 |
LOL... ok.. well then tell me what book in those 66 books that we spoke of... can I find anything that speaks of POPES, NUNS, the ROSARY... just to name a few. Just let me know the BOOK... don't have to pin it down to the verse.. just give me the book.. Cause from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation... I will BE DARN if I can find these tidbits...
Pope (Greek – Papas a variant of pappas or father):Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Christ named St. Peter the head of His Church refer to Matt 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17
“The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.”
Nun: (the Latin for the feminine form of monk, nonna)
“The institution of nuns and sisters, who devote themselves in various religious orders to the practice of a life of perfection, dates from the first ages of the Church, and women may claim with a certain pride that they were the first to embrace the religious state for its own sake, without regard to missionary work and ecclesiastical functions proper to men. St. Paul speaks of widows, who were called to certain kinds of church work (1 Timothy 5:9), and of virgins (1 Cor. vii), whom he praises for their continence and their devotion to the things of the Lord. The virgins were remarkable for their perfect and perpetual chastity which the Catholic Apologists have extolled as a contrast to pagan corruption (St. Justin, "Apol.", I, c. 15; Migne, "P.G.", VI, 350; St. Ambrose, "De Virginibus", Bk. I, C. 4; Migne, "P.L.", XVI, 193). Many also practiced poverty. From the earliest times they were called the spouses of Christ, according to St. Athanasius, the custom of the Church ("Apol. ad Constant.", sec. 33; Migne, "P.G.", XXV, 639). St. Cyprian describes a virgin who had broken her vows as an adulteress ("Ep. 62", Migne, "P.L.", IV, 370). Tertullian distinguishes between those virgins who took the veil publicly in the assembly of the faithful, and others known to God alone; the veil seems to have been simply that of married women. Virgins vowed to the service of God, at first continued to live with their families, but as early as the end of the third century there were community houses known as partheuones; and certainly at the beginning of the same century the virgins formed a special class in the Church, receiving Holy Communion before the laity. The office of Good Friday in which the virgins are mentioned after the porters, and the Litany of the Saints, in which they are invoked with the widows, shows traces of this classification. They were sometimes admitted among the deaconesses for the baptism of adult women and to exercise the functions which St. Paul had reserved for widows of sixty years.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nuns
Monk: Origin: bef. 900; ME; OE munuc < LL monachus < Gk monachós hermit, n. use of adj.: solitary, equiv. to món(os) alone + -achos adj. suffix ]
Friar [From Lat. Frater, through O. Fr. Fredre, frere, M. E. frere; It. Frate (as prefix fra); Sp. Fraile (asprefix fray); Port. Fret; unlike the other Romance languages French has but the one word frère for friar and brother].
Friar: “A friar is a member of one of the mendicant orders…Mendicant Friars are members of those religious orders which, originally, by vow of poverty renounced all proprietorship not only individually but also (and in this differing from the monks) in common, relying for support on their own work and on the charity of the faithful. Hence the name of begging friars.”
"The Rosary", says the Roman Breviary, "is a certain form of prayer wherein we say fifteen decades or tens of Hail Marys with an Our Father between each ten, while at each of these fifteen decades we recall successively in pious meditation one of the mysteries of our Redemption."
The Hail Mary is rooted in scripture as is the Our Father.
‘It is commonly described as consisting of three parts. The first, "Hail (Mary) full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women", embodies the words used by the Angel Gabriel in saluting the Blessed Virgin (Luke, I, 28). The second, "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus)", is borrowed from the Divinely inspired greeting of St. Elizabeth (Luke 1:42), which attaches itself the more naturally to the first part, because the words "benedicta tu in mulieribus" (I, 28) or "inter mulieres" (I, 42) are common to both salutations. Finally, the petition "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen." is stated by the official "Catechism of the Council of Trent" to have been framed by the Church itself. "Most rightly", says the Catechism, "has the Holy Church of God added to this thanksgiving, petition also and the invocation of the most holy Mother of God, thereby implying that we should piously and suppliantly have recourse to her in order that by her intercession she may reconcile God with us sinners and obtain for us the blessing we need both for this present life and for the life which has no end."’
JoeT
Lets see.. hmmm? You could give me the root word.. a few verses about Mary being Jesus' mother and a virgin before he was born ( I know that) a few things about Paul talking about Widows and virgins and somehow that turns into nuns... most all of this is just what you wanted it to be.. you added to it. But OK... I getcha now.. I can see at least how some of this came to be. It was helpful... sincerely.
