Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Berean777]

I see. You claim that you have the truth, and that what I'm saying is false, yet you have no proof of anything the Church did - no atrocities, no mass-murder, no nothing. See what I mean? End of story, unless you have some proof.

What you do is marry trial documents with written witness testimoney and in addition the historical papal decrees, finally John Paul II admission, then presto you have the smoking gun.

https://inquisition.library.nd.edu/...ing/essays/RBSC-INQ:ESSAY_TrialsAndSentencing

For example.......

Collection of documents on inquisition trials of Armenians in National Archive of Mexico

On January of 2013, the Armenian-Chinese relations research fund chairman Ruben Guinea with his research group (www.eastarmhistory.com) received a permission while filming the documentary titled "Andin --chronicle of the Armenian Travel" to study that collection.

One of the manuscripts of the collection written in 1731 proclaims that in 1722 the son of a young Armenian merchant from New Jugha Marhada, Don Pedro ( Petros ), crossed the Pacific on one of the famous merchant ships, Manila Galleon, routing from China to Acapulco.

Don Pedro achieved great success in Mexico exporting silver to other countries. However, after a while the Inquisition accused Petros of sectarianism, since he was not a parishioner of the Catholic Church but of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The trial lasted several years. During that period Peter was commissioned to write his autobiography which in a century appeared in the Mexican archives.

There is a common theme throughout many nations who have come face to face with the Roman onclave who had meeted out decrees along the following lines.......

2,000 years of violence and persecution

The Crusades

Pope Urban II, anxious to assert Rome's authority in the east, sent a military expedition in 1095 to reconquer the holy land. The crusaders ravaged the countries they passed through and massacred the Muslim, Jewish and even Christian population of Jerusalem after capturing it in 1099. After 200 years of conflict Muslim armies drove them out for good, but the crusaders' symbol of the red cross remains provocative.

The Inquisition

The attempt to combat suspected apostates, Jews and Muslims at the time of the Reformation spawned tribunals in Europe and the new world that tortured and executed thousands. Ecclesiastical queasiness about flowing blood led to the use of racks, thumbscrews and red-hot metal instead of blades; 2,000 people were burned at the stake during the tenure of Spain's first grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada.

The Holocaust

Pope Pius XII never publicly condemned the Nazis' persecution of Jews, even when they were being rounded up and deported from Rome. His silence is partly blamed for the failure of Germany's Catholics to resist Hitler. Anti-Jewish Catholic doctrines such as the claim that the Jews murdered Christ were said to have ideologically underpinned nazism. Vatican officials allegedly helped Nazis escape Europe after the war.

Pope John Paul II asks apologies from God for these actions further giving proof in admission.

 

[Berean777]

With reference to my previous post # 1501 arguments, a person who defends sola scripture is defending their constitutional rights.

If we leave it up to a religious institution then its historical fruits are all too apparent.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

What you do is marry trial documents with written witness testimoney and in addition the historical papal decrees, finally John Paul II admission, then presto you have the smoking gun.

https://inquisition.library.nd.edu/...ing/essays/RBSC-INQ:ESSAY_TrialsAndSentencing

For example.......

Collection of documents on inquisition trials of Armenians in National Archive of Mexico

On January of 2013, the Armenian-Chinese relations research fund chairman Ruben Guinea with his research group (www.eastarmhistory.com) received a permission while filming the documentary titled "Andin --chronicle of the Armenian Travel" to study that collection.

One of the manuscripts of the collection written in 1731 proclaims that in 1722 the son of a young Armenian merchant from New Jugha Marhada, Don Pedro ( Petros ), crossed the Pacific on one of the famous merchant ships, Manila Galleon, routing from China to Acapulco.

Don Pedro achieved great success in Mexico exporting silver to other countries. However, after a while the Inquisition accused Petros of sectarianism, since he was not a parishioner of the Catholic Church but of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The trial lasted several years. During that period Peter was commissioned to write his autobiography which in a century appeared in the Mexican archives.

There is a common theme throughout many nations who have come face to face with the Roman onclave who had meeted out decrees along the following lines.......

2,000 years of violence and persecution

The Crusades

Pope Urban II, anxious to assert Rome's authority in the east, sent a military expedition in 1095 to reconquer the holy land. The crusaders ravaged the countries they passed through and massacred the Muslim, Jewish and even Christian population of Jerusalem after capturing it in 1099. After 200 years of conflict Muslim armies drove them out for good, but the crusaders' symbol of the red cross remains provocative.

The Inquisition

The attempt to combat suspected apostates, Jews and Muslims at the time of the Reformation spawned tribunals in Europe and the new world that tortured and executed thousands. Ecclesiastical queasiness about flowing blood led to the use of racks, thumbscrews and red-hot metal instead of blades; 2,000 people were burned at the stake during the tenure of Spain's first grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada.

