Last updated 09-03-2013
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:44 AM
Subject: scripture
hi darwin, we spoke abt 2 yrs ago...u helped me wt some doctrinal issues...after that i backed away from the modern day apostate tare church building...can u pls give me a call when u hav 20 min give or take...im in so. fl....spoke to many pastors down here...all corrupt...God bless u & urs....
michael
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:47 AM
The requirement is that he have faithful children (Titus 1:6).
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: scripture
wt if he has only one child ? does he still meet the requirement...go to the greek...can they be young children ? if u wd be open to the proper teaching im willing are u ?
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:39 PM
The Greek says a "one woman man" in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6.
The Greek for children is plural in both 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 (τέκνα) and that same exact word is used for children 2 years old and younger in Matthew 2:18 (context is Matthew 2:16 "two years old and under"). It is found in the singular for Christ when He was 12 years old (Luke 2:42) by His mother in Luke 2:48 ("Son" Τέκνον). It is also used for a man (not a child), for example, in Luke 16:25 ("Son" Τέκνον; see Luke 16:19 "certain rich man"). It is used in the sense of descendants as well, for example, see Romans 9:7-8 (not age specific).
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: scripture
age specific by well behaved & believing children not 2 yr olds...this office is a special calling & groomed by God from day one....to serve as deacons 1st to see them blameless over a # of years from the local ekklesia...not wt u see today reprobates coming fron diff states taught by liberal free will bible coll & serpentaries of satan...this teaching is no joke...but modern day unqualified pastors like macarthur etc...hav perverted this teaching in tin & titus...& so hav u no understanding of it...john 3:27 hasnt occured...
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 6:16 PM
What have I written or said that is not according to the Word?
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: scripture
u twist it...so ur "pastorship" sqeezes into ur plans not Gods...u planted ur own ekklesia...mt 13.wheat & tares...check urself by the qualifcations put forth in Scripture...u didnt even understand what it is to be born from above...did u look into john 3:8 ? what shd it really say...hint pnuema=HS...it shd be HE...& ura teacher of Scripture...wt degrees ???...who teaches us all things the wind aneo or the HS pnuema...john 3:27....hope u see it one day....
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: scripture
"u twist it"
Twist what?
"check urself by the qualifcations put forth in Scripture"
I have.
"u didnt even understand what it is to be born from above"
What have I said or written that dictates that? A quote would be great.
"did u look into john 3:8 ?"
Yes. So, you think it should be translated, "The spirit blows where it wishes, and its voice you hear, but do not know where it comes and where it goes. So is everyone who has been born out of the spirit."
Ok, now what is your point on that?
"it shd be HE"
Spirit is neuter in the Greek and feminine in the Hebrew. Where do you get the idea it should be "HE"? [Michael didn't answer this question, but John 14:26 answers it. In John 14:26 the masculine noun παράκλητος ("Helper" NKJV) is used for the Holy Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον). Likewise, the masculine relative pronoun ἐκεῖνος ("He" NKJV) is used as well.]
"who teaches us all things the wind aneo or the HS pnuema"
In the OT it’s the same word for both (e.g. Genesis 1:2; 8:1; Exodus 10:13, 19; 14:21; Numbers 11:17; Job 1:19; etc.).
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: scripture
no it shd be translated HS breathes on who He wills...look at the way the Wycliffe is....drop ur pride & repent...u need to start all over...genesis to rev....if not u super christians will be Lord Lord...
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:06 AM
"no it shd be translated HS breathes"
So, you think we should add the word "Holy" to John 3:8 even though "Holy" is not there in the Greek? Do you think nothing of adding to God's Word (Proverbs 30:5-6)?
Wycliffe translates πνεῖ (pnei) as "breathes," but that verb is nowhere else used that way in the NT. Every other time it is used, it is not in the sense of
breathing, but rather for the
blowing of wind (see Matthew 7:25, 27; Luke 12:55; John 6:18; Acts 27:40; Revelation 7:1). There is ἐμπνέων (empne
ôn, Acts 9:1 "breathing").
I might add, in the LXX (Greek translation of the OT) "pnuema" is likewise used for both spirit and wind (e.g. Genesis 1:2; 8:1; Job 1:19; Psalm 107:25; 148:8; Ecclesiastes 1:6, 14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16; 6:9; Isaiah 7:2; etc.).
