 |
So Paul is laying the foundation, as were all of the Apostles and that foundation is the same as the declaration of Peter, which is Jesus Christ and the one true Gospel. Or as Paul said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
1 Cor 2:1-3
2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
NKJV
Scripture is clear - there is no other foundation than Christ.
I see no contradiction. If you see a contradiction please clarify.
This along with 1 Cor 3:11 doesn’t bode well for the Luther and the Protestant movement. The reason should be obvious. Prior to 1500 A.D. there was but ONE foundation on which ONE building was laid for ONE Church in Christ. Since it was promised by God that this Church would prevail against the gates of Hell, its teaching authority bears the imprimatur of God Himself. Being that the teaching Authority lies with the Church then we are left with the question as to who is teaching unsound doctrine, who isn’t holding ‘fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me’?Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
JoeT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
As Paul wrote in Galations he said: God knows I do not lie.. Paul's has exampled his steps through his converted belief into Christian fellowship. Not of his ownself, but by the grace of God. Paul felt he was least among others..Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Example Paul's Calling
Called from the womb (Isaiah 49:1) predestined (Isaiah 49:5) to be a servant to God, a phophet of The Word (Jeremiah 1:5)
Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
Noted the separation before birth ;2 calling, Acts 9; 3 setting apart for ministry, Acts 13:2-3 in fulfilling:
Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Bear Christ Name.. Why? I believe it is all about the fulfillment of God, Our Father as the Master of all creation.
Each are called by God grace.. God love is His grace... which is what Peter was asked 3 times.. Do you love Me? YES Lord!
~Rest on Christ
In earlier discussions somebody mentioned that there was no scriptural reference to the Church being the Bride of Christ. Notice that we aren't talking Churches (plural), that would make Christ a polygamist. Paul clearly points to the Church being the sole spouse of Christ.
Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Eph 5:22,23
Paul is emphatic pronouncing the Church as the “Bride of Christ.” Further, don't miss that the Church is likened to the “Body of Christ” Thus the Catholic Church holds that Christ will never abandon his Bride or allow others to abuse His Body.
Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Eph 5:24.
That is s the wife is obedient to the husband so too MUST the Church be obedient to Christ.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: Eph 5:25, 26
And the Bride keeps her faith with baptism in the word of God, properly teaching to the world.
JoeT
I’ve always found family names to be interesting; such as Simon Bar-Jonah. I’ve suggested in the past that we, in some way, become defined by our name. Christ renamed Simon Bar-Jonah Peter in Greek Petra /petros or rock to signify the source and the strength of his faith.
SIMON
Gender: Masculine
Usage: English, French, Scandinavian, German, Hungarian, Slovene, Biblical
Pronounced: SIE-mən (English), see-MAWN (French), ZEE-mawn (German) [key]
From the Greek form of the Hebrew name שִׁמְעוֹן (Shim'on) which meant "he has heard". This was the name of several biblical characters, including the man who carried the cross for Jesus. However, the most important person of this name in the New Testament was the apostle Simon, also known as Peter (a name given to him by Jesus). Because of him, this name has been common in the Christian world. In England it was popular during the Middle Ages, though it became rarer after the Protestant Reformation. Behind the Name: Meaning, Origin and History of the Name Simon
BAR-JONAH
Simon Peter's surname. Peter was the son of Jonah. Jesus hailed him by his family name at the time he bestowed on him his new name. "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). (Etym. Greek bar ionas, from Aramaic bar yonah, son of Jonah; Hebrew yonah, dove.) Catholic Culture : Dictionary : BAR-JONAH
Seeing that Simon has the Hebrew meaning, “he has heard” with the surname meaning “dove”, which in most cultures nuances of peace, Matthew 16:17 takes a special significance. Christ calls the son of peace who has heard the son of the living God a rock. Peter is made the living foundation (or cornerstone if you prefer that metaphor) of the Church. Even the location can’t be discounted; Caesarea Philippi is a region that has a large rock outcrop that forms a cliff. Christ’s intent is clear and his words have faithfully survived in His Bride for 2,000 years.
