ElsonMorali:


Obviously by the word of God

Are you certain about this, because we.can't come back to lay this foundation again?

SisterMe:


The kings are just that- rulers, emperors whose brutality earned them a place in this list. One more is to come, by this scripture written 1900 + years ago. I think he is already here (personal belief) though not yet manifested as the antiChrist. In any case he will be a Pope. So it might be this current pope for all we know. The beast that was and is is the eighth and works in all the seven- that is Satan himself. The ten horns are ten kings that become powerful by dictatorship, that is what I believe "receive power" indicates. They only show up a the end when its time to burn up the great city with fire. The only fire that can do that is a nuclear bomb, so these ten kings must be somehow confederate with Russia and China or Russia and China are part of them, loyal to satan (communism?)

Madam haba, the Pope is the antichrist?

Your quest for knowledge has not helped you, you can't be at peace with all these things you post occupying your thought.

Samcent:
SisterMe, I respect ur depth of knowledge, & d passion with which u go abt ur beliefs.
I want to ask, what makes U so certain that ur religious views are correct?
How are u so sure that u have not be running with herectic teachings all these years?
Pls don't be offended by my questions.

No offense at all my dear. Why am I so sure that my religious views are correct? I will answer the question with questions Don't be offended.

Why was Moses so sure that Israel would be free from Egypt so much so that he abandon his regency of Egypt
Why was Moses mother so sure that Moses was the deliverer, so much so that she risked her life to hide him?
Why was Joshua so sure about dividing the promised land for the children of Israel?
Why were the rag tag band followers of David so sure that he would be King?
Why was Solomon so sure of his wisdom?
Why was Elisha so sure of the double portion of Elijah's spirit upon him when he got to jordan river?
Why was Joseph so sure of Mary's story that he took her in?
Why was Nicodemus so sure that Jesus was a teacher who came from God?
Why was Stephen so sure of what he was saying ill he was ready to die for it?

I can go on and on and on and on.. but I spare you.. I am so sure, because what I believe, I did not receive of myself, I was taught it through someone who was taught it directly from God, the person of Reverend William Branham, who is God's angel (messenger) to the last day church (Laodicea Rev 3:14), who was a prophet of the manner of Moses,Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul and co, unto whom the Word of the Lord was revealed to "Mouth to ear" by the Lord God Almighty Himself. It CANNOT be wrong, or else GOD was wrong, and God cannot be wrong. If I say anything of myself, that can be wrong, but the basic picture as revealed to God's prophet for this age can not be wrong. Any one that ignores his message, ignores it at his/her own peril. And everything he preached was soundly Biblical, if you really open your eyes to see it.

Pidggin:


Madam haba, the Pope is the antichrist?

Your quest for knowledge has not helped you, you can't be at peace with all these things you post occupying your thought.

My dear, na Bible talk am oo, no be me talk am. i just dey repeat am as Bible talk am.

SisterMe:


My dear, na Bible talk am oo, no be me talk am. i just dey repeat am as Bible talk am.

But Bible no mention Pope na

Pidggin:


But Bible no mention Pope na

Haba, so if I describe your husband finish and I no know im name, you no go know say na im be dat ? Especially if I say I see am for Sister Comfort house

I took time to read through all the post of arguement and counter arguements..well my own contribution is this..
1.Hilary clinton holds a big position in human history, whether she is the last president,, that i dont know..but i know she is going to usher in a new human age..."the age of lucifer"..,like i said earlier in this forum, lucifer is not the devil...she is no other than Mary the mother of Jesus..the 100 year anniversary of her apparations in Fatimah is next year 2017, she appeared to 3 kids and gave them 3 secrets for the pope and mankkind. 2 of it has been released already. The third is a heavily guided vatican secrets..but what i know is that it involves the death of so many prople, russia, america....she is the beast of revelation 17-19. She does not wiish us well. she is the famous prost.tute riding a bull..the bull is the symbol for satan who happens to be her grand father..her father is Ninazu the devil..she is Inana in the babylonian version, aphrodite in Greeks, Venus in Roman religion...