There have always been religious orders, what you call nuns and monks. Numbers chapter 6 John the Baptist, Sampson, and Samuel were Nazirites who had taken a special vow before God.
Virgin Mary:Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Luke: 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
Mary is the Mother of God, attested to by the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. She is perpetually virgin, immaculately conceived, and assumed into heaven. The Nazarene woman, Mary, was born without ever knowing original sin being “FULL OF GRACE.” Her conception and birth was kept free from the stain of original sin and remained pure throughout her life.
Mary’s Immaculate Conception:
The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854
You might recall the Tabernacle is the tent-like sanctuary of the Hebrews before the erection of Solomon's Temple, made permanent by King Solomon. The Tabernacle called, beth Yahweh, house of Yahweh included an outer court surrounded by a wall; an inner court; Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies contained the veil that separated the Ark from the inner court. It contained the incense altar, the table of the Bread of Presence (12 loaves), the menorah, It was. This sanctuary housed the Ark of the Covenant, see Ex. 25-31 and Ex. 36 – 40 for additional information on the Tabernacle.
Mary was Ever Virgin:
You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius 383 c.
No Siblings of Christ:
In Matthew 13:55 we see the clansmen of Christ, called brothers and sisters as was the custom, who were children of Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Ever Virgin Mary: refer to Matt 27:56, and John 19:25. With proper Hermeneutics we see in the Old Testament the word “brother” to express a broad kinship or clanship as well as the word indicating siblings. Following are selected thought from St. Jerome who argued vehemently that to hold that Christ had siblings was an error:
17. I say spiritual because all of us Christians are called brethren, as in the verse, Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. … Shall we say they are brethren by race? … Again, if all men, as such, were His brethren, it would have been foolish to deliver a special message, Behold, your brethren seek you, for all men alike were entitled to the name … Just as Lot was called Abraham's brother, and Jacob Laban's, just as the daughters of Zelophehad received a lot among their brethren, just as Abraham himself had to wife Sarah his sister, for he says, Genesis 20:11 She is indeed my sister, on the father's side, not on the mother's, that is to say, she was the daughter of his brother, not of his sister. St. Jerome, Against Helvidius.
If we were to argue for the literal interpretation of brother so as to insist on Jesus having siblings in this instance, then wouldn’t that redefine John 19:26-27? Jesus says to John, “Behold thy Mother.” Being redefined in our errant insistence on a literal interpretation would add John to James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude as siblings of Christ; which of course is nonsense.
Mary is Ever Virgin.
Roman Catholic beliefs:
"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful." Pope Pius IX ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854
And what did you get?Quote:
before he was born ( i know that) a few things about Paul talking about Widows and virgins and somehow that turns into nuns... most all of this is just what you wanted it to be.. you added to it. But OK... i getcha now.. i can see at least how some of this came to be. It was helpful... sincerely.
JoeT
God has no mother. Mary would have to be a god herself to be the mother of God. We have been through this before and scripture nowhere would back up this claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Quote:
She is perpetually virgin
Matt 13:55-56
55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us?
NKJV
Even Mary acknowledged that she was a sinner in need of a Saviour:Quote:
immaculately conceived
Luke 1:46-48
46 And Mary said:
"My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;
NKJV
I note that you did not even attempt to validate this claim.Quote:
and assumed into heaven.
Let's look at that verse:Quote:
The Nazarene woman, Mary, was born without ever knowing original sin being “FULL OF GRACE.”
Luke 1:28-29
28 And having come in, the angel said to her, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"
NKJV
The translation "highly favoured one" is a more accurate translation. Now, if we look in scripture, we see thye following passage where the same word in Greek is found:
Eph 1:6
6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He has made us accepted in the Beloved.
NKJV
The term "made us accepted" is the same word in Greek. Thus, according to you interpretation, this would make all of us sinless, thus this belief in Mary being sinless is a complete denial of the gospel. Are you saying that Romans 3:23 is a mistake?
Scripture directly refutes each one of these. So this actually support ClassyT's position.
We already know that you don't accept the virgin status of Mary as the Catholic church views it, and the idea that we view Jesus as God and Mary was his mother.
This has been hashed to death in another thread.
Lets get back on topic, Merely not agreeing on these two issues do not make or does not make Catholics Christian,
Anymore than if they require being bapisted by going under the water as some do.
These are merely differences in teachings, not the fact that all of them accept Christ as their savior who died for their sins.
Instead of looking at some of the more minor differences, we could pick Baptist to Pentecostal groups to death, who have a lot more differences than lets say Catholics and Anglican ( Anglican all have saints, and special services for saints) which is a protestant group last time I checked.