The Holocaust

Pope Pius XII never publicly condemned the Nazis' persecution of Jews, even when they were being rounded up and deported from Rome. His silence is partly blamed for the failure of Germany's Catholics to resist Hitler. Anti-Jewish Catholic doctrines such as the claim that the Jews murdered Christ were said to have ideologically underpinned nazism. Vatican officials allegedly helped Nazis escape Europe after the war.

Pope John Paul II asks apologies from God for these actions further giving proof in admission.

Actually it provides proof that Rome will not admit its manifest guilt for such atrocities, for the pope only apologized for what some of her children did, not the church, as if her children never were acting in obedience to the pope in so doing (not that they always were, as will pointed out to excuse the whole), but which they surely were, as documented.

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

...

 

[Berean777]

Sola scripture is a God given right and this explains why religious councils had sought to confiscate the 5000 plus manuscripts from church families that were in possession of these documents.

Sola Scripture becomes our constitutional document that safe guards our Christian faith from many opponents who seek to remove it, change it or even water it down by giving a religious institution preeminence over it.

Don't let them take away your God given rights that is Sola Scripture. This document will save you one day when you call upon it before a religious court in the future, where they will bring you in to be trialed for breaking their worldly secular peace agreement.

 

[Berean777]

Ten patriarchs who act as kings in the final unification of the universal religious enterprise that will manifest to condemn you for reading scripture, by bringing allegations against you by calling you disturbers of the universal peace.

Pick up your Bibles for these are your swords and armour in Christ and defend yourselves against the allegations made by the future unified ten patriarchal/kings universal global church.

Your constitutional document is what stands between you and them and once they have the worldly numbers and political backing from governments, you are required to defend your constitutional rights.

The last war on earth is one that is over your God given Sola Scripture rights.

Imagine Jesus watching from a far these two sides playing it out. On one hand he sees those who defend his gospel and his written word to the death and on the other those who confescate Bibles on the allegations of inciting violence and burn them as they did in medieval times.

We are truly at the cross roads, the precipitous of the line in the sand that will divide the true faithful from those who delighted in unrighteousness and who provoked the Lord to anger.

How could anyone argue institutional liturgy, tradition, doctrine or dogma over and above Sola Scripture?

It makes absolutely no sense to belittle or to play down a document that has won many peoples freedom from oppression and slavery.

Remember they can kill the body, but so long as they can't win over the mind and the heart, they quickly fall back to their dark days of inquisitions. Inquisitions is their last resort because the success of their religious war is as follows.....

And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. (Daniel 8:25)

 

[Berean777]

Dear beloved brothers and sisters, study your Bibles and defend the name of Jesus Christ to the death!

 

[Bible2+]

Berean777 said in post 1506:

Don't let them take away your God given rights that is Sola Scripture. This document will save you one day when you call upon it before a religious court in the future, where they will bring you in to be trialed for breaking their worldly secular peace agreement.

Note that while sola scriptura will indeed save you spiritually one day, just as it does today (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4), it won't save you physically before the religious courts of the future Antichrist. For he will slaughter (by beheading) all Biblical Christians that he can get his hands on (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6).

Also, read Mark 13:9-13 as applicable to you today, if you are a Biblical Christian. For in our future, "political correctness" will make Biblical Christianity "hate speech", because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27) and that Christianity is the only way to be saved (John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12), and that all other religions are cursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

Be prepared to be arrested and tried before even secular, U.S. courts of law for the violation of "hate speech" laws which will be instituted in our future (by the Supreme Court, without any approval from the People in Congress). When you go to trial, remember Mark 13:9-13, and testify as the Holy Spirit gives you at that time. But don't expect to be set free after your testimony. You must be willing to face imprisonment and even execution for the truths of Jesus Christ and His Word the Holy Bible (Matthew 24:9-13, Mark 8:34-38, John 8:31b).

*******

Berean777 said in post 1507:

Your constitutional document is what stands between you and them and once they have the worldly numbers and political backing from governments, you are required to defend your constitutional rights.

The last war on earth is one that is over your God given Sola Scripture rights.

Are you suggesting a physical war?

If so, note that under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), whereas killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3). But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They are to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44), and this means that they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).

It is the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).

Christians don't employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus at his 1st coming set the example for what believers are to do when they are physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They are to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient believers don't fear death (Hebrews 2:15), and don't love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so that they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient believers know that death is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it brings their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this world (Philippians 1:23).

During the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, believers (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as believers have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).

Berean777 said in post 1507:

Your constitutional document is what stands between you and them and once they have the worldly numbers and political backing from governments, you are required to defend your constitutional rights.