Hidden from the Wise and Prudent, but revealed Unto Babes .......
https://www.nairaland.com/3369863/hidden-manna-end-times-prophecies

SisterMe:


Haba, so if I describe your husband finish and I no know im name, you no go know say na im be dat ? Especially if I say I see am for Sister Comfort house

Hehehehe God forbid, Pope no bi antichrist abeg

Just google the "the third seccret of fatimah",,,for more info..

sonmvayina:
I took time to read through all the post of arguement and counter arguements..well my own contribution is this..
1.Hilary clinton holds a big position in human history, whether she is the last president,, that i dont know..but i know she is going to usher in a new human age..."the age of lucifer"..,like i said earlier in this forum, lucifer is not the devil...she is no other than Mary the mother of Jesus..the 100 year anniversary of her apparations in Fatimah is next year 2017, she appeared to 3 kids and gave them 3 secrets for the pope and mankkind. 2 of it has been released already. The third is a heavily guided vatican secrets..but what i know is that it involves the death of so many prople, russia, america....she is the beast of revelation 17-19. She does not wiish us well. she is the famous prost.tute riding a bull..the bull is the symbol for satan who happens to be her grand father..her father is Ninazu the devil..she is Inana in the babylonian version, aphrodite in Greeks, Venus in Roman religion...

Gbagaun!!!... I ring bell for you oooo Chineke meooo!!!

Pidggin:


Hehehehe God forbid, Pope no bi antichrist abeg

Na because you dey fear abi you tru tru wan see the bible evidence, even historical evidence join am.. just ask, I go show you.. Let me revert to English before dem sanction me..

SisterMe:


Gbagaun!!!... I ring bell for you oooo Chineke meooo!!!

i am only educating you...before it is too late...please google "the third secret. of fatimah"

wellsaid:
Hidden from the Wise and Prudent, but revealed Unto Babes .......

https://www.nairaland.com/3369863/hidden-manna-end-times-prophecies

My dear, Obama is going. a woman MUST become president of the US. If it is not now,it will not synchronise with other complementary prallel end time events, so it has to be now, and the only available option is Ms Clinton, so it has to be Clinton. There is no 7 year tribulation. It is not supported by the scripture. There is only, a 3.5 year tribulation. I agree there will be crises at the start of it, that the Man of Sin will capitalise on to come to the fore.

SisterMe:


Are you certain about this, because we.can't come back to lay this foundation again?

Lol. Seems you were expecting another reply.

Ofcourse I'm certain. The question is How do you define "the word of God"?

ElsonMorali:


Lol. Seems you were expecting another reply.

Ofcourse I'm certain. The question is How do you define "the word of God"?

Okay , Question 2) Are the written texts bound into what we call the Bible, the authoritative Word of God to which all further revelations must compare with?

SisterMe:


No offense at all my dear. Why am I so sure that my religious views are correct? I will answer the question with questions Don't be offended.

Why was Moses so sure that Israel would be free from Egypt so much so that he abandon his regency of Egypt
Why was Moses mother so sure that Moses was the deliverer, so much so that she risked her life to hide him?
Why was Joshua so sure about dividing the promised land for the children of Israel?
Why were the rag tag band followers of David so sure that he would be King?
Why was Solomon so sure of his wisdom?
Why was Elisha so sure of the double portion of Elijah's spirit upon him when he got to jordan river?
Why was Joseph so sure of Mary's story that he took her in?
Why was Nicodemus so sure that Jesus was a teacher who came from God?
Why was Stephen so sure of what he was saying ill he was ready to die for it?

I can go on and on and on and on.. but I spare you.. I am so sure, because what I believe, I did not receive of myself, I was taught it through someone who was taught it directly from God, the person of Reverend William Branham, who is God's angel (messenger) to the last day church (Laodicea Rev 3:14), who was a prophet of the manner of Moses,Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul and co, unto whom the Word of the Lord was revealed to "Mouth to ear" by the Lord God Almighty Himself. It CANNOT be wrong, or else GOD was wrong, and God cannot be wrong. If I say anything of myself, that can be wrong, but the basic picture as revealed to God's prophet for this age can not be wrong. Any one that ignores his message, ignores it at his/her own peril. And everything he preached was soundly Biblical, if you really open your eyes to see it.

That a person is prepared to die for his/her belief does not prove the truth of the belief, it only shows the sincerity of the believer. Boko Haram, ISIS and Al-Qaeda members die for their beliefs all the time.

Ranchhoddas:
That a person is prepared to die for his/her belief does not prove the truth of the belief, it only shows the sincerity of the believer. Boko Haram, ISIS and Al-Qaeda members die for their beliefs all the time.