It is more a matter of how they worship and some of the non saving issues of belief.
JoeT,
I see what things you all used to get your belief system. I couldn't figure out how and why you believed what you did.. I couldn't find it in the Bible. I still can't... but I see how you make the S T R E T CH.
God is a trinity, and pre-existed Mary. Jesus created her. God was manifest in the flesh through Mary - God was not conceived in Mary. The flesh into which God was manifest was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Agreed.Quote:
Lets get back on topic, Merely not agreeing on these two issues do not make or does not make Catholics Christian,
Agreed.Quote:
anymore than if they require being bapisted by going under the water as some do.
I would agree that one can disagree on these points and still be saved, b ut I not agree that these are minor differences in teaching. I believe that some of these are quite serious doctrinal issues.Quote:
These are merely differences in teachings, not the fact that all of them accept Christ as their savior who died for their sins.
I am not a denominationalist in any case, and not a protestant. I have issues with some of the doctrines taught by other denominations where they go outside of or in contradiction to scripture also.Quote:
Instead of looking at some of the more minor differences, we could pick Baptist to Pentecostal groups to death, who have a lot more differences than lets say Catholics and Anglican ( Anglican all have saints, and special services for saints) which is a protestant group last time I checked.
I would disagree that Anglicans are protestant. They are essentially Catholic, though with a different person at the top - the ,monarch is in essence holding the same position as the pope.
Find it or not, it’s there.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
It’s not my station to stretch or condense the Catholic doctrine.Quote:
... but I see how you make the S T R E T CH.
JoeT
It does require faith to believe that it's there when no one can find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
JoeT777,
You can make anything in there if you want it bad enough... come on. It's just not in there my friend.
FR_Chuck,
So YOU believe that Mary stayed a Virgin? You believe that Jesus didn't have actual blood brothers? i.e. James and Jude?
Your comments, in my understanding, point to one of the primary differences between our respective faiths. In my estimation of Protestantism there is an element of rationalism mixed with relativism and naturalism. When applied it to Church doctrine we call it “liberal theology”. Protestantism synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions on the premises desired. Catholicism, on the other hand uses both Tradition and Scripture to reveal God's will; that is inasmuch as man is capable of knowing. It's a matter of what God's absolute Truth is, and what it is not is what I “read into the Bible”.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
As I understand it Protestantism holds that each individual can subjectively determine God's will (refer to the “five solas”). Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany in 1886 addressed problem in 1886 when he said, “Free-thought begets free morals, or immorality.” See Liberalism Is A Sin (link). Here you find that the term “Liberal” was understood to mean Protestant or other similar forms of rationalizing faith.
Based on my observation, Protestants hold that inductive reasoning founded on Christian faith, weighing actions on traditional Catholic morals, is discarded as being slow, regressive, and narrow-minded. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn are autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments are based on subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Catholicism brings. Ultimately Protestantism must come in conflict with the Church.
Protestantism must require toleration of different virtuous moral precepts. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany seems to support this concept when he states:
“Liberalism is the program of naturalism. Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic). Liberalism in the intellectual order is license in the moral order. Disorder in the intellect begets disorder in the heart, and vice-versa. Thus does Liberalism propagate immorality, and immorality Liberalism.”
Right and wrong become subjective; morality and integrity become matters of positive law as opposed to natural law. The liberal trait is exhibited as autonomous authority to have “freedom from” doctrine as well as “freedom to” implement proxy ethics independent of God's will, e.g. abortion, devoice etc. As such the standard of right and wrong become subjective and differ from individual to individual; thus we hear the refrain "it might be wrong for you but its right for me." This ideology becomes progressively independent of God's authority in its thinking as it no longer needs God for its authority; this is evidenced by the number of independent non-denominational Christian Churches and Protestant denominations – which is upwards of 30,000 – it was only one in 1520. Tracking the liberal trait of autonomous authority over morality it can be seen to become asymptotic to atheism – and in short order. While still holding a Christian like caricature, liberalism progresses to the point where God is no longer needed (or wanted); thereby God ceases to exist in the heart and mind.
Consequently, at least in my way of thinking, we see a trend where by Protestantism forces interpretation of Scripture to fit the will of man. The Lutheran view would reject any type of cooperation with the concept of “once saved always saved”, the certitude of justification. The Lutheran views man as depraved and as such saving graces must be forced on man. Thus, Luther rejects that there is free will. Similarly Calvin's views of a fiduciary faith which denies that man can be holy, a faith that merely covers sin. Catholics however believe in a justification through penance and good works actually removes sin. Whereas, Catholicism finds a synergism between God and man when sanctifying graces are conferred; the free human will and the will of God (the Holy Spirit) work together to bring about spiritual regeneration or salvation. [cf. Trent, Sixth Session, Cannon IV] In the Catholic world man subjects his will to God, as opposed to finding some scriptural support whereby the will of God is subjected to man's will. Therefore, I find God's objective Truth remains true whether I “find it in there”; whether I “want it bad enough.”