Note that "defend your constitutional rights" could easily be misinterpreted by some of your readers as referring, for example, to how the U.S. government is currently going after the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion by requiring Christians to support abortions and same-sex marriages. For example, a Christian pharmacy has to sell the morning-after abortion pill, and a Christian bakery has to make a cake for a homosexual wedding.

Also, the government will eventually outlaw even speaking against homosexuality or abortion, calling it "hate speech", thereby further trashing the 1st Amendment. The way that this will be done is by claiming that speech against homosexuality or abortion presents a "clear and present danger" (Schenck v. U.S.) to homosexuals and abortion clinics, as such speech could lead to violent attacks against them, such as the mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando, or when a man attacked an abortion clinic claiming to be "a warrior for the babies". Of course, from a pacifist's point of view, nothing about Romans 1:26-27, for example, contradicts Matthew 5:39. So simply saying that homosexuality is a sin in no way supports violence. But the connection could still be made precisely (i.e. as an excuse) in order to squelch Christians' Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

Could then the war-makers among the U.S. populace (i.e. as opposed to its pacifists) call for a "NEW American Revolution", this time a violent overthrowing of the current U.S. government, especially its Supreme Court, in order to restore the Constitutional freedoms of religion and speech, not to mention privacy?

Or, the war-makers could just be more patient, and wait a little bit longer (peacefully) for Jesus to return from heaven and rule the world (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

For, presently, any violent rebellion against the U.S. government will simply be quashed (cf. the pathetic end to the Burns, Oregon standoff). For Obama's firing of hundreds of generals, and then the JADE HELM exercises, could all have been precisely to prepare for the day when the U.S.'s own federal military forces will be ordered to wipe out all armed militias throughout the U.S. (thereby trashing yet another amendment, the 2nd), calling the militias "an imminent threat to national security", that is, an imminent threat to an anti-Christian federal government, which will want to help prepare the way for the future Antichrist's world takeover (Revelation 13:7-18).

But before the Antichrist takes over the world and makes armed rebellion against him impossible (Revelation 13:4b,7), and even before the U.S. government has wiped out all armed militias in the U.S., could such militias unite across the country, and rise up together at the same time, declaring their all-out rebellion against the federal government, because of its (future) tyranny? And could they try to justify their rebellion in a document, which could have points laid out in a structure and wording similar to the Declaration of Independence, which they could call the:

"NEW Declaration of Independence

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the People of a great nation to dissolve the political bands which have being placed upon them by a single federal power, and to restore the freedoms which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God have entitled the People, it is reasonable to expect the People to declare the specific causes which have impelled them to violent rebellion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Freedom and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Government, and to provide new guards for their Freedom and Happiness.

"Such has been the patient suffering of the People of these United States, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to abolish their former system of federal government. The recent history of this government, especially in its Executive and Judicial Branches, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the People of these United States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

"The Executive has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. For the Executive has trampled upon even the highest laws of these United States, embodied in our Constitution. For the 4th Amendment declares the right of the People to be free from all unreasonable searches, and no warrants shall be issued, except upon probable cause. Yet the Executive now, with the help of computers and compliant corporations, continually spies upon all the People, and without any probable cause. For it tracks everywhere the People go through their cell phones, via "StingRay" devices and compliant cell phone companies, and through license-plate reading cameras set up at major intersections. And the Executive tracks every letter, magazine, catalog, or package that the People send or receive through the U.S. Mail, Federal Express, UPS, DHL, or any other courier, through the compliance of these companies. And the Executive tracks everything that the People buy with a credit or debit card, through compliant bank, credit card, and retail companies. And it tracks the People's Ad Choices and Catalog lists, and even sometimes makes insulting additions to them.

"And the Executive tracks everything that the People watch on cable TV or the internet, through compliant cable, telecom, ISP, and internet companies and forums. And it tracks everything they say on the internet. And it tracks every website and web page they view. And it tracks every phone call they make. And it tracks everything they say or hear on every phone call. And it tracks everything they do in public places by employing facial recognition and spy cameras in almost every store and restaurant, and while walking along public streets. And it listens in on everything they say in their homes, cars, or anywhere else, by remotely and secretly tapping into the microphones on their cell phones, landline phones, computers, televisions, home-security devices, online-shopping audio devices, automobile-navigation devices, etc., so that the 4th Amendment right to Privacy for the People has been completely obliterated by the Executive.

"Also, the Executive has secretly handed over the personal information (including the weekly and daily schedules) of some U.S. citizens to 'friendly' foreign intelligence agencies who see these citizens as potential threats to their national security. In this way, the Executive has exposed these citizens to surveillance and possibly even murder by foreign intelligence agencies operating (with the knowledge and consent of the Executive) on U.S. soil. The Executive allows such a setup as this so that it can, in turn, if deemed necessary, surveil, and even murder, citizens of foreign 'friendly' nations, in their own countries, if it deems these foreigners to be dangerously hostile to U.S. national security.

