Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Catholicism vs Protestantism

biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2014 8:59:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Neither. They're both passe now we know the Bible they depend on is a false document, a compendium of Jewish myths of origin without historical truth. Israeli archeology proves this to the wise observant person who doesn't let himself be bamboozled by ancient men and human need for authority figures deserving of it or not.

Gnostic Christianity never was Bible bound like Pauline Christianity has always been. Now there is Celestial Torah Christianity, the world's oldest form of Christian theology, traceable in history back 35,000 years. Accept no substitutes. They're man-made ideologies and do not follow God's Sign Language instructions put there to guide human beings into becoming humane beings.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:09:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 10:17:36 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Which is more objectively correct?
Installgentoo good to meet you.. Good question..
I reply: Simply... The protestant MUST reject the scriptures to be Protestant !

Look.. Proof: False teachers will come OUT of the Catholic Church!
2 Peter 2
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them"bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Verse #1 tells ALL Protestants; "False Teachers will come from AMONG Jesus' Church!" The De-Formers were Catholic's!!
The Protestant has Catholic roots.... The Catholic Church did not come From AMONG protestants! This "SCRIPTURE PROPHESY" must be rejected by the protestant, it proves their roots go back to "FALSE TEACHERS!"
Verse #2 tells ALL Protestants the "Way of Truth" must be the Catholic Church! It PROVES to ALL.. No protestant church CAN BE the "way of truth"! "False Teachers will come from AMONG Jesus' Church, not the other way around!"

LOOK...
Jesus commissioned his CHURCH to teach all nations!
Installgentoo The protestant rejects church for the UN-Scriptural teaching of "All we need is the scriptures to teach us"!
Matthew 28 The Great Commission...
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,

Installgentoo From the verse (above) we see: The CHURCH has all of the AUTHORITY OF God to teach all nations! All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore... TEACH

The protestant church CANNOT TEACH they trust the scriptures ALONE!

LOOK...
All protestant churches are man made.. All are on a mission to restore Jesus' church back to him!!
Jesus tells them in the scriptures he will not leave, thus the Catholic Church, the ONLY Church Jesus established is the one Jesus is ALWAYS WITH!
Matthew 28:20
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

The De-former Martin Luther said.. "The Pope is Satan"! Luther was teaching "Satan somehow has Overpowered Jesus!"
That Satan has TAKEN Jesus' bride from Jesus! That Satan has taken Jesus' body from Jesus! Luther REJECTED Mathew 28:20!! (above)

The Protestant MUST believe the Holy Spirit has lead Jesus' church into error! Other wise their many churches have no excuse for "being in existence"!

They MUST also believe the Holy Spirit is NOT guiding the Church Jesus established anymore!!
The protester is forced to also reject John 14:16.
John 14:16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever"

Installgentoo Most all protestants teach "Symbolic Communion"! There is NO scriptures that support this teaching it is not scriptural!
Catholic' believe John 6 LITERALLY because they KNOW God cannot lie.. If Jesus was to lie he would not be perfect he would not be God!
53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

To top it off.... this verse comes next..
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you"they are full of the Spirit and life.

Do you see it???! "HAVE SPOKEN" (past tense)!! The words Jesus has spoken are the words above verses 53 to 56!!
The Protestant rejects the words "Jesus has spoken!!!"
52 Then the Jews (and PROTESTANTS) began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Installgentoo It takes faith in Jesus!
The Catholic KNOWS Jesus is God and God can do all things...
God can walk on water, take the form of fire, of smoke, of a dove, of a man and yes even the form of bread and wine!

As I said before the protestant rejects the words of God!
I add they have trusted there salvation in the man made teaching of "We do not need church all we need is Faith and Scriptures ALONE"!
FACT: "Faith ALONE" is not in the bible!
FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!
etc
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 12:33:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dogknox: "I reply: Simply... The protestant MUST reject the scriptures to be Protestant !"

Anna: Wrong - and I'm not even Protestant.

Dogknox: "Look.. Proof: False teachers will come OUT of the Catholic Church!"

Anna: False teaches known as Protestants did indeed come out of the Catholic Church; false teachers known as Catholics came out of the church established by Jesus Christ. I think you'll find that the passage refers to the latter.

Dogknox: "The Protestant has Catholic roots.... The Catholic Church did not come From AMONG protestants!"

Anna: No, the Catholic Church came from among Christians.

Dogknox: "Verse #2 tells ALL Protestants the "Way of Truth" must be the Catholic Church!"

Anna: Verse #2 is just every other verse from lid to lid: it does not mention any Catholic Church. No New Testament writer would have been silly enough to mention something that didn't even exist.