"look at the way the Wycliffe is...."
I looked at Wycliffe. If the history on Wycliffe is accurate, he was a false teacher. He was caught on the broad way (Matthew 7:13-14). Moreover, Wycliffe's translation on that verse is not very literal with the "he" "his" and "he," since "spirit" is neuter. Also, Wycliffe has "man." That is not in the Greek.
"....drop ur pride & repent"
What is the "pride"? I'm proud because I believe the Greek, and I'm not kowtowing to Wycliffe or you? And what should I repent of? Repent of not believing whatever you say (Proverbs 14:15)? My trust is not in you or Wyliffe (Jeremiah 17:5). My trust is in God's Word. What specifically am I to repent of? You've given me nothing from which to repent.
You said in your prior email you were done, but then sent this one. It appears you can't handle the truth, and you do well at avoiding Him, since you don't answer my questions. That's typical of those who are lost (John 3:20).
You can be done if you want, but know for certain you will surely perish (1 John 4:6). You obviously judge by your own measure, and it will certainly be measured back to you to your condemnation (Matthew 7:1-2; Matthew 12:36-37). I've done nothing (Biblically) to be condemned by you, yet you have done so nevertheless. You certainly are not "able to teach, patient, . . . " etc. (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: scripture
u foolish prideful man...i dont follow wycliffe or any man or church building demon/nomination....but he had 3:8 translated properly...no one else did...they all perverted this english translation...all english translations are perversions..i always refer to the greek....pnuema was never used as the "wind" never....pnuema=Spirit=HS ??? as used in this context...the HS chooses but u dont get this verse...none if u do...same wt 1 tim 3...u all twist it to fit ur needs....same wt the second coming...both epistles of tim,peter & jude warn me abt u "pastors" 1 tim 1:7..4:1...2 tim 3:7....blind guides...
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:07 AM
"pnuema was never used as the "wind" never"
And πνεῖ (pnei) was never used as "breathes" never. How do you justify the one and reject the other?
"u dont get this verse...none if u do...same wt 1 tim 3"
What don't I get about 1 Timothy 3? Opps, I don't know why I asked. You don’t answer questions.
"same wt the second coming"
And what is the error there? I know, you don't answer, but I couldn't resist.
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: scripture
try this on friend...last time i spike to u abt people in ur fellowship...u said u can be married to one wife but ur peeps can marry as many as they wish...u refferred me to Soloman,Abraham etc. OT....im not under the Law...im under grace my friend...im not the only brother that calls u out....but funny when i check them out...their just as bad ...why should u repent...u cant repent on ur own...john 3:27....u think ur born from above.....i hope one day u are...but ur right i jumped in again...my bad...i wanted to find out abt ur eschatology...but what i glean from ur website is plenty...
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:12 AM
"u said u can be married to one wife but ur peeps can marry as many as they wish"
Not in the U.S.. It's illegal. Nonetheless, evidently you reject God's teaching on polygamy. So, you condemn Abraham, Caleb, David, all the godly men of the past who had more than one wife? Do you condemn Christ as well for having two wives (Ephesians 5:25-32; Revelation 19:7-8)?
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:30 AM
This email is to question your true intentions! Are you true Christians or hate mongering agents of Satan? Do you make your determinations out of love and charity or out of ignorance and prejudice? When you de-legitimize Catholic Doctrine, do you actually understand these doctrines? I will gladly discuss each and every disagreement we might have. One in particular is Mary, Mother of God. Please before we proceed, you must have an idea of what you oppose! Read "Defending the Privileges of Our Lady" by Fr. Paul K. Raftery, since this is the teaching of the Church. Not what anti-Catholics believe to be Church teaching. Thank You Brother/Sister, hope to hear from you. Tom D.
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
We are true Christians and we speak in love (Proverbs 27:5-6).
"When you de-legitimize Catholic Doctrine, do you actually understand these doctrines?"
Yes, that's why we don't buy them.
"Please before we proceed, you must have an idea of what you oppose!"