JoeT
Right. If you read the context it is NOT referring to your denomination or any other, but the body of all believers;Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
1 Cor 12:27
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV
"The church" is not a manmade church organization but rather a body of those who have been saved, over whom is the one and only head of the church, Jesus.
There are a few denominations (fortunately not many) who make the claim to be the Only True Church. That has always struck me as extremely arrogant and presumptuous.
Paul was speaking of the Church when he said, “ Now you are the body of Christ and members of member. And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.” 1 Cor 12:27. So not to be confused we see the Church, with hierarchy, apostles, prophets, doctors. A church represented as a body, a body that is “one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ. 13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. 14 For the body also is not one member, but many.” (1 Cor 12:12)
Consequently we see that “church” is the body of Christ and it is made of many members, but first among these are the Apostles, prophets, and doctors. From my previous post we see that this the Church is also the Bride of Christ.
How then if we are good solo-scripturists can we not see the Catholic Church? Of course when our faith fails objectivity we turn inwardly to subject God’s truth to the will.
JoeT
Actually, we know that an organized manmade denomination and/or church is made up of the saved and unsaved. Your interpretation above would suggest that because someone has a membership card issued by a denomination that God must give them a gift and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But that is not in agreement with scripture:Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
John 14:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV
So the unsaved cannot receive the Holy Spirit, therefore the unsaved, whether they carry a signed membership card in your denomination (or any denomination) do not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, are not given the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are not members of the body of Christ.
Indeed, what does scripture say - that those who are accepted by a denomination are members of the body? Or those who God decided?
1 Cor 12:17-19
18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased.
NKJV
Yes, God set the members, not the membership roll of a church or denomination.
Joe,
Thanks much for your clarification and your idea about founder and foundation.
I think of it this way as divine and human.
Jesus the divine founder and foundation Peter the human foundation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
The problem with that, Fred, is that God says that there can only be ONE foundation:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
1 Cor 3:11-12
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV
BTW, Jesus IS both God and man, divine and human.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
JoeT
Tj3,
Please offer whatever evidence you have that Peter was the leader of the Apostles that way you can stay on topic.
Fred
There is no evidence, because Jesus was the leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Heb 3:1-3
3:1 Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, 2 who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.
NKJV
Thing is, the Catholic Church isn't a demonination in the way you use the term "denomination", i.e. to refer to a "man-made" institution or organization. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and the Apostles in the first century. So, not man-made and so not a "denomination".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It is a denomination, and did not exist while Christ walked the earth in the flesh. Jesus did not found a denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
You've said that a denomination is something man-made. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and the Apostles in the first century. Therefore it isn't man-made, therefore it isn't a denomination as you use that term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Akoue,
I agree.
Tj3 will not.
So let' get back to EVIDENCE that Peter was the earthly leader of The Apostles.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
It did not exist in the first century, and no Jesus and the Apostles did not found a denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Tj3,
Yes it did exist in the first century as evidence that had been CLEARLY been offered here on this board shows.
And Jesus Jesus did not found a denomination, He founded His Church.
Mankind founded the denominations hundreds of years later starting with Luther.
That is what real true history confirms.
And collecting that evidence is what this thread is all about.
Fred
Right, Jesus and the Apostles didn't found a denomination. They founded the Catholic Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
A thread was recently opened in order to provide you ample opportunity to substantiate your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine. It can be found here:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ch-325955.html
Now the only "evidence" you adduced in support of this claim--a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox--was a snippet from Newman which it was clearly demonstrated you had misunderstood. Since you fared badly in your attempt to justify your rather idiosyncratic historical claim there, it is odd that you would go so far out of your way to press another version of it on this thread, a thread which the OP has been at pains to point out is not addressed to your theory about the origins of denominations as you understand them.
Moreover, you appear to be in the grip of a false dichotomy, one which supposes that either Christ is the leader of the Church or Peter is the leader of the Church. But, of course, as the OP itself makes quite evident, Christ and Peter are leaders in different senses of the word. (It hasn't helped matters that you have oscillated between the words "leader" and "foundation", each of which needs to be handled with some care.) In any event, the sense in which Peter may be said to have been the leader of the Apostles is no threat at all to the claim that Christ was and remains the leader of the Church.