Dogknox: "Jesus commissioned his CHURCH to teach all nations!
Installgentoo The protestant rejects church for the UN-Scriptural teaching of "All we need is the scriptures to teach us"!
Matthew 28 The Great Commission...
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,"


Anna: The church did not even exist when those words were spoken. Jesus commissioned His disciples, not the church.

Dogknox: "Installgentoo From the verse (above) we see: The CHURCH has all of the AUTHORITY OF God to teach all nations! All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore... TEACH"

Anna: The only "authority" in the passage is that invested in Jesus Christ. He didn't give it away.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:31:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Blather on all you want, there's only been hundreds of years of it, but the spiritual truth remains: Pauline Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant versions of it, Mormonism too, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses, all PASSE, all part of the Piscean Age Christianity that is fading into history. This is the New Age we have entered and each Age has its Mission from God. If you continue to be stuck in the old missionary disputes you'll miss what's happening NOW in our times that shows the Spirit in motion.

The Bible is toast as direct spiritual authority. Israeli archeology cannot be dismissed by traditions or ignoring the facts in the ground disputing Bible claims right and left. There is an Aquariana Divide and if you can't hear the Aquarius Call and still think you're following God through the Bible doctrines, well, it's a whole new deal now and those Bible stories and beliefs just don't work anymore, actually never did which is why Bible believers are so scary when they put their Bible ideas into practice in the real world. It wasn't so long ago that Christians were behaving quite like the Taliban do now following their interpretations of their Bibles..
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"


Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

There were many sects and branches of early Christianity. There was the "See of Paul" and "See of Peter", the "See of Andrew" in Constantinople, and the "See of James" in Jerusalem. There were also different little groups and rites. These vied for the supremacy, and it so happens (due to social and political conditions) that only a few cities were singled out: Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome: all five claimed to be apostolic sees, with three claiming in whole or in part to have been founded by Peter. Strangely enough, the See of Antioch claims to have been founded solely by Peter. Finally, after six long centuries, the bishop of Rome, Boniface III, was crowned the first "universal papa" that this world ever heard of. And right there, Dogknox, is the where your religion comes from.

There remains hardly a vestige of Christianity in the Roman Catholic Church. It is a haughty organization that reserves the prerogative to simply do whatever it pleases, whatever it deems expedient for itself at the time. It is in your pocket in birth, in marriage, throughout life, in death - and after death, as they've come up with a scheme by which one can "pay and pray" his loved ones out of an imaginary purgatory. It wants the American taxpayer to support its schools, while it denounces the public school system! It denounces freedom of the press as a pernicious freedom. Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech also take their hits.

Dogknox, do you support the concept of the public education system as it exists (and has existed) in the United States?

Dogknox, do you support the separation of church and state?

Dogknox, do you you support freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly of Protestant religious groups in countries which are predominantly Roman Catholic?

Do you condone the following?

"The advent of the Franco regime saw the restoration of the church's privileges. During the Franco years, Roman Catholicism was the only religion to have legal status; other worship services could not be advertised, and only the Catholic Church could own property or publish books. The Government not only continued to pay priests' salaries and to subsidize the Church, but it also assisted in the reconstruction of church buildings damaged by the war ... Catholic religious instruction was mandatory, even in public schools. Franco secured in return the right to name Roman Catholic bishops in Spain, as well as veto power over appointments of clergy down to the parish priest level. In 1953 this close cooperation was formalized in a new Concordat with the Vatican that granted the church an extraordinary set of privileges: mandatory canonical marriages for all Catholics; exemption from government taxation; subsidies for new building construction; censorship of materials the Church deemed offensive; the right to establish universities, to operate radio stations, and to publish newspapers and magazines; protection from police intrusion into church properties; and exemption of military service."

Do you think that's how it ought to be? That's Spain, of course, a country that is around 95% Roman Catholic, of those expressing a belief in God. About 3/4th's of Spaniards are Roman Catholic, period. The government was entirely Catholic - and look at what they did! This isn't medieval stuff, although it looks as if it is: it is late last century!
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 1:45:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 1:31:49 PM, biomystic wrote:
Blather on all you want, there's only been hundreds of years of it, but the spiritual truth remains: Pauline Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant versions of it, Mormonism too, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses, all PASSE, all part of the Piscean Age Christianity that is fading into history. This is the New Age we have entered and each Age has its Mission from God. If you continue to be stuck in the old missionary disputes you'll miss what's happening NOW in our times that shows the Spirit in motion.