"Also, the Executive, and the Judiciary at its highest level, have trampled upon the 1st Amendment, which declares that the Government shall institute no law which prohibits the free exercise of religion. For they have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, requiring Christians to support abortions and same-sex marriages. For example, a Christian pharmacy now has to sell the morning-after abortion pill, and a Christian bakery now has to make a cake for a homosexual wedding.

"Also, the Executive, and the Judiciary at its highest level, [will] have trampled upon the 1st Amendment's declaration that the Government shall institute no law which abridges the freedom of speech. For they [will] have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, forbidding any speech which denigrates homosexuality or abortion, calling it "hate speech", even though the Bible itself shows that homosexual practices are sinful (Romans 1:26-27), and that unborn children have consciousness (Luke 1:41).

"Also, the Executive, and the Judiciary at its highest level, [will] have trampled upon the 2nd Amendment, which declares that the Government shall institute no law which infringes upon the right of the People to keep and bear arms. For they [will] have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, forbidding any civilian to own or use any firearm at any time.

"In every stage of these Oppressions, we the People have petitioned for redress. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Government, which is thus marked by every act which may define Tyranny, is unfit to rule a free people.

"We, therefore, the People of these United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, the Almighty God, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the People, solemnly publish and declare the Freedom of the People, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the U.S. federal government. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

At some point in our future, could millions of "patriots" in armed militias across the U.S. add their John Hancocks to such a document as this, knowing that by doing so they will make themselves liable to being arrested, tortured, and murdered by the federal government?

Better to leave politics alone, and be arrested, tortured, and murdered not for being violent, or for promoting violence, but rather for being a pacifist, and for promoting the peace, love, and faith of Jesus Christ and his Biblical gospel (Matthew 24:9, Mark 8:34-38).

Maranatha, Come, Lord Jesus Christ, and rule upon this earth (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 22:17a,20).

1 Peter 1:24 ¶For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

1 John 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

 

[Berean777]

Note that while sola scriptura will indeed save you spiritually one day, just as it does today (2 Timothy 3:15 to 4:4), it won't save you physically before the religious courts of the future Antichrist. For he will slaughter (by beheading) all Biblical Christians that he can get his hands on (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6).

Also, read Mark 13:9-13 as applicable to you today, if you are a Biblical Christian. For in our future, "political correctness" will make Biblical Christianity "hate speech", because the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27) and that Christianity is the only way to be saved (John 14:6, John 3:36, Acts 4:12), and that all other religions are cursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

Be prepared to be arrested and tried before even secular, U.S. courts of law for the violation of "hate speech" laws which will be instituted in our future (by the Supreme Court, without any approval from the People in Congress). When you go to trial, remember Mark 13:9-13, and testify as the Holy Spirit gives you at that time. But don't expect to be set free after your testimony. You must be willing to face imprisonment and even execution for the truths of Jesus Christ and His Word the Holy Bible (Matthew 24:9-13, Mark 8:34-38, John 8:31b).

*******



Are you suggesting a physical war?

If so, note that under the Old Covenant, murder was forbidden (Deuteronomy 5:17), whereas killing in a war commanded by God was required (1 Samuel 15:3). But under the New Covenant, which Christians are under (Matthew 26:28, Jeremiah 31:31), Christians are commanded never to harm anyone, even in self-defense (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52). They are to be as harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16c). For Christians are commanded to love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44), and this means that they must do them no harm (Romans 13:10a, Matthew 7:12).

It is the meek who will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5, Psalms 37:11).

Christians don't employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus at his 1st coming set the example for what believers are to do when they are physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They are to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient believers don't fear death (Hebrews 2:15), and don't love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so that they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient believers know that death is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it brings their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this world (Philippians 1:23).

During the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, believers (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as believers have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).



Note that "defend your constitutional rights" could easily be misinterpreted by some of your readers as referring, for example, to how the U.S. government is currently going after the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion by requiring Christians to support abortions and same-sex marriages. For example, a Christian pharmacy has to sell the morning-after abortion pill, and a Christian bakery has to make a cake for a homosexual wedding.

