“If you were really serious to debate for knowledge that would be reasonable...”
Please let me know what tea leaves you read or what crystal ball you consulted to get the “knowledge” that I am not serious about this issue. It looks like you need fresh batteries for it. If it were me, I’d return it as sorcery is forbidden.
“...but to just want to argue for the sake of arguing.”
Is that why you’re here? Because, you can only know about yourself. Your statement above appears to be projection.
“Whats the use in that.”
Indeed. Please let us know.
“It’s like you believe the Bible fell from the sky in perfect English someone found it then said eureka went and told everyone else - end of argument.”
Is this your way of saying the argument should now be about the inerrancy of the Word? Or are you trying to imply that the Romeians wrote the Bible. If the latter is the case than how come the Bible shows Rome to be anti-Christian?
“The Bible came together 300 years later. First came the Church then the individual writings that had to be separated from several dozen phony so called Gospels so they had a meeting to make a genuine complete book.”
None of the above is true. Romeians didn’t come around until centuries after Christ. The Body of Christ had the Bible put to paper way before the first Pope donned his hat. Copies of the Bible books can be found on paper from right up to the time the New Testament authors were still alive.
“Thats a historical fact.”
Well, I guess because you declared it, then it must be true. After all, your other posts on this thread have been true... oh wait, they weren’t, sorry...
“But if we debate just to argue only -Whats the point.”
I accept your defeat and unconditional surrender. However, my goal was to preach the Word and bring the truth of Christ my King into the lives of all who read my posts. And I did it without a single cat picture. I pray that He will bring you out of Rome and to Him.
“May God Bless you all - have a Good Night”
May God bless you too and I pray you have a good night too.
What is a "Romeian"?
Plenty of people have made claims about the Catholic Church supposedly being invented by Constantine, etc. None of those claims withstand a simple examination of the facts.
For example, around AD 107, we have Ignatius of Antioch, who knew the Apostles personally, and knew Polycarp of Smyrna (another second generation disciple who learned his Christianity from the Apostle John), writing letters on his way to martyrdom.
In those letters, he calls the Eucharist the "medicine of immortality" and writes of heretics "who deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ". He says that it is better not to even speak of those men.
He also refers to himself as the "bishop of the Catholic Church in Syria".
Around 70 years later, around AD 180, we have Irenaeus of Lyons, a third generation disciple (disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John), who wrote:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2