The Bible is toast as direct spiritual authority. Israeli archeology cannot be dismissed by traditions or ignoring the facts in the ground disputing Bible claims right and left. There is an Aquariana Divide and if you can't hear the Aquarius Call and still think you're following God through the Bible doctrines, well, it's a whole new deal now and those Bible stories and beliefs just don't work anymore, actually never did which is why Bible believers are so scary when they put their Bible ideas into practice in the real world. It wasn't so long ago that Christians were behaving quite like the Taliban do now following their interpretations of their Bibles..

Sounds like it's about time to go rebaptize that old cheap remodeled sword "Paxcaliber" or whatever it is. I bet you couldn't sell the thing for ten bucks on eBay.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 3:45:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/9/2014 10:17:36 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Which is more objectively correct?
Correct in what way? They both agree on a whole lot you know.
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 4:13:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
and the saga continues .... http://dadmansabode.com...
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 5:00:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 12:33:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "I reply: Simply... The protestant MUST reject the scriptures to be Protestant !"

Anna: Wrong - and I'm not even Protestant.

Dogknox: "Look.. Proof: False teachers will come OUT of the Catholic Church!"

Anna: False teaches known as Protestants did indeed come out of the Catholic Church; false teachers known as Catholics came out of the church established by Jesus Christ. I think you'll find that the passage refers to the latter.

Dogknox: "The Protestant has Catholic roots.... The Catholic Church did not come From AMONG protestants!"

Anna: No, the Catholic Church came from among Christians.

Dogknox: "Verse #2 tells ALL Protestants the "Way of Truth" must be the Catholic Church!"

Anna: Verse #2 is just every other verse from lid to lid: it does not mention any Catholic Church. No New Testament writer would have been silly enough to mention something that didn't even exist.

Dogknox: "Jesus commissioned his CHURCH to teach all nations!
Installgentoo The protestant rejects church for the UN-Scriptural teaching of "All we need is the scriptures to teach us"!
Matthew 28 The Great Commission...
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,"


Anna: The church did not even exist when those words were spoken. Jesus commissioned His disciples, not the church.

Dogknox: "Installgentoo From the verse (above) we see: The CHURCH has all of the AUTHORITY OF God to teach all nations! All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore... TEACH"

Anna: The only "authority" in the passage is that invested in Jesus Christ. He didn't give it away.

annanicole you are Protestant!
You reject the Authority of the Pope!
And
You accept the protestant teaching of; "Don't need church all man needs is the scriptures ALONE"!
It is an historical documented FACT: Alexander Campbell the man that made the first "churches of Christ" has Presbyterian roots!
It is an historical documented FACT: Presbyterians are Protestants.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The roots of Presbyterianism lie in the European Reformation of the 16th century, with the example of John Calvin's Geneva being particularly influential. Most Reformed churches who trace their history back to Scotland are either presbyterian or congregationalist in government. In the twentieth century, some Presbyterians played an important role in the Ecumenical Movement, including the World Council of Churches. Many Presbyterian denominations have found ways of working together with other Reformed denominations and Christians of other traditions, especially in the World Communion of Reformed Churches. Some Presbyterian churches have entered into unions with other churches, such as Congregationalists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists.

Until Martin Luther and his great Protest there was NO protestants. Your roots are easy to trace back to the "de-formation"!

Until Martin Luther and his great protest there was NO teaching of; "Scriptures ALONE are the ONLY truth"!
You believe the protestant teaching of "Scriptures ALONE are the ONLY truth" this TEACHING is NOT biblical it first appeared in the protestant de-formation!
You are PROTESTANT!!

annanicole The Holy Catholic Church is the Body Of Jesus! You fight against Jesus, you are In Protest as the de-formers were!
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 9:10:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 1:45:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:31:49 PM, biomystic wrote:
Blather on all you want, there's only been hundreds of years of it, but the spiritual truth remains: Pauline Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant versions of it, Mormonism too, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses, all PASSE, all part of the Piscean Age Christianity that is fading into history. This is the New Age we have entered and each Age has its Mission from God. If you continue to be stuck in the old missionary disputes you'll miss what's happening NOW in our times that shows the Spirit in motion.

The Bible is toast as direct spiritual authority. Israeli archeology cannot be dismissed by traditions or ignoring the facts in the ground disputing Bible claims right and left. There is an Aquariana Divide and if you can't hear the Aquarius Call and still think you're following God through the Bible doctrines, well, it's a whole new deal now and those Bible stories and beliefs just don't work anymore, actually never did which is why Bible believers are so scary when they put their Bible ideas into practice in the real world. It wasn't so long ago that Christians were behaving quite like the Taliban do now following their interpretations of their Bibles..