As has been pointed out many times, Catholics and Orthodox Christians adhere to the entirety of Divine revelation, not just that portion of it that was selected at the Council of Nicaea for inclusion in the canon of the NT (a Council, interestingly, which convened the very year that you claim saw the founding of the Catholic Church). It is for this reason that the OP asks for both Scriptural and historical evidence, and he has received both. You are, of course, at liberty to disregard extra-Biblical historical sources, so long as you bear in mind that many of us take the view that by doing so you are choosing to disregard important parts of God's revelation. As I say, you are free to choose to do so, but kindly stop insisting that the rest of us adopt your presuppositions as our own. This thread is not predicated on the assumption of sola scriptura. If you find that fact distasteful, well, that too is your right. Just kindly permit others to engage in conversation about matters that are of interest to them without constantly demanding that they knuckle under to your own theological proclivities. I don't begrudge you those proclivities, but I do begrudge your sustained attempt to force them upon me, all the more so as I have repeatedly and patiently explained to you why I believe them to be in error.
That is a claim, but not one supported by either history or, more importantly, scripture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
The thread quickly degenerated and was closed.Quote:
A thread was recently opened in order to provide you ample opportunity to substantiate your assertion that the Catholic Church was founded in the fourth century by Constantine.
If you feel that this is outside of historical scholarship, with all due respect, you should spend more time checking out what historical scholars are saying. This is one of your most common defense - just state it and therefore it must be accepted as true.Quote:
Now the only "evidence" you adduced in support of this claim--a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox--was a snippet from Newman which it was clearly demonstrated you had misunderstood.
Second, another one of your common approaches is to simply tell the person that they are wrong. Again, not compelling. It is you who claims that your denomination was founded by Jesus - we should find evidence of that clearly in scripture, but we find nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
The Truth as it is written:
Eph 2:19-22Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
1 Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received [it] not [as] the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
(This account written in scripture of man includes Peter)
Peter represents his love for God..
Question?
Luke 24:26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
The Gospel.. Christ ... His Glory... The Church that is the House of God which is the habitation of God through the Spirit.
Note the Keys:
Luke 24:7 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Note Peter said: To "Him" give all the prophets witness, that through "His Name" whosoever believeth in "Him" shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43)
Luke 7:28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
Paul was know as least of the prophets
Those that are sanctify in Truth, in The Word, are not of this world.
John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
~In Christ.. His Way
Here are just a few of the most widely respected historians who don't endorse your claim:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Arnaldo Momigliano, Peter Brown, W.H.C. Friend, Manlio Simonetti, Jaroslav Pelikan, Henry Chadwick, R.M. Grant, Hans von Campenhausen, T.D. Barnes, Heinrich Dorries.
If you look them up, you'll find that these are indeed eminent historians. You can even read their work for yourself.
You've been asked dozens of times to provide the names of historians whom you have found to advance the claim that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The only people I know of who make this claim are fundamentalist revisionists, none of whom are well-respected scholars or academics, but writers of popular pulp. You claim to be in the know here, and that I am not, so please, simply provide a few names of eminent historians who share your view.
Ho hum - do you want to play a numbers game? You claimed that belief in the historical and Biblical position is "...a claim that is well outside the mainstream of historical scholarship on early Christianity, be it secular, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox".Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
This is the problem. It is the same problem that occurs in every discussion that we have. Any scholar or source which disagrees with you, you automatically place demeaning labels on this, sight unseen. You even reject what one of your own cardinals stated. If I listed hundreds of the finest scholars, you would simply label them accordingly. So why should I waste my time further if there is no serious intent to consider the facts?Quote:
You've been asked dozens of times to provide the names of historians whom you have found to advance the claim that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century. The only people I know of who make this claim are fundamentalist revisionists,
But I note that once again you distract from YOUR claim that YOUR denomination was founded by Jesus and the Apostles. If true, that should be found explicitly stated in scripture. The onus is not on me to prove what you claim is not true - the onus is on you to prove that it is.