I have read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (copyright 1994, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA) and done much more reading and talking with Catholics (both learned and otherwise). I have documented some of the error found in the Catechism (in contrast to the Word of God) in my article on Catholicism. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we don't understand. We believe Catholics do not understand the Bible (Proverbs 28:5) and reject its teaching.
What you mentioned is a good example of Catholics' rejection of the Word of God. As the article you mentioned speaks of Mary's supposed "perpetual virginity" (first paragraph). This teaching is contrary to Matthew 1:25 and the clear subsequent siblings of Christ mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3; John 7:3-5; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19. Plus, they add to the Word (contrary to Proverbs 30:5-6), because it nowhere teaches Mary was a perpetual virgin, as the writer in his last paragraph, at least in part, actually admits (i.e. that such a concept is not found in Scripture).
The article also illustrates Catholics' trust in their own tradition, as he writes regarding this doctrine,
Mary’s virginity before, during, and after birth, comes from this broad, non-written teaching, . . . (6th paragraph).
Yes indeed, it certainly doesn't come from Scripture. It comes from the writings of Catholics. So they use old Catholics' doctrine to claim current Catholic teaching is legitimate. We don't trust Catholics, old or current. When it proves itself against the Word (2 John 9), it proves itself illegitimate.
This writer also mentions the "Trinity." What the Catholics teach on this is also erroneous. We document that in our article, "He Is Holy Gods" in which we expose the error of the Athanasian Creed.
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
You must explain where you come to believe the Word of God is the Bible. Nowhere in scripture is that idea/philosophy found. Yes the Word sometimes means sacred scripture, but when Christ spoke of the written word, He can only have meant Old Testament writings. When we read of "the Word", it's Christ himself in most cases in which the New Testament refers. You need to understand, the Church formed the Bible, not visa versa. Scripture is profitable, nowhere does the Bible tell us it's sufficient. But again, as in the closing statement in John's Gospel, "But there are also many other things........the world itself could not contain the books....."
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
"You must explain where you come to believe the Word of God is the Bible."
We believe it is self-evident, as God is self-evident (e.g. Romans 1:18-22). Throughout the Bible Scripture is called the Word of God or the Word of the Lord (e.g. Jeremiah 1:2). John 1:1 shows the Word of God (Revelation 19:13) is God. Jesus (God) and the Scriptures are One and the Same (John 1:1, 14; Revelation 19:13), and everyone is going to give account to His Word (Hebrews 4:12-13). By this, we know it is self-evident.
"Nowhere in scripture is that idea/philosophy found."
"Yes the Word sometimes means sacred scripture"
You contradict yourself.
Jesus called the Scriptures the Word of God in John 10:35. Paul speaks of the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:2) which was given to the Jews, and speaking of these same oracles Psalm 147:19 calls them "His Word" (= God's Word = the Word of God).
"when Christ spoke of the written word, He can only have meant Old Testament writings"
Do you have a verse that proves this point, or are we to just take your word for it?
The Psalmist writes,
Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89; see also Daniel 10:21 "I will tell you what is noted in the Scripture of Truth")
Jesus said,
For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
None of it could have been written in heaven (not given to man)? It must have all been written in the OT? And where does it say that?
Deuteronomy 29:29 says,
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
His Word is eternal and we only have a small portion of it.
"the Church formed the Bible"
That is what Catholics claim. The Bible teaches God gave it to the Jews (Psalm 145:19-20; Romans 3:2; John 4:22 "salvation is of the Jews").
"Scripture is profitable, nowhere does the Bible tell us it's sufficient."
2 Timothy 3:16-17 does:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
What part of "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" is lacking?
"But there are also many other things........the world itself could not contain the books....."
Indeed, we don't have it all, but what we do have, what has been "given" (2 Timothy 3:16), is sufficient.
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
Darwin, the Bible wasn't in existence for another 3 centuries, and even the books of the New Testament hadn't been written when Christ was on earth and gave His teaching to the Apostles. Yes the Word of God did exixt in Old Hebrew scriptures, we all accept that as fact, but for the "word" of Christ, He was gone before anything was in writing.