Also, the government will eventually outlaw even speaking against homosexuality or abortion, calling it "hate speech", thereby further trashing the 1st Amendment. The way that this will be done is by claiming that speech against homosexuality or abortion presents a "clear and present danger" (Schenck v. U.S.) to homosexuals and abortion clinics, as such speech could lead to violent attacks against them, such as the mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando, or when a man attacked an abortion clinic claiming to be "a warrior for the babies". Of course, from a pacifist's point of view, nothing about Romans 1:26-27, for example, contradicts Matthew 5:39. So simply saying that homosexuality is a sin in no way supports violence. But the connection could still be made precisely (i.e. as an excuse) in order to squelch Christians' Constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

Could then the war-makers among the U.S. populace (i.e. as opposed to its pacifists) call for a "NEW American Revolution", this time a violent overthrowing of the current U.S. government, especially its Supreme Court, in order to restore the Constitutional freedoms of religion and speech, not to mention privacy?

Or, the war-makers could just be more patient, and wait a little bit longer (peacefully) for Jesus to return from heaven and rule the world (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

For, presently, any violent rebellion against the U.S. government will simply be quashed (cf. the pathetic end to the Burns, Oregon standoff). For Obama's firing of hundreds of generals, and then the JADE HELM exercises, could all have been precisely to prepare for the day when the U.S.'s own federal military forces will be ordered to wipe out all armed militias throughout the U.S. (thereby trashing yet another amendment, the 2nd), calling the militias "an imminent threat to national security", that is, an imminent threat to an anti-Christian federal government, which will want to help prepare the way for the future Antichrist's world takeover (Revelation 13:7-18).

But before the Antichrist takes over the world and makes armed rebellion against him impossible (Revelation 13:4b,7), and even before the U.S. government has wiped out all armed militias in the U.S., could such militias unite across the country, and rise up together at the same time, declaring their all-out rebellion against the federal government, because of its (future) tyranny? And could they try to justify their rebellion in a document, which could have points laid out in a structure and wording similar to the Declaration of Independence, which they could call the:

"NEW Declaration of Independence

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the People of a great nation to dissolve the political bands which have being placed upon them by a single federal power, and to restore the freedoms which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God have entitled the People, it is reasonable to expect the People to declare the specific causes which have impelled them to violent rebellion.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Freedom and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Government, and to provide new guards for their Freedom and Happiness.

"Such has been the patient suffering of the People of these United States, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to abolish their former system of federal government. The recent history of this government, especially in its Executive and Judicial Branches, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the People of these United States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

"The Executive has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. For the Executive has trampled upon even the highest laws of these United States, embodied in our Constitution. For the 4th Amendment declares the right of the People to be free from all unreasonable searches, and no warrants shall be issued, except upon probable cause. Yet the Executive now, with the help of computers and compliant corporations, continually spies upon all the People, and without any probable cause. For it tracks everywhere the People go through their cell phones, via "StingRay" devices and compliant cell phone companies, and through license-plate reading cameras set up at major intersections. And the Executive tracks every letter, magazine, catalog, or package that the People send or receive through the U.S. Mail, Federal Express, UPS, DHL, or any other courier, through the compliance of these companies. And the Executive tracks everything that the People buy with a credit or debit card, through compliant bank, credit card, and retail companies. And it tracks the People's Ad Choices and Catalog lists, and even sometimes makes insulting additions to them.

"And the Executive tracks everything that the People watch on cable TV or the internet, through compliant cable, telecom, ISP, and internet companies and forums. And it tracks everything they say on the internet. And it tracks every website and web page they view. And it tracks every phone call they make. And it tracks everything they say or hear on every phone call. And it tracks everything they do in public places by employing facial recognition and spy cameras in almost every store and restaurant, and while walking along public streets. And it listens in on everything they say in their homes, cars, or anywhere else, by remotely and secretly tapping into the microphones on their cell phones, landline phones, computers, televisions, home-security devices, online-shopping audio devices, automobile-navigation devices, etc., so that the 4th Amendment right to Privacy for the People has been completely obliterated by the Executive.

"Also, the Executive has secretly handed over the personal information (including the weekly and daily schedules) of some U.S. citizens to 'friendly' foreign intelligence agencies who see these citizens as potential threats to their national security. In this way, the Executive has exposed these citizens to surveillance and possibly even murder by foreign intelligence agencies operating (with the knowledge and consent of the Executive) on U.S. soil. The Executive allows such a setup as this so that it can, in turn, if deemed necessary, surveil, and even murder, citizens of foreign 'friendly' nations, in their own countries, if it deems these foreigners to be dangerously hostile to U.S. national security.

"Also, the Executive, and the Judiciary at its highest level, have trampled upon the 1st Amendment, which declares that the Government shall institute no law which prohibits the free exercise of religion. For they have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, requiring Christians to support abortions and same-sex marriages. For example, a Christian pharmacy now has to sell the morning-after abortion pill, and a Christian bakery now has to make a cake for a homosexual wedding.

