 2:14-15 “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.” - Romans 3:20 “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” - Romans 10:10 Having said all of this, you can break a leg on their stool of belief for those hardened ones. Break one leg and their belief system becomes unstable. Break two and they'll fall down. Pick any of the verses posted in this thread and use it on those poor Catholics to break the legs of their stool. Then, maybe, they might be more receptive to that glorious gospel of truth. Please also read and hide in your heart Ma'am, Galatians 3. Once a person realizes that he has broken the Ten Commandments and is guilty before God, deserving of hell, then will you have bypassed his brain and brought the truth to his heart. The Holy Spirit can then wrought his work and the poor sinner will then choose to keep living like the devil or to surrender his life to Christ and make repentance to God. Thank you. :) swathdiver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.