You know, that list was not an "either or". It was an "and" and "and" and..... Book haram or ISIS cannot fit when you use the. "And".

SisterMe:


You know, that list was not an "either or". It was an "and" and "and" and..... Book haram or ISIS cannot fit when you use the. "And".

I'm not exactly sure what this means. Sounds like a red herring.

SisterMe:


My dear, Obama is going. a woman MUST become president of the US. If it is not now,it will not synchronise with other complementary prallel end time events, so it has to be now, and the only available option is Ms Clinton, so it has to be Clinton. There is no 7 year tribulation. It is not supported by the scripture. There is only, a 3.5 year tribulation. I agree there will be crises at the start of it, that the Man of Sin will capitalise on to come to the fore.

Obama is not going anywhere and Mrs Clinton will not be president according to Bible prophecy.

The end will come during the tenure of the son of perdition, look up this thread below to see who the son of perdition is.

https://www.nairaland.com/2991715/falling-away-revelation-son-perdition

The presidency of Mrs Clinton is not in tandem with Biblical prophecy

MrPresident1:


Obama is not going anywhere and Mrs Clinton will not be president according to Bible prophecy.

The end will come during the tenure of the son of perdition, look up this thread below to see who the son of perdition is.

https://www.nairaland.com/2991715/falling-away-revelation-son-perdition

The presidency of Mrs Clinton is not in tandem with Biblical prophecy

Choi....na wa ooo...No problem. All I know, is that a woman must be US president before the end. It might even be Michelle Obama, if Hillary suddenly dies. Hillary is just the best fit now because she is contesting, looks like she will win and has the kind of character necessary for some end time scriptural events to occur. If she suddenly dies, then the next best fit is Michelle Obama, but for Barack Obama himself - sorry. I know you will abandon your.l moniker in shame when your words do not pan out. As for me, I no be prophet, I am only repeating what a Word prophet said. If its Hillary, fine , if not fine also BUT A WOMAN IS GOING TO BE US PRESIDENT PERIOD - you can take that to the bank.

SisterMe:


Okay , Question 2) Are the written texts bound into what we call the Bible, the authoritative Word of God to which all further revelations must compare with?

Well since you don't want to answer any of mine here's your answer.

The word of God isn't just written Scripture. It is both Scripture and Tradition, both embodied in the living Church, which is the Bride of Christ.

ElsonMorali:



Well since you don't want to answer any of mine here's your answer.

The word of God isn't just written Scripture. It is both Scripture and Tradition, both embodied in the living Church, which is the Bride of Christ.

That is where the problem is my dear. God can not be confused, saying one thing in the scripture, and another through your traditions. If the traditions where really to be the Word of God, they would be the same as the scriptures. Unfortunately, you make God look like a confused person who forgets what he said yesterday, and changes his opinion each time a new Pope comes out with a canon. That is just ridiculous. You are worshiping a confused god, very different from the God I worship.

SisterMe:


That is where the problem is my dear. God can not be confused, saying one thing in the scripture, and another through your traditions. If the traditions where really to be the Word of God, they would be the same as the scriptures. Unfortunately, you make God look like a confused person who forgets what he said yesterday, and changes his opinion each time a new Pope comes out with a canon. That is just ridiculous. You are worshiping a confused god, very different from the God I worship.

I guess you think you're much more brilliant than an Institution that is 2000 years old right?

I just have a few questions pertaining to this If you'll answer them:

1. When Paul asked the Thessalonians to hold fast to Tradition they had given to them would you say he was confused too or what? You can check 2Thessalonians 2vs15

2. Seems you don't read to understand. I didn't say that Tradition alone equals the word of God, neither did I say that Traditions and Scriptures necessarily have to be the same. I said you need both Scriptures and Tradition to have the complete Word of God.

In the light of this, can you point out to me where it says in the Bible that Scriptures alone is what is needed for our salvation? Putting into the consideration that the Bible itself says that not everything that Jesus did and taught his disciples was written down and If they were all written all the books in the world would not contain them.

3.What for you is the pillar and foundation of Truth, the Church or the Scriptures?

[quote author=ElsonMorali post=50467481]

I guess you think you're much more brilliant than an Institution that is 2000 years old right?

Dear, I understand you perfectly. The Bible says we should not be respecters of persons, so I will not defer my judgement to a "2000 year old institution", after all it is written in the Bible that the elderly are not always wise .