Sounds like it's about time to go rebaptize that old cheap remodeled sword "Paxcaliber" or whatever it is. I bet you couldn't sell the thing for ten bucks on eBay.

What idiotic slander you post, Mr. Anna, who still hasn't answered to your sexual identity that appears very much to be fraudulent as you post much like an agressive man would in my long internet experience.

I know you're jealous of my spiritual path and have to try to put me down in order to put your ego up but here you really do make the fool of yourself as it happens that Paxcalibur, is a most specially treated religious icon by people way more religious important than you, anna. Like try the Melkite Catholic Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses for starters, who honored Paxcalibur and me. Then go to one of Christianity's most holy cities, Nazareth, and there find the chief priest of all Nazareth churches is the official Keeper of Paxcalibur because hundreds of Nazarean Christians honored Paxcalibur and it is well established in the Holy Land as the newest and most spiritually powerful of religious icons there.

And it doesn't stop there as Paxcalibur becomes the Muslim's Sign of the True Sword of Jihad which is also already in motion.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 9:41:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"


This is your reply... I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!
ALL know, you cannot answer the questions without admitting you reject the scriptures outright!
You cannot point to scriptures to defend any of the teaching of your church.. Because your church is teaching what is NOT found in the scriptures as Scripture truth!

You MUST admit your core belief of "Scriptures are your ONLY truth" is a LIE, it is not biblical!
You must admit you have placed the salvation of your soul, in a church teaching UN-SCRIPTURAL made up teachings, the list (above) is just a few of the many lies taught by your church!!

You have proven to all, you will not answer the questions (above) because the QUESTIONS convict you!.. Your SILENCE proves your pride!
Nothing more needs to be said!
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 11:33:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 9:10:29 PM, biomystic wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:45:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/10/2014 1:31:49 PM, biomystic wrote:
Blather on all you want, there's only been hundreds of years of it, but the spiritual truth remains: Pauline Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant versions of it, Mormonism too, Christian Science, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses, all PASSE, all part of the Piscean Age Christianity that is fading into history. This is the New Age we have entered and each Age has its Mission from God. If you continue to be stuck in the old missionary disputes you'll miss what's happening NOW in our times that shows the Spirit in motion.

The Bible is toast as direct spiritual authority. Israeli archeology cannot be dismissed by traditions or ignoring the facts in the ground disputing Bible claims right and left. There is an Aquariana Divide and if you can't hear the Aquarius Call and still think you're following God through the Bible doctrines, well, it's a whole new deal now and those Bible stories and beliefs just don't work anymore, actually never did which is why Bible believers are so scary when they put their Bible ideas into practice in the real world. It wasn't so long ago that Christians were behaving quite like the Taliban do now following their interpretations of their Bibles..

Sounds like it's about time to go rebaptize that old cheap remodeled sword "Paxcaliber" or whatever it is. I bet you couldn't sell the thing for ten bucks on eBay.

What idiotic slander you post, Mr. Anna, who still hasn't answered to your sexual identity that appears very much to be fraudulent as you post much like an agressive man would in my long internet experience.

I know you're jealous of my spiritual path and have to try to put me down in order to put your ego up but here you really do make the fool of yourself as it happens that Paxcalibur, is a most specially treated religious icon by people way more religious important than you, anna. Like try the Melkite Catholic Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses for starters, who honored Paxcalibur and me. Then go to one of Christianity's most holy cities, Nazareth, and there find the chief priest of all Nazareth churches is the official Keeper of Paxcalibur because hundreds of Nazarean Christians honored Paxcalibur and it is well established in the Holy Land as the newest and most spiritually powerful of religious icons there.

And it doesn't stop there as Paxcalibur becomes the Muslim's Sign of the True Sword of Jihad which is also already in motion.

Your comment about sex means no more to me than if I pointed out that your superstitious nonsense betrays a silly female. I've been on here for three years, and no one has made such a pathetic assumption. I could care less about some ridiculous so-called "icon" - and there is no "power" in an icon, or in the priest who supposedly keeps it. Go dunk it in the water again like the tard that you are.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 4:35:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Come on Anna I know your dying to tell me.

Which ONE?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 4:43:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 4:35:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Come on Anna I know your dying to tell me.

Which ONE?

Oh, I didn't have "one" in mind, really - not as far as "one" particular religious group. Any local congregation of professed Christians that contains bishops (pastors, overseers, presbyters, elders) and deacons would be organized to the scriptural standard. If no qualified men exist in that congregation, then so be it: they won't have any. If such men are around, then that's how it should be done. A paid preacher or evangelist is neither necessary nor unnecessary; it's an expedient.