"Also, the Executive, and the Judiciary at its highest level, [will] have trampled upon the 1st Amendment's declaration that the Government shall institute no law which abridges the freedom of speech. For they [will] have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, forbidding any speech which denigrates homosexuality or abortion, calling it "hate speech", even though the Bible itself shows that homosexual practices are sinful (Romans 1:26-27), and that unborn children have consciousness (Luke 1:41).

"Also, the Executive, and the Judiciary at its highest level, [will] have trampled upon the 2nd Amendment, which declares that the Government shall institute no law which infringes upon the right of the People to keep and bear arms. For they [will] have created and enforced laws, with no assent from the People in Congress, forbidding any civilian to own or use any firearm at any time.

"In every stage of these Oppressions, we the People have petitioned for redress. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Government, which is thus marked by every act which may define Tyranny, is unfit to rule a free people.

"We, therefore, the People of these United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, the Almighty God, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the People, solemnly publish and declare the Freedom of the People, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the U.S. federal government. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor."

At some point in our future, could millions of "patriots" in armed militias across the U.S. add their John Hancocks to such a document as this, knowing that by doing so they will make themselves liable to being arrested, tortured, and murdered by the federal government?

Better to leave politics alone, and be arrested, tortured, and murdered not for being violent, or for promoting violence, but rather for being a pacifist, and for promoting the peace, love, and faith of Jesus Christ and his Biblical gospel (Matthew 24:9, Mark 8:34-38).

Maranatha, Come, Lord Jesus Christ, and rule upon this earth (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 22:17a,20).

1 Peter 1:24 ¶For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

1 John 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

The written word of God is our Constitution and God given rights to defend ourselves with. This is our sword and armor.

When we speak the truth of Christ even unto death, we commit ourselves to die by the enemies sword for Christ's name. This is how we are to defend his name by defending his truth.

When we preach during the time of the antichrist we are placing the world and the man beast enterprise on notice. This will build the petitions of martyrd Christians before our living God who will execute the final directive that is......

Extinction Protocol that is to wipe them all from the face of the earth, never to inhabit it again.

 

[Berean777]

Similar petitions were made against Jerusalem and it resulted in 70AD.

Imagine Jesus holding back until the blood of martyrs moves him to anger, to do battle with his enemies by executing the extinction protocol. Extinction level event will be followed by the final catching away of the remnant who will be held out on the mountain of God ready to stand their ground until the brightness of the Lord's coming that will transform this world into the future realm of the resurrected. The old earth and heaven will pass away and with it hell and death.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Here in GT, scripture is the ultimate authority.

That's not true. GT allows for all views that fit within the CF Statement of Faith (Nicene Creed). It is "General Theology", not "Sola Scriptura" theology. There are other forums where only scripture is allowed.

Do you think in GT that RCC doctrine is the ultimate authority? Do you think that one expressing RCC teachings merely has to say it is so and does not have to defend his positions with something that one not a member of the RCC would honor? What if a Mormon posted here that Jesus was Satan's brother and quoted one verse out of context to extrapolate such a belief? You might argue with many scripture verses that it was incorrect and he just responds with, my interpretation comes with authority, given by Christ and because my Church has authority to interpret Scripture. Further any claiming to know better than me, are being elitist and arrogant.

The GT public would never let Mormons get away with this kind of exchange unchallenged. Why should we let one RCC zealot do the same?

Understand that in GT, the only universally accepted source of truth is scripture. Now if you want to get away with not having to prove what you say from the universally accepted source of truth, scripture; than you could do that in a RCC forum.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

That happens. Sometimes, however, it's because converts (especially recent ones) tend to reflect an "I've found it at last! Now all questions are answered! It's so simple" mindset. They're the "true believers." And they want the world to know it.

This happens in many denominations, AHC. Characteristically, these folks tend to hold to black and white understandings of doctrines that their church itself either no longer defends or, if not that, do not understand the nuances that the church and its longtime members appreciate. You'll notice that, in the RCC case, the higher clergy and (for example) Jesuits, who are the most extensively educated, are the least inclined to pound the table and insist on simplistic explanations of complicated issues.

Why do you defend another with so many obnoxious posts? There are young zealots and old zealots. The young ones have the excuse of lacking a mature faith. The old ones are without excuse. In this case, I doubt one with over 10000 posts is a recent convert.

You are correct, that people with absolute conviction in what their church teaches is not limited to the RCC. I left the Lutheran church because they are so similar to the RCC in their absolute understanding. I am happy that people have conviction in their belief. I just wish they could express and defend their beliefs as scripture taught that it should be defended; that would be with scripture.

 

[All4Christ]

Do you think in GT that RCC doctrine is the ultimate authority? Do you think that one expressing RCC teachings merely has to say it is so and does not have to defend his positions with something that one not a member of the RCC would honor? What if a Mormon posted here that Jesus was Satan's brother and quoted one verse out of context to extrapolate such a belief? You might argue with many scripture verses that it was incorrect and he just responds with, my interpretation comes with authority, given by Christ and because my Church has authority to interpret Scripture. Further any claiming to know better than me, are being elitist and arrogant.