You have to face up to the reality of it. Bible church traditions do not contradict the Bible, in fact , the proceed from the Bible. But in your case, your traditions (supposedly the Word of God -from the mouth of one Pope or the other) says one thing, and the Bible which you agree is the Word of God too, says another. Which kind of confusionist god is that? speaking from the two sides of his mouth? I maintain that that confused god you worship, is not the God of the Bible that I worship.

ElsonMorali:


I guess you think you're much more brilliant than an Institution that is 2000 years old right?

I just have a few questions pertaining to this If you'll answer them:

1. When Paul asked the Thessalonians to hold fast to Tradition they had given to them would you say he was confused too or what? You can check 2Thessalonians 2vs15

The traditions that they had received were written down in the epistles they read. Not new epistles from " untested" apostles.

2. Seems you don't read to understand. I didn't say that Tradition alone equals the word of God, neither did I say that Traditions and Scriptures necessarily have to be the same. I said you need both Scriptures and Tradition to have the complete Word of God.

A "god" who does not have sufficient power to cause his disciples to gender traditions that do not contradict the traditions that he had already caused to be written down and bound into a book is confused and is not worthy to be worshiped. Your "god" is different from the God of the New testament that said things which were written down that fulfilled statements the same God said hundreds of years earlier through his prophets. Except you are dishonest, as I warned you before, you have to admit this.

In the light of this, can you point out to me where it says in the Bible that Scriptures alone is what is needed for our salvation? Putting into the consideration that the Bible itself says that not everything that Jesus did and taught his disciples was written down and If they were all written all the books in the world would not contain them.

All that we needed to know was written down. It has to be written, if you ever want to be able to defeat the devil in any battle, you MUST be able to refer Satan to where it is written just as the Lord Jesus Christ did when He had a battle with Satan in the wilderness. He answered every temptation with "It is written"...

3.What for you is the pillar and foundation of Truth, the Church or the Scriptures?

The church is the pillar and ground of Truth to a dying world. 1 Timothy 3:15 " But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

The written Word is the Pillar and the Truth to the Church

There is a big difference between the two.

[quote author=SisterMe post=50467714][/quote]

OK, I get it. You aren't interested in having a discussion, you just want an opportunity to throw mud against the wall and see what sticks.

I have asked three questions none of which you attempted to answer.

You only want to be able to tell me that I worship a false God right?

Well I'm sorry I won't engage in that online so I'll have cut this here.

Before I leave you though here are some statements of fact for your consideration If you can put aside your animosity and hatred for the Bride of Christ long enough to ponder them:

1. There was no Bible as we know it today 300years after Pentecost. Where all the early Christians condemned to hell because they didn't have the Bible to read? Who was for them the authority on truth? Their individual consciences or the Church?

2. Whatever "Church" you are attending now, can you trace it back in an unbroken lineage down to the apostles and early Christians? If not where and when did your Church spring up?

3. Do you know the history of the bible you carry around? Who compiled the books of the bible and when?

4. What proof do you have that the bible is the inspired word of God? And please dont go quoting some bible passage that tells us that the bible is inspired because

a. The books of the bible were written in different eras, sometimes even centuries apart.
b. That a book claims it is inspired doesnt make it inspired. The qoran claims inspiration from God, so does the book of Mormon.

And while you're fishing for the reason why you believe that the Bible is inspired dont tell us dome vague stuff like i was convicted by the Holy Spirit. That wont work either.

Neither would the claim that the prophesies of the Bible have to come to pass because not all the books in the Bible contain prophecies. (Oh btw, i believe the bible is inspired, but my reason is sure different from any you'll ever come up with.)

5. All you Protestants labour under the false assumption that Jesus wanted each of us to read the Bible and interpret ourselves, yet Jesus never mentioned the Bible anywhere in the Bible. (Lol).

6. If Jesus meant for us to interpret the Bible individually without the guidance of the Church, why then is "Christendom" so divided on the interpretation of the Bible? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is a spirit of confusion?

7. The Bible clearly states that the Churcb is the pillar and foundation of truth and not the Bible. I guess you havent read the bible up to that point.

I was looking forward to a robust discussion with you, but you dont seem ready to engage me. You just wanna throw mud. So i dont expect to get a reply for the above. I just put them out there for any genuine truth seeker to ponder about and dig more.