There is, for instance, no such thing as a Methodist District Superintendent. What is that? They made it up. The Baptist Church, by and large, sits there and reads off the qualifications of elders, then the qualifications of deacons. What do they do? Why, by and large, they do not even have elders. Those are examples of additions to and subtractions from.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 4:57:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 4:43:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:35:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Come on Anna I know your dying to tell me.

Which ONE?

Oh, I didn't have "one" in mind, really - not as far as "one" particular religious group. Any local congregation of professed Christians that contains bishops (pastors, overseers, presbyters, elders) and deacons would be organized to the scriptural standard. If no qualified men exist in that congregation, then so be it: they won't have any. If such men are around, then that's how it should be done. A paid preacher or evangelist is neither necessary nor unnecessary; it's an expedient.

There is, for instance, no such thing as a Methodist District Superintendent. What is that? They made it up. The Baptist Church, by and large, sits there and reads off the qualifications of elders, then the qualifications of deacons. What do they do? Why, by and large, they do not even have elders. Those are examples of additions to and subtractions from.

Come on Anna, you have claimed that there is only ONE out of 40,000.

You must therefore know which ONE that is, or else why did you make the claim?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 5:04:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 4:57:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:43:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:35:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Come on Anna I know your dying to tell me.

Which ONE?

Oh, I didn't have "one" in mind, really - not as far as "one" particular religious group. Any local congregation of professed Christians that contains bishops (pastors, overseers, presbyters, elders) and deacons would be organized to the scriptural standard. If no qualified men exist in that congregation, then so be it: they won't have any. If such men are around, then that's how it should be done. A paid preacher or evangelist is neither necessary nor unnecessary; it's an expedient.

There is, for instance, no such thing as a Methodist District Superintendent. What is that? They made it up. The Baptist Church, by and large, sits there and reads off the qualifications of elders, then the qualifications of deacons. What do they do? Why, by and large, they do not even have elders. Those are examples of additions to and subtractions from.

Come on Anna, you have claimed that there is only ONE out of 40,000.

I just gave it. "How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, 'One'." I didn't give two. I gave one. There's not but one.

You must therefore know which ONE that is, or else why did you make the claim?

See the preceding: you aren't dense.

The congregation should have bishops (elders, pastors, presbyters, overseers) to "rule" or oversee it, and deacons to help serve in some capacity. They would need someone, either paid or unpaid, without or without any special training, to speak. That's it. Anything more is one thing too many. Anything less, willingly, is one thing too little. That's "one organizational pattern" - and that's all there is.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 5:11:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 5:04:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:57:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:43:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:35:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Come on Anna I know your dying to tell me.

Which ONE?

Oh, I didn't have "one" in mind, really - not as far as "one" particular religious group. Any local congregation of professed Christians that contains bishops (pastors, overseers, presbyters, elders) and deacons would be organized to the scriptural standard. If no qualified men exist in that congregation, then so be it: they won't have any. If such men are around, then that's how it should be done. A paid preacher or evangelist is neither necessary nor unnecessary; it's an expedient.

There is, for instance, no such thing as a Methodist District Superintendent. What is that? They made it up. The Baptist Church, by and large, sits there and reads off the qualifications of elders, then the qualifications of deacons. What do they do? Why, by and large, they do not even have elders. Those are examples of additions to and subtractions from.

Come on Anna, you have claimed that there is only ONE out of 40,000.

I just gave it. "How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, 'One'." I didn't give two. I gave one. There's not but one.

You must therefore know which ONE that is, or else why did you make the claim?

See the preceding: you aren't dense.

The congregation should have bishops (elders, pastors, presbyters, overseers) to "rule" or oversee it, and deacons to help serve in some capacity. They would need someone, either paid or unpaid, without or without any special training, to speak. That's it. Anything more is one thing too many. Anything less, willingly, is one thing too little. That's "one organizational pattern" - and that's all there is.
It amounts to everyone one of them, they all have those integers, no matter what title they prefer to use. The bishops of bethel deny the name but are in fact an incredibly inferior model of the vatican and every other (well not the mega money making televangellists and megachurch charlatans) self proclaimed christian sect in the world.

Can you name one that isn't?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 6:10:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 5:11:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 5:04:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:57:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:43:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:35:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Come on Anna I know your dying to tell me.

Which ONE?

Oh, I didn't have "one" in mind, really - not as far as "one" particular religious group. Any local congregation of professed Christians that contains bishops (pastors, overseers, presbyters, elders) and deacons would be organized to the scriptural standard. If no qualified men exist in that congregation, then so be it: they won't have any. If such men are around, then that's how it should be done. A paid preacher or evangelist is neither necessary nor unnecessary; it's an expedient.