The GT public would never let Mormons get away with this kind of exchange unchallenged. Why should we let one RCC zealot do the same?

Understand that in GT, the only universally accepted source of truth is scripture. Now if you want to get away with not having to prove what you say from the universally accepted source of truth, scripture; than you could do that in a RCC forum.

GT allows people from all Christian backgrounds (who agree with the Nicene Creed) to debate their beliefs with other Christians. Mormons don't fit that category, so that is a moot point. For the record, Sola Scriptura Protestants are the minority of Christians. Many Christians have used Tradition in addition to scripture to support their beliefs since the early church. That includes some Protestants. I'm not RCC but your claim that Christians here have to follow your standard of Sola Scriptura has no basis in the rules of GT. If you see something in the Statement of Purpose or sticky threads that says otherwise, please quote it here.

ETA: All Nicene Christians say that their faith doesn't contradict scriptures. If you consider a belief to be unscriptural, you can still debate against it using scripture.

 

[bbbbbbb]

GT allows people from all Christian backgrounds (who agree with the Nicene Creed) to debate their beliefs with other Christians. Mormons don't fit that category, so that is a moot point. For the record, Sola Scriptura Protestants are the minority of Christians. Many Christians have used Tradition in addition to scripture to support their beliefs since the early church. That includes some Protestants. I'm not RCC but your claim that Christians here have to follow your standard of Sola Scriptura has no basis in the rules of GT. If you see something in the Statement of Purpose or sticky threads that says otherwise, please quote it here.

ETA: All Nicene Christians say that their faith doesn't contradict scriptures. If you consider a belief to be unscriptural, you can still debate against it using scripture.

Quite true. The difficulty is that many of us see flaws in the other branches of Christianity and are ignorant of the own specks in our eyes. There ought to be a common ground for discussion. If one uses Holy Tradition as that ground then one quickly reaches a stalemate because Tradition varies significantly between various branches. Other than the Nicene Creed the only shared foundation between our branches is the Bible. If we can agree on what the Bible does and does not say, then we have come a very long way to understanding each other even if we do not respectfully agree with each other.

 

[All4Christ]

Quite true. The difficulty is that many of us see flaws in the other branches of Christianity and are ignorant of the own specks in our eyes. There ought to be a common ground for discussion. If one uses Holy Tradition as that ground then one quickly reaches a stalemate because Tradition varies significantly between various branches. Other than the Nicene Creed the only shared foundation between our branches is the Bible. If we can agree on what the Bible does and does not say, then we have come a very long way to understanding each other even if we do not respectfully agree with each other.

I understand your point. We all do have a common foundation of Scripture. However, there are many times that Scripture can be interpreted more than one way. Often, Christians interpret scripture through the lens of Holy Tradition. It's kind of difficult to separate them.

So yes, using Scripture as the foundation is key. I also believe it is important for purposes of understanding to allow people to show the support for their position based on Holy Tradition, especially if their view is also able to be supported through Scripture. I'm not saying it is the primary source of support, but it is relevant, especially if it is based on the early church rather than later traditions. I think it would help with communication between different beliefs.

For the record, I understand where you all are coming from. Since not all accept Tradition, it isn't going to be a convincing argument to some. (That said, it's probably why many who accept Tradition stick to Traditional Theology instead of General Theology.)

 

[Albion]

Why do you defend another with so many obnoxious posts?

The theme of my post was prompted by some others here, but don't think I was defending anything or anyone in particular.

In this case, I doubt one with over 10000 posts is a recent convert.

Well, I know that not to be the case.

You are correct, that people with absolute conviction in what their church teaches is not limited to the RCC. I left the Lutheran church because they are so similar to the RCC in their absolute understanding. I am happy that people have conviction in their belief. I just wish they could express and defend their beliefs as scripture taught that it should be defended; that would be with scripture.

 

[Root of Jesse]

However, logically, if there is only one body of Christ, into which the Spirit baptizes souls, then those who are not part of this body, and which in Catholicism requires submission to the pope according to infallible teaching, then they indeed are not part of that body, according to erroneous RC presumption.

You know, here I am telling you that I believe you're a member of the Body of Christ. If you choose to say that you feel you aren't, be my guest. By the way, we believe that every baptized Christian is a subject of the Pope, whether you assent to it or not...

We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

...no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council)

..in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. - Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos

However, since only the mystical body of Christ always and only consists of believers, while the visible particular bodies inevitably becomes an admixture of both, then the "one body" Eph. 4 refers to is the former, and does not wholly only subsist in any of the latter.