Theres no doctrine of the Church that doesnt have a biblical basis. But you'll rather read the bible on your own and accept the interpretation of your pastor who probably attended 2weeks theology course and then founded his church, than accept the interpretation of a Church which has existed since the time of the apostles, has an unbroken succession of Popes right from Peter down toby he current one, (google is your friend) and whom Christ promised he will never leave until the end of the ages.

You can decide to tell me once again that the God I'm worshipping is a false God. I'll bet you didn't know that the father of Protestantism , Martin Luther once said that Jesus Christ comminted adultery 3 times. Do your research dear and don't believe everything your pastor by tells you about the Church.

ElsonMorali

I am sorry if I have cut the picture of hatred and animosity, that was not my intention. It was a knee-jerk reaction, and I am sorry. I will respond to your question (actually have been answering them?) shortly.

But I do want you to know that God can not speak one thing here and a contradicting thing there. Where you find such, one of the statements was not inspired by Him.

ElsonMorali:


OK, I get it. You aren't interested in having a discussion, you just want an opportunity to throw mud against the wall and see what sticks.

I have asked three questions none of which you attempted to answer.

You only want to be able to tell me that I worship a false God right?

Well I'm sorry I won't engage in that online so I'll have cut this here.

Before I leave you though here are some statements of fact for your consideration If you can put aside your animosity and hatred for the Bride of Christ long enough to ponder them:

1. There was no Bible as we know it today 300years after Pentecost. Where all the early Christians condemned to hell because they didn't have the Bible to read? Who was for them the authority on truth? Their individual consciences or the Church?

2. Whatever "Church" you are attending now, can you trace it back in an unbroken lineage down to the apostles and early Christians? If not where and when did your Church spring up?

3. Do you know the history of the bible you carry around? Who compiled the books of the bible and when?

4. What proof do you have that the bible is the inspired word of God? And please dont go quoting some bible passage that tells us that the bible is inspired because

a. The books of the bible were written in different eras, sometimes even centuries apart.
b. That a book claims it is inspired doesnt make it inspired. The qoran claims inspiration from God, so does the book of Mormon.

And while you're fishing for the reason why you believe that the Bible is inspired dont tell us dome vague stuff like i was convicted by the Holy Spirit. That wont work either.

Neither would the claim that the prophesies of the Bible have to come to pass because not all the books in the Bible contain prophecies. (Oh btw, i believe the bible is inspired, but my reason is sure different from any you'll ever come up with.)

5. All you Protestants labour under the false assumption that Jesus wanted each of us to read the Bible and interpret ourselves, yet Jesus never mentioned the Bible anywhere in the Bible. (Lol).

6. If Jesus meant for us to interpret the Bible individually without the guidance of the Church, why then is "Christendom" so divided on the interpretation of the Bible? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit is a spirit of confusion?

7. The Bible clearly states that the Churcb is the pillar and foundation of truth and not the Bible. I guess you havent read the bible up to that point.

I was looking forward to a robust discussion with you, but you dont seem ready to engage me. You just wanna throw mud. So i dont expect to get a reply for the above. I just put them out there for any genuine truth seeker to ponder about and dig more.

Theres no doctrine of the Church that doesnt have a biblical basis. But you'll rather read the bible on your own and accept the interpretation of your pastor who probably attended 2weeks theology course and then founded his church, than accept the interpretation of a Church which has existed since the time of the apostles, has an unbroken succession of Popes right from Peter down toby he current one, (google is your friend) and whom Christ promised he will never leave until the end of the ages.

You can decide to tell me once again that the God I'm worshipping is a false God. I'll bet you didn't know that the father of Protestantism , Martin Luther once said that Jesus Christ comminted adultery 3 times. Do your research dear and don't believe everything your pastor by tells you about the Church.

It appears you did not read my answers to your first three questions. If you did, it would seem you did not comprehend my answers? Nevertheless, I will take the time later to answer your latest questions one by one.

[/quote]
[ The traditions that they had received were written down in the epistles they read. Not new epistles from " untested" apostles. ][/quote]

Here is How 2 Thessalonian 2:15 puts it verbatim, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether WORD or by our EPISTLE". NOW compare that with your statement that tradition only means written. What you don't seem to realise is that at that the time Paul was writing his letters, most of the New Testament books were not even written then.