There is, for instance, no such thing as a Methodist District Superintendent. What is that? They made it up. The Baptist Church, by and large, sits there and reads off the qualifications of elders, then the qualifications of deacons. What do they do? Why, by and large, they do not even have elders. Those are examples of additions to and subtractions from.

Come on Anna, you have claimed that there is only ONE out of 40,000.

I just gave it. "How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, 'One'." I didn't give two. I gave one. There's not but one.

You must therefore know which ONE that is, or else why did you make the claim?

See the preceding: you aren't dense.

The congregation should have bishops (elders, pastors, presbyters, overseers) to "rule" or oversee it, and deacons to help serve in some capacity. They would need someone, either paid or unpaid, without or without any special training, to speak. That's it. Anything more is one thing too many. Anything less, willingly, is one thing too little. That's "one organizational pattern" - and that's all there is.
It amounts to everyone one of them, they all have those integers, no matter what title they prefer to use. The bishops of bethel deny the name but are in fact an incredibly inferior model of the vatican and every other (well not the mega money making televangellists and megachurch charlatans) self proclaimed christian sect in the world.

Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 6:38:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 6:10:20 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 5:11:38 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 5:04:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:57:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:43:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:35:00 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:19:08 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 4:07:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 1:53:04 AM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: " At 1/10/2014 1:42:52 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "FACT: "Scriptures ALONE" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Baptism" is not in the bible!
"Alter Call" is not in the bible!
"Symbolic Communion" is not in the bible!
"Do not baptize Infants" is not in the bible!
"Jesus' Church needs to be restored" is not in the bible!
"The Holy Spirit Guides into error" is not in the bible!
"Jesus is not with his church anymore" is not in the bible!
"Church cannot teach" is not in the bible!!
"Do not listen to the church" is not in the bible!!
"Peter does not hold the keys" is not in the bible!"

Anna: I'd expect a list like this from either a child or an old man in his dotage. You've already told us - multiple times on multiple occasions - that what "is or is not in the Bible" is a matter of indifference to you. Complete indifference.

Dogknox: My response is this....
Your SILENCE proves your pride and hypocrisy!


Anna: Funny, I thought that's exactly what you proved when you virtually admitted that you couldn't find the Roman Catholic idea of the office of a priest in the entire Bible. Did you ever admit that presbuteros means elder, bishop, overseer - but not priest? Did you not admit that not a single Greek-English lexicon, even the few written by Catholics, ever states that presbuteros is translated priest?

Dogknox, did Peter receive in the first century all things that pertain to life and godliness? He said he did. Did he? Did all the apostles receive the "all things that pertain to life and godliness"?
Does that mean that pastor, vicar, preacher, sexton, deacon or any other title of the christian denominations is found in the Book of the Catholics?

It means that 95% of the hierarchal arrangements of both Catholic and Protestants is not found in the scriptures, period.

Baptist Church - nope
Catholic Church - HELL, no
Methodist - nope
Presbyterian - moving closer
Episcopal - nope

and on and on. You can drop every one of them based upon organization alone. Oh, I forgot the WatchTower conglomeration.

BotchTower - nope

How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, "One".
Come on Anna I know your dying to tell me.

Which ONE?

Oh, I didn't have "one" in mind, really - not as far as "one" particular religious group. Any local congregation of professed Christians that contains bishops (pastors, overseers, presbyters, elders) and deacons would be organized to the scriptural standard. If no qualified men exist in that congregation, then so be it: they won't have any. If such men are around, then that's how it should be done. A paid preacher or evangelist is neither necessary nor unnecessary; it's an expedient.

There is, for instance, no such thing as a Methodist District Superintendent. What is that? They made it up. The Baptist Church, by and large, sits there and reads off the qualifications of elders, then the qualifications of deacons. What do they do? Why, by and large, they do not even have elders. Those are examples of additions to and subtractions from.

Come on Anna, you have claimed that there is only ONE out of 40,000.

I just gave it. "How many Christian religious organizational patterns would exist if we all followed the New Testament alone, without addition, subtraction, or modification? I say, 'One'." I didn't give two. I gave one. There's not but one.

You must therefore know which ONE that is, or else why did you make the claim?

See the preceding: you aren't dense.

The congregation should have bishops (elders, pastors, presbyters, overseers) to "rule" or oversee it, and deacons to help serve in some capacity. They would need someone, either paid or unpaid, without or without any special training, to speak. That's it. Anything more is one thing too many. Anything less, willingly, is one thing too little. That's "one organizational pattern" - and that's all there is.
It amounts to everyone one of them, they all have those integers, no matter what title they prefer to use. The bishops of bethel deny the name but are in fact an incredibly inferior model of the vatican and every other (well not the mega money making televangellists and megachurch charlatans) self proclaimed christian sect in the world.

Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 6:47:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?

By congregation, I mean "local assembly", whether it be 20 or 20,000 in number. I mean "the church" in a local sense as in the definition: "a group of people assembled for religious worship". If someone want to call a group of people assembled for worship a parish, that's fine with me - although I do not believe they intend for "congregation" and "parish" to be equivalents.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 6:59:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 6:47:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?

By congregation, I mean "local assembly", whether it be 20 or 20,000 in number. I mean "the church" in a local sense as in the definition: "a group of people assembled for religious worship". If someone want to call a group of people assembled for worship a parish, that's fine with me - although I do not believe they intend for "congregation" and "parish" to be equivalents.

So once again you take the madman strategy of only accepting your limited definitions for words. You claim in opposition to accepted definitions that only your definition has merit. You claim that a congregation can only exist of local people. Do you have a geographical measurement that a congregation must adhere to? Because the word itself has no such restrictions.

That is what the madman does with "soon"
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 7:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 6:59:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:47:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?

By congregation, I mean "local assembly", whether it be 20 or 20,000 in number. I mean "the church" in a local sense as in the definition: "a group of people assembled for religious worship". If someone want to call a group of people assembled for worship a parish, that's fine with me - although I do not believe they intend for "congregation" and "parish" to be equivalents.

So once again you take the madman strategy of only accepting your limited definitions for words. You claim in opposition to accepted definitions that only your definition has merit. You claim that a congregation can only exist of local people. Do you have a geographical measurement that a congregation must adhere to? Because the word itself has no such restrictions.

That is what the madman does with "soon"

I could care less about the definition. I used "congregation" for lack of a better word. Make it "local congregation". Make it "local assembly".

And that's not what Madman does at all? Are you drinking or something? You have better sense than that. Madman just makes up a definition that nobody ever heard of.

And the word, as used in the New Testament, does have geographic boundaries - or I wouldn't have used it in such a manner.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 7:10:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 7:06:06 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:59:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:47:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?

By congregation, I mean "local assembly", whether it be 20 or 20,000 in number. I mean "the church" in a local sense as in the definition: "a group of people assembled for religious worship". If someone want to call a group of people assembled for worship a parish, that's fine with me - although I do not believe they intend for "congregation" and "parish" to be equivalents.

So once again you take the madman strategy of only accepting your limited definitions for words. You claim in opposition to accepted definitions that only your definition has merit. You claim that a congregation can only exist of local people. Do you have a geographical measurement that a congregation must adhere to? Because the word itself has no such restrictions.

That is what the madman does with "soon"

I could care less about the definition. I used "congregation" for lack of a better word. Make it "local congregation". Make it "local assembly".

And that's not what Madman does at all? Are you drinking or something? You have better sense than that. Madman just makes up a definition that nobody ever heard of.

And the word, as used in the New Testament, does have geographic boundaries - or I wouldn't have used it in such a manner.
Please elaborate on these biblical geographic boundaries.

btw I'm enjoying these discussions. I hope you are to. ( I mean no animosity to you)
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 7:20:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 7:10:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:06:06 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:59:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:47:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?

By congregation, I mean "local assembly", whether it be 20 or 20,000 in number. I mean "the church" in a local sense as in the definition: "a group of people assembled for religious worship". If someone want to call a group of people assembled for worship a parish, that's fine with me - although I do not believe they intend for "congregation" and "parish" to be equivalents.

So once again you take the madman strategy of only accepting your limited definitions for words. You claim in opposition to accepted definitions that only your definition has merit. You claim that a congregation can only exist of local people. Do you have a geographical measurement that a congregation must adhere to? Because the word itself has no such restrictions.

That is what the madman does with "soon"

I could care less about the definition. I used "congregation" for lack of a better word. Make it "local congregation". Make it "local assembly".

And that's not what Madman does at all? Are you drinking or something? You have better sense than that. Madman just makes up a definition that nobody ever heard of.

And the word, as used in the New Testament, does have geographic boundaries - or I wouldn't have used it in such a manner.
Please elaborate on these biblical geographic boundaries.

btw I'm enjoying these discussions. I hope you are to. ( I mean no animosity to you)

The geographic boundaries are the perimeter around "a group of people assembled for religious worship". I am still referring to a local congregation, no matter what the exact boundaries of it might be.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 7:31:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 7:20:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:10:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:06:06 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:59:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:47:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?

