Back to hell antichrist. Protestantism is a house of whores. A fake Christianity who believe in the teachings of a heretical emotionally disturbed (fecal obsession) foul mouth German who committed suicide. Back to hell with your ugly stupid beliefs.
Antichrist is anyone who denies Jesus is the literal Son of God come in the flesh. Brought forth (born) literally from God before the world was made.
You claim Jesus is a co-eternal God who has always existed.
Scripture declares you to be antichrist. And your harlot "church".
You reject the Holy Trinity? That means you reject Christ. Jesus has always existed. He is God.
Where does it teach in the bible your bible alone belief?
"All Scripture is Inspired"- 2 Tim. 3:16-17 ??
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." Nowhere does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/solascriptura.htm
Should give you pause that you need to google the defense of your positions.
But it doesnt. And it wont. Because Christs spirit (not a 3rd being) is not in you.
Sad.
Christ gave one description of those who avoid the mark of the beast.
Revelation 14:12 - Here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
The roman harlot changed the commandments of God with no biblical justification. She admits to it.
"Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act... And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things." H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons. Nov. 11, 1895
"Sunday is our MARK of authority. . .the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact" Catholic Record of London, Ontario Sept 1,1923.
I will stick to what the scriptures and Christ spirit teach me. I reject the unbiblical traditions of the roman whore. As would you, if, you were Christs.
Ah, the Church of Mr. Pickle. When will you learn, that you hold to the traditions of a heretical man called Luther. Blinded in ignorance and pride. Who do you go when you can't understand a passage in the bible?
(post is archived)