That's funny I don't ever remember Tj3 supporting any of his wild historical or Scriptural claims.
JT
Memory issues? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
No, I very clearly explained how you had misunderstood what Newman was saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
As it stands, you have provided the name of not one single reputable historian to back up your claim. If you are going to insist on making assertions that you know many find demeaning to their faith, you really ought at the very least to be prepared to substantiate those claims. Given the topic of this thread, there was no earthly reason for you to once again trot out your unsubstantiated revisionist historical claim about the origins of the Catholic Church. You did so, as you so often have, in order to advance your agenda of presenting the Catholic Church as a man-made institution that is at odds with Scripture. You are, in other words, being polemical--and, I'm sure, self-consciously so. I am well within in my rights to ask you to substantiate your polemicisms. So far, you have offered nothing but a misreading of a few lines of Newman.
Notice that I'm not even asking you to present the case for your claim. I no longer believe that you are able to do so. So just provide the names of those historians who share your view. I'll be happy to evaluate them on my own time.
That's because Tom thinks that quotation is the same thing as substantiation. How else are we to explain his trotting out a quote from Newman--which he obviously misunderstood--to "substantiate" his claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
No, you claimed that it meant the opposite of what he said. Even most Catholics that I have spoken with understood immediately what he was saying. But you are one of the rare persons who thinks that he said the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Akoue, when I see you take anything seriously which disagree with you, maybe I'll put more effort into it. But I honestly don't care about even trying because you clearly will not consider anything other than that which agrees with you.
Now, as I said the onus is actually on you, and putting up a smokescreen does not change that reality. You have yet to show that your denomination was founded by Jesus. That is what started this, and you still have failed to validate the claim.
[QUOTE=Tj3;1603441]No, you claimed that it meant the opposite of what he said. Even most Catholics that I have spoken with understood immediately what he was saying.
[QUOTE]
And I'm supposed to what, take your word for it? You never hesitate to accuse others of mendacity (in fact, you recently suggested that Wondergirl was lying about her profession, of all things). It's been my experience that people who readily suspect mandacity in others do so because they are themselves frequent perpetrators of it.
Funny, I've had lots of really pleasant exchanges right here at AMHD with people with whom I disagree. But I notice that, once again, you're talking about me instead of posting those names.Quote:
Akoue, when I see you take anyting seriously which disagree with you, maybe I'll put more effort into it. But I honestly don't care about even trying because you clearly will not consider anything other than wthat which agrees with you.
Now, as I said the onus is actually on you, and putting up a smokescreen does not change that reality. You have yet to show that your denomination was founded by Jesus. That is what started this, and you still have failed to validate the claim.
As for the "onus": This thread is about Peter. Fred has repeatedly asked you to stay on topic and you have refused, reverting once again to specious historical claims, claims which you have been asked many times, by many posters (so it's not just me) to substantiate. When a little pressure is put on you you begin the passive-aggressive silliness. It's pretty transparent, and it gives many of us a good laugh. And yet for all that, you still haven't managed to come through with any historical evidence for your claim. Shoot, you haven't even come through with a few names of reputable historians who share your view. That doesn't leave your claim on a very firm footing.
Ah, so now we plan to take this personal, I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Akoue, because of the fact that you have never seriously discussed anything that I have posted that disagrees with you, I really do not care what your judgment is of anything. If you would take the time to consider the relative merits of the facts, then your opinion would carry weight.
Still more hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Good night, Tom.
It is truth, Akoue, truth. I think that it would be great if it were possible to have a serious discussion with you, but I doubt that it will ever happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Tom, it takes two to discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Ah, coming on here to snipe now!Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
Nope, pointing out the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Why don't you discuss the topic or are you only on here to snipe at me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Altenweg
This might actually carry a little bit of weight if I hadn't already seen you say the same thing hundreds of times to dozens of people. It is a veritable Tomism. That's quite the persecution complex you're working on, Tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 PM. |