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
"the Bible wasn't in existence for another 3 centuries"
The Bible teaches otherwise. The book of Revelation was given and sent to those 7 churches (Revelation 1:4). The books of 1 & 2 Corinthians were given to, at the very least, that church. Likewise, the churches of Galatia had at the least, the book of Galatians. Likewise, for the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, whoever the book of Hebrews was written to, the twelve tribes scattered abroad had at the very least the book of James, the churches in
Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia had at the very least 1 Peter. What else that early church had or did not have you have no clue.
Nonetheless, your statement is nowhere substantiated except in the doctrine of men, the same error of the Jews (Matthew 15:8-9).
Moreover, the OT was sufficient for the OT believers (Deuteronomy 32:47). The law of the Lord is perfect (Psalm 19:7-11).
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:36 PM
Subject: Fw: A True Church?
I should add the Romans had, at the least, the book of Romans, and whenever the 4 gospels, Acts, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John and Jude were written, the believers had those.
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
And as for your last reference, "proficient, equipped for every good WORK." Not for salvation, but to be a better follower of God. Has nothing to do with our Faith per say!
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
There is no good work apart from faith. "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), and the work of God is faith (John 6:28-29).
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
As I stated, in the contents of this verse, Paul is talking about works, not faith. We all agree, without faith we have no salvation
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
I stated the Bible wasn't in existence at the time of Christ. Either was the New Testament books. They weren't written until after Christ's Resurrection, so He wasn't teaching about the NT books. The gospels were biographical, while the epistles were in most cases rebuttals to heretical uprisings.
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
You said, "the Bible wasn't in existence for another 3 centuries". That lie is what I addressed.
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
"Paul is talking about works, not faith."
That is a lie, as it is written, "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23). There is no such thing as "good work" (2 Timothy 3:17) without faith. The work of God (the "good work" we are to be about doing, 2 Timothy 3:17) is faith (John 6:28-29).
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
Good morning brother. I think we're getting off track here, I thought we were talking about the Bible being the sole rule of faith? But as for faith, we all agree without Christ we'd have no salvation. That being said, let's look at Matt 25.... never mentioning faith, Christ explains the importance of "works" done and not done. The same is found in Matt 7:25-27. Rev 20:12-13 we see that we will be judged according to our works. Romans Chapter 2 is about how God will judge by our deeds/works. Matt 12:34-37 is about how we will be judged by what we do and say. Not how we "feel". Grace and salvation are the gifts from God, but justification is by how we express our faith, which is good works. Luke 9:23-25 tells us how sacrifices (deeds/works) are necessary. Luke 14:26-33 about physical actions. 1 Cor. 6 Paul tells the (already believing) Christians how the avoidance of sin (again deeds/works) is crucial for salvation. I honestly think we're on the same page here, but you seem to have a pre-disposed idea of the Catholic faith. Salvation is a gift from God, but scripture and the Church teaches that it can be lost, but definitely has to be earned. Faith, if I can put it simply, is an unconditional love of Christ our Lord.
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
"I thought we were talking about the Bible being the sole rule of faith?"
We were and you claimed,
Scripture is profitable, nowhere does the Bible tell us it's sufficient.
I gave you 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which proves otherwise. Your response to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was,
"proficient, equipped for every good WORK." Not for salvation, but to be a better follower of God. Has nothing to do with our Faith per say!
I responded to your error with,
There is no good work apart from faith. "Whatever is not from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23), and the work of God is faith (John 6:28-29).
Now, you well prove my point further by confirming indeed,
Christ explains the importance of "works" done and not done. The same is found in Matt 7:25-27. Rev 20:12-13 we see that we will be judged according to our works. Romans Chapter 2 is about how God will judge by our deeds/works. Matt 12:34-37 is about how we will be judged by what we do and say.
Amen, but none of the "good work" (2 Timothy 3:17) which is judged is without faith, for "without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Hebrews 11:6).
So, indeed we will be judged by our works. Thus, our works must be good, and Scripture explicitly states that it is "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". Tell me, how is that not sufficient? What part of "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" is lacking? How can you claim, "nowhere does the Bible tell us it's sufficient" when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells us its sufficient "for every good work" and you even admit we will be judged (sent to heaven or hell) based on our works?
"you seem to have a pre-disposed idea of the Catholic faith"
Indeed, it is lies like you are propagating here (i.e. "nowhere does the Bible tell us it's sufficient") that helps me to be "pre-disposed" to the Catholic faith.