And even some (relative few) Catholics are part of said one Body, by the grace of God.

Nope. Every baptized Christian is, however imperfectly, part of the one Body, by the grace of God. The degree of perfect communion is all that's in question.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What? It is you who, once again, engages in deceptive cut and paste, for true to form, you blithely dismiss what condemns you, and focus on one paragraph which simply provided testimony to the fact that Catholicism engage in torture, by handing over her enemies to the state to do so, knowing what would be done.

Well the fact is that torture came back into civil law, and popes allowed it, but softened it and buffered it, as is always the case when Catholicism tackles secular law issues. By the fourteenth century, papal intervention curbed the use of torture by the Inquisition. Bernardo Gui, one of the most famous inquisitors, commented that torture was deceiving and inefficacious because it forced the confession.

You tried to this insolent attempt to absolve the object of the object of your devotion of any guilt under the premise that handing over those to the RC state to punish those whom the church judges guilty, means she is not guilty herself, though she commanded such exterminate the heretics.

Christ is the only object of my devotion, bud...Extermination of heretics, by the way, was a Protestant way of getting rid of Catholics, too...

Which desperate insolence is so obvious as to be embarrassing, and means that Paul was wrong in charging the Jews with killing the Lord Jesus, as are judgments against those who willingly handing over Jews to Nazis, knowing what would happen to them.

Irrelevant. Motive for using torture to accomplish what the NT church never used physical compulsion for is not the issue here. And the larger body of what i provided goes beyond simply Albigensian crusades.

Irrelevant. To what degree the pope and church under him was responsible for atrocities in one crusade is not the issue here, but that he was guilty of such, including beyond the Albigensian Crusade, regardless of compelled denials by apologists.

blah, blah, blah

 

[Root of Jesse]

What you do is marry trial documents with written witness testimoney and in addition the historical papal decrees, finally John Paul II admission, then presto you have the smoking gun.

https://inquisition.library.nd.edu/...ing/essays/RBSC-INQ:ESSAY_TrialsAndSentencing

For example.......

Collection of documents on inquisition trials of Armenians in National Archive of Mexico

On January of 2013, the Armenian-Chinese relations research fund chairman Ruben Guinea with his research group (www.eastarmhistory.com) received a permission while filming the documentary titled "Andin --chronicle of the Armenian Travel" to study that collection.

One of the manuscripts of the collection written in 1731 proclaims that in 1722 the son of a young Armenian merchant from New Jugha Marhada, Don Pedro ( Petros ), crossed the Pacific on one of the famous merchant ships, Manila Galleon, routing from China to Acapulco.

Don Pedro achieved great success in Mexico exporting silver to other countries. However, after a while the Inquisition accused Petros of sectarianism, since he was not a parishioner of the Catholic Church but of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The trial lasted several years. During that period Peter was commissioned to write his autobiography which in a century appeared in the Mexican archives.

There is a common theme throughout many nations who have come face to face with the Roman onclave who had meeted out decrees along the following lines.......

2,000 years of violence and persecution

The Crusades

Pope Urban II, anxious to assert Rome's authority in the east, sent a military expedition in 1095 to reconquer the holy land. The crusaders ravaged the countries they passed through and massacred the Muslim, Jewish and even Christian population of Jerusalem after capturing it in 1099. After 200 years of conflict Muslim armies drove them out for good, but the crusaders' symbol of the red cross remains provocative.

The Inquisition

The attempt to combat suspected apostates, Jews and Muslims at the time of the Reformation spawned tribunals in Europe and the new world that tortured and executed thousands. Ecclesiastical queasiness about flowing blood led to the use of racks, thumbscrews and red-hot metal instead of blades; 2,000 people were burned at the stake during the tenure of Spain's first grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada.

The Holocaust

Pope Pius XII never publicly condemned the Nazis' persecution of Jews, even when they were being rounded up and deported from Rome. His silence is partly blamed for the failure of Germany's Catholics to resist Hitler. Anti-Jewish Catholic doctrines such as the claim that the Jews murdered Christ were said to have ideologically underpinned nazism. Vatican officials allegedly helped Nazis escape Europe after the war.

Pope John Paul II asks apologies from God for these actions further giving proof in admission.

The Crusades were a defensive war, and in accord with our Just War Doctrine. There was little or no massacre at all.

The Inquisition was a tribunal court system. You don't have a problem with courts, do you? The Inquisition did occasionally use torture, but torture was back in vogue in secular systems as well, and Inquisition torture was much less vigorous than secular torture.

Pope Pius XII actually harbored and hid many Jews during the time of Nazi persecusion of the Jews. There is no truth to the myth that Pius XII stood by silently. I guess you think the Pope had an army that could actually do something about the Nazis???