[/quote] A "god" who does not have sufficient power to cause his disciples to gender traditions that do not contradict the traditions that he had already caused to be written down and bound into a book is confused and is not worthy to be worshiped. Your "god" is different from the God of the New testament that said things which were written down that fulfilled statements the same God said hundreds of years earlier through his prophets. Except you are dishonest, as I warned you before, you have to admit this. [/quote]

I think from my above statement it is clear that tradition didn't mean written Scripture. You may find it hard to believe but the "God of the New testament" which you worship probably didn't exist until 300years after the Pentecost. The NEW testament and therefore the entire Bible didn't exist as we know it until 300years later when the Pope and Bishops and priest all gathered to select the books that would be in the Canon of the Bible and regarded as inspired.

As a matter of fact, John the Apostle didn't write his last book, The Apocalypse until much later. Remember, he wasn't matyred. He lived to an old age. In fact, he was present when the Church chose the second Pope, Linus, after the death of Peter who died on a cross too upside down.

So that "God of the New testament" that you're talking about, pure hogwash.


[/quote] All that we needed to know was written down. It has to be written, if you ever want to be able to defeat the devil in any battle, you MUST be able to refer Satan to where it is written just as the Lord Jesus Christ did when He had a battle with Satan in the wilderness. He answered every temptation with "It is written"...]
[/quote]

Lol. This part had me rolling on the ground. First off, nope. All we needed to know wasn't written down as I have proved from 2Thesalonians where it said Tradition = Word of mouth and Epistle/letters. Besides early Christians of those days were ordinary folks who probably couldn't read nor write and not university graduates. As a matter of fact only Paul was "learned" among the apostles.

Second. You think cramming the Bible and quoting it makes any difference to defeating the devil in battle? I guess you conveniently forgot that several times in the Bible, Satan himself quoted the Scriptures perfectly. So you think the devil does not know the Scriptures more than you do? You are forgetting that his mind is angelic, way superior to that of man. What Scriptures do you want to quote for him that he doesn't know? You think it was by quoting the Scriptures that Jesus overcame the devil? Nope. Jesus is God. There was no way the devil could have won that battle. So forget it.
Can you point to the place in the Bible that supports your argument that ONLY Scriptures is needed for our salvation? Even the Bible does not make such claims.

[/quote]The church is the pillar and ground of Truth to a dying [/quote]world. 1 Timothy 3:15 " But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

The written Word is the Pillar and the Truth to the Church

There is a big difference between the two.[/quote]

I hope you can see the way you are twisting the content of the Bible just to fit your own idea of what you think it should be. The Bible is plain and clear. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. You've decided to add an addendum all by yourself. Obviously what Timothy wrote isn't good enough right?

You decided to add "the written word is the pillar of truth" which isn't present in the Bible. You're manufacturing your own detail and putting it inside the Bible. I'm not surprised though. I'm wondering How many other stuffs you've made up in your mind to avoid coming to terms with the reality of the Bible.

You said up there that there's a big difference between the two. I agree. One was written by Timothy the other one was manufactured by Sisterme or her pastor.

Its no brainer which one i would chose dear.

Sorry. obviously I don't know How to do multiple quotes, I hope you can decipher my response from yours.

ElsonMorali, I will attend to the below before I go back to the others:

Here is How 2 Thessalonian 2:15 puts it verbatim, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether WORD or by our EPISTLE". NOW compare that with your statement that tradition only means written. undecided What you don't seem to realise is that at that the time Paul was writing his letters, most of the New Testament books were not even written then. undecided

What the church was enjoined to stand fast in, was all that they had learned in word and epistle from "tested " and known apostles up until that time, NOT all the thousands of additions that the succession of Popes whose claim to legitimacy is a false interpretation of scripture, have written. The Bride of Christ is under no obligation to listen to the conflicting and contradictory (which does not seem to bother you) statements of the popes.

While we are at it, the popes are NOT successors of Apostle Peter. They were successors of the Bishop of the first church of Rome which slid into apostasy after Emperor Claudius drove out the jews who were the matured early leaders of the church for several years. When they came back, the Bishop of Rome refused to listen to correction and the First church Rome was left alone. It became politically powerful and began to persecute and kill other believers for hundreds of years. Surely you cant deny that Roman Catholicism and the Popes have the blood of millions of believers on their hands? Can you deny that? Did Christ ask the church to kill people?