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
And with the issue of the Bible. The books of the Bible were chosen by the Catholic Church in the late 4th century. The book of Revelation was written 65 years after the Resurrection.
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
It matters not what the Catholic Church has done. As I pointed out in my prior email, the NT reveals believers had those books when they were written. Moreover, how do you prove "The book of Revelation was written 65 years after the Resurrection"?
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
We agree faith is essential! But even demons have faith!
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
Exactly, that's why James immediately after that says,
. . . faith without works is dead. (James 2:20)
Thus, the "every good work" of 2 Timothy 3:17 has very much to do with our salvation, as you yourself wrote,
Paul tells the (already believing) Christians how the avoidance of sin (again deeds/works) is crucial for salvation.
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
It does not say thoroughly equipped! It says proficient, (pause)equipped for every good work. And must I repeat myself a third time? Paul is telling Timothy, the scriptures he learned as a child are profitable! These can only be the Hebrew scriptures! The New Testament was not yet written when Timothy was a child! So Paul cannot be telling us that the Bible is profitable
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
What's lacking in "equipped for every good work"?
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
The Gospels were written in the years 35-42. Paul's letters were written between the years 50-63. Luke in 59. Acts, Pet 1-2, Tim 1-2, John 1,2,3, and Jude were written in the years 59-67. And Revelations was written in 95. The first canonization of the Bible which the Catholic Church still uses today was in 393 at the Council of Hippo. And FYI the Church already had 4 Popes by the time Rev. was written, 38 by the time the Bible was canonized, and 217 by the time of the greatest heresy, the Reformation. Just to give you an idea how well established the church was long before Christians has access to bibles.
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
How do you prove, "The Gospels were written in the years 35-42. Paul's letters were written between the years 50-63. Luke in 59. Acts, Pet 1-2, Tim 1-2, John 1,2,3, and Jude were written in the years 59-67. And Revelations was written in 95."?
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
Hi Darwin, hope you're having a good weekend brother. I think we are reading this differently? "All scripture" is USEFUL for TEACHING...... so that Christians may be well trained to do good WORK" says nothing about how we feel in our hearts, its about how we ACT as Christians. We already know we have to have faith in Christ. That goes without saying. But this verse refers to the old writings of the Jews, not the New Testament. The theological information is easily found about the dating of the NT books. So yes, the Gospels may have been completed when Timothy was a child, but not the epistles. It's obvious of this particular letter from Paul. Scripture tells us of the oral and written proof of God's Word. The Bible is the Written proof and the Catholic Church Tradition is the Oral proof.
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
""All scripture" is USEFUL for TEACHING"
"profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Now for the third time, what is lacking in "equipped for every good work"?
"says nothing about how we feel in our hearts"
Who was talking about how we feel in our hearts?
"But this verse refers to the old writings of the Jews, not the New Testament."
No, it's about "All Scripture" as it plainly says. This is another example as to why I am "pre-disposed" to the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith denies Scripture, as you illustrate here. Paul wrote, "All Scripture." You say, no not all Scripture. You say the exact opposite of God's Word. It's like Satan's first recorded lie. God said, "You shall surely die." Satan said, "You shall not surely die." I choose to believe Paul over you. This is a good example of the Catholic faith. It is one of hypocrisy. They claim to believe the Bible, but then when confronted with it, they deny it (as you have here).
"The theological information is easily found about the dating of the NT books."
Thank you for a non-answer. I will conclude then (as I already know) you cannot prove your claim. I must be simple-minded (Proverbs 14:15) and believe you (or some other non-inspired Catholic) for that information (proof).
"So yes, the Gospels may have been completed when Timothy was a child, but not the epistles."
So then, you admit that your statement above "may" not be entirely true (at the very least).
"Scripture tells us of the oral and written proof of God's Word."
Oral proof of what specifically? Where does Scripture tell us about this oral proof?
"The Bible is the Written proof and the Catholic Church Tradition is the Oral proof."
So, I am to ignore the Catholic false doctrine and accept Catholic tradition. I have been warned not to do so (Colossians 2:8-9).