By congregation, I mean "local assembly", whether it be 20 or 20,000 in number. I mean "the church" in a local sense as in the definition: "a group of people assembled for religious worship". If someone want to call a group of people assembled for worship a parish, that's fine with me - although I do not believe they intend for "congregation" and "parish" to be equivalents.

So once again you take the madman strategy of only accepting your limited definitions for words. You claim in opposition to accepted definitions that only your definition has merit. You claim that a congregation can only exist of local people. Do you have a geographical measurement that a congregation must adhere to? Because the word itself has no such restrictions.

That is what the madman does with "soon"

I could care less about the definition. I used "congregation" for lack of a better word. Make it "local congregation". Make it "local assembly".

And that's not what Madman does at all? Are you drinking or something? You have better sense than that. Madman just makes up a definition that nobody ever heard of.

And the word, as used in the New Testament, does have geographic boundaries - or I wouldn't have used it in such a manner.
Please elaborate on these biblical geographic boundaries.

btw I'm enjoying these discussions. I hope you are to. ( I mean no animosity to you)

The geographic boundaries are the perimeter around "a group of people assembled for religious worship". I am still referring to a local congregation, no matter what the exact boundaries of it might be.
Synonyms of congregation:::::::::
churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers


There are no geographical boundaries mentioned in the bible, just as there are none mentioned in the definitions.

Believers must exist within a certain radius of any arbitrarily defined point or they do not constitute a congregation? Is there no congregation of christians? REALLY?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 7:33:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 7:31:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:20:00 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:10:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:06:06 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:59:56 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/11/2014 6:47:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
Can you name one that isn't?

That isn't what? Organized along that pattern? Plenty of them are not. I named several. I wasn't picky about the name that was applied.

I said "Elders ruling over or overseeing a congregation. These elders may be also called bishops, overseers, pastors, presbyters) with deacons to serve as needed. That's it, except a minister/preacher/evangelist. No more. No less. No addition. No subtraction. No modification.

The BotchTower doesn't come close to having that arrangement. The early church strayed from it way back when they put one bishop over several congregations. Actually, they strayed from it back one step: they strayed when they made a distinction between a bishop and an elder. That was step 1. That's precisely why poor Dogknox can't answer a single question pertaining to presbuteros. He hasn't answered, but claims he has. If you happen to spot his answer (I posted the same questions like 5 times), then kindly provide the post #. I sure didn't see it, although I would have loved to have.
You would seem to be using a very limited definition of congregation.
Here from, I guess google dictionary https://www.google.com.au...

congregation
k;4;!1;gr=8;G2;ge=8;@3;(ə)n/
noun
noun: congregation; plural noun: congregations; noun: Congregation

1.
a group of people assembled for religious worship.
"the singing of psalms by the whole congregation"
synonyms:parishioners, parish, churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers, loyal members, fellowship, communicants, laity, brethren, brothers and sisters, souls More
I would particularly draw your attention to the synonyms .

You seem to be suggesting that a congregation is a small group of people who assemble in someones backyard for means of B-B-Q and worship of a god of their choice, but as you can see from the above that is decidedly not the case.

Did you notice the word FLOCK. Do you think they all need to be in the same paddock?

By congregation, I mean "local assembly", whether it be 20 or 20,000 in number. I mean "the church" in a local sense as in the definition: "a group of people assembled for religious worship". If someone want to call a group of people assembled for worship a parish, that's fine with me - although I do not believe they intend for "congregation" and "parish" to be equivalents.

So once again you take the madman strategy of only accepting your limited definitions for words. You claim in opposition to accepted definitions that only your definition has merit. You claim that a congregation can only exist of local people. Do you have a geographical measurement that a congregation must adhere to? Because the word itself has no such restrictions.

That is what the madman does with "soon"

I could care less about the definition. I used "congregation" for lack of a better word. Make it "local congregation". Make it "local assembly".

And that's not what Madman does at all? Are you drinking or something? You have better sense than that. Madman just makes up a definition that nobody ever heard of.

And the word, as used in the New Testament, does have geographic boundaries - or I wouldn't have used it in such a manner.
Please elaborate on these biblical geographic boundaries.

btw I'm enjoying these discussions. I hope you are to. ( I mean no animosity to you)

The geographic boundaries are the perimeter around "a group of people assembled for religious worship". I am still referring to a local congregation, no matter what the exact boundaries of it might be.
Synonyms of congregation:::::::::
churchgoers, flock, fold, faithful, following, followers, adherents, believers


There are no geographical boundaries mentioned in the bible, just as there are none mentioned in the definitions.

Believers must exist within a certain radius of any arbitrarily defined point or they do not constitute a congregation? Is there no congregation of christians? REALLY?

LMAO
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."