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
Darwin, brother, what scriptures were in existence when Paul spoke those words to Timothy? The Catholic Church, and every Catholic accepts Scripture as God's Word, as Truth. But as the thousands of different sects prove, one cannot interpret scripture without the Authority of the Catholic Church. All scripture is profitable, not necessary. What don't you understand about that. What you wish it said doesn't make it so!
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
"Darwin, brother, what scriptures were in existence when Paul spoke those words to Timothy?"
All Scripture was in existence, as Scripture is God (John 1:1, 14; 10:35; Revelation 19:13), as it is written,
Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.
Moreover, being 2 Timothy was written at the end of Paul's life (2 Timothy 4:6-7), this dictates the other books he wrote had already been given to the church, which is about 1/2 the NT. What other books had been written and given to the church by then it doesn't say. Nonetheless, Paul says, "All Scripture."
"The Catholic Church, and every Catholic accepts Scripture as God's Word, as Truth."
I know that to be a lie, and you have proven that in your emails.
"But as the thousands of different sects prove, one cannot interpret scripture without the Authority of the Catholic Church."
The Mormon Church could make the same claim, and any other church could make the same claim (some "Church of Christ" do so). All the sects and the Catholic Church illustrate the truth of Revelation 12:9, "Satan, who deceives the whole world."
"All scripture is profitable, not necessary."
You speak again against Christ. He said,
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
You still haven't answered what is lacking in "equipped for every good work". How can a man be "equipped for every good work" via Scripture and need something more? Please explain that. What more does he need? If he is "equipped for every good work," what is he lacking?
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
Paul says to Timothy in 2 Tim 3:15 "and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings". He refers to the writings that Timothy learned as a child. What part of the NT was available to Timothy when he was a child? The Word in that text refers to Christ Himself, not the Bible! So you claim that the Church Christ founded on Peter and the Apostles is a false church? I warn you Darwin, you should reconsider your faith. You choose to follow the heresies of the Reformers. All Protestant beliefs (yours include) come from the reformation. Paul's writings were to stop the heresies that parallel your beliefs now.
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: A True Church?
When it becomes a conversation of simply repeating oneself, it becomes a meaningless conversation. I've already addressed the perfection and sufficiency of the OT (Psalm 19:7-11), the existence of at least 1/2 (if not all) of the NT by writing of 2 Timothy, the Word of God/Christ/Scripture are One (Scriptures already given), etc..
"So you claim that the Church Christ founded on Peter and the Apostles is a false church?"
That is the Catholic claim and I have already told you more than once I don't buy it.
"You choose to follow the heresies of the Reformers."
You don't know who you are talking to. I reject every last reformer as a false teacher and I reject their false God, false gospel, etc.. Contrary to your delusion, because someone claims to believe the Bible and is not a Catholic that does not make them a Protestant. We declare Protestantism as a false religion (along with Catholicism, Buddism, etc.) on our home page.
"All Protestant beliefs (yours include) come from the reformation."
We reject the Athanasian Creedal "Trinity" and instead believe "He is Holy Gods" (as Joshua 24:19 literally says). Find that in the reformation.
We believe Jerusalem is God. Find that in the Reformation.
We believe Jesus was virgin born twice (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23). Find that in the Reformation.
etc.
"Paul's writings were to stop the heresies that parallel your beliefs now."
Words of wind. You've proven no such thing.
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:33 AM
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/was-paul-anti-catholic#.UiNsQJlmJTY.email
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 12:20 PM
Nice link where a pop-up comes up and they beg for $300,000. Money hungry indeed.
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 12:46 PM
"a true church" doesn't take donations?
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 10:45 PM
No, "a true church" has no bank account. We also don't ask for other people's money, as we wrote years ago in our tract:
GOD DOES NOT NEED YOUR MONEY!
This is published in the name of the "Rock of Offense" (1 Peter 2:8). We operate strictly by faith, without asking for any money. Without your contribution, God can and still does save people! (at the end of www.atruechurch.info/mischome.html)
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 7:49 AM
Darwin, (no longer can I call you brother) I've done some research on you! Shame, shame on you! One question for you and you cult members, where was your "church" before you left Rick Meisel (another cultist)? I will no longer debate you, I will instead invest my time in exposing you before you draw other souls away from salvation. Very sincerely Tom D.