JoeT
By applying traditions of man and making that equal to scripture, you in fact are using relativism, because the traditions change over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
By sticking solely to God's word, we have an anchor that never changes.
I cannot speak for protestantism, but sola scriptura does not hold to that. Sola scriptura holds to the belief that scripture interprets itself, and thus holds to what scripture says that scripture is of no private interpretation, unlike Catholicism which holds that only the private interpretation of their leadership and their denomination is correct. It is my understanding that protestants also typically use sola scriptura.Quote:
As I understand it Protestantism holds that each individual can subjectively determine God’s will (refer to the “five solas”).
Basically what we are talking about is that at one time there was one church, and now there are many different denominations all claiming that theirs is the absolute truth and the other people are wrong.
But if they split off from us how can that be true? If the church was, say, good enough to carry the word of God from Jesus day down until the day that they decided they wanted to start their own schism, how can the narrowness be in us?
It also puzzles me how all of these denominations use the scripture that their leaders authority must be obeyed by all good Christians, if they don't they need to be disfellowshipped, sort of the same as their original founders were when they left the Church? If they had no respect for the fellowship and the congregation, and the holy spirit poured out on the leaders, how can they claim the same privilege.
Guys,
The Catholic church was not the first church! Read Paul's epistles... not the Catholic church AT ALL... you all evolved.
Churches splitting has been happening for centuries.. they had the same troubles in Paul's day.
I do not belong to a denomination for that very reason.
Well that is my thoughts anyway.
Paul had several congregations, which should be thought of as church buildings in different towns. They were not separate denominations. Acts tells us all the Christians were of one community and shared their property in common
Actually talking what the church believes, no where does it say that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters,Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Since the term brothers and sisters can and was used for all family including cousins at that time in history.
Also many feel it was also step brothers and sisters from Joseph.
The basic facts is that the bible does not tell us one way or the other for sure.
Yes consider the book of Ruth. Ruth's child she had with Boaz was considered Naomi's child. Ruth wasn't even born a Jew, she was a Moabitess.
Oh I wasn't clear.. I mean he had problems with people saying I follow paul or I follow peter, or whoever... I didn't mean they actually split.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
Eusebius wrote, “It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing.” Eusebius of Cæsarea Church History, I.1., (260-341). Why didn’t the good Bishop of Cæsarea write a History of the “Churches” (plural), or the elect, or the congregational, or the Baptist? Its clear Eusebius is discussing an emerging community of faith (called Catholic today), not a single congregation. Also, note that the Church taught “orally,” that’s to say, God is free to reveal himself outside the confines of the Bible; for that matter, outside the confines of Paul’s epistles.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
JoeT
There was never a single organizational church. There were no denominations until the 4th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
I would avoid ANY denomination that claims that their leaders must be obeyed by all Christians. Do we agree on that?Quote:
It also puzzles me how all of these denominations use the scripture that their leaders authority must be obeyed by all good Christians,
ANY church or denomination that excommunicates or disfellowships believers simply for disagreeing with their leadership are clearly wrong - do we agree?Quote:
if they don't they need to be disfellowshipped, sort of the same as their original founders were when they left the Church?
I am not sure, we see the churches following the instructions of th Apostles, We see Paul going to see Peter for permission to do certain things. If that is not a organised group I don't know what is. They appointed leaders, they had specific job duties, teachers ministers and more.
We even see them appointing a replacement for Judas into the position of leadership.
All Christians. It does not say all church goers. It does not say all churches. It does not say all were of one denomination. Scripture is clear that not all church or all church goers were Christians.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
References?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
I wonder is anyone is going to tell us that the 7 churches in Revelation were all one denomination.
I could quote a number of things from his record that would contradict what you believe of church history, but nonetheless lets not forget that Eusebius besides being an historian was the right hand man of Constantine.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
First, why would the term for brothers be used here when there is a word in Koine Greek meaning cousin, unless they were cousins. The word is used elsewhere in the new Testament, for example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Col 4:10-11
10 Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him),
NKJV
Let's also look at a Messianic prophecy in Psalms
Ps 69:8
8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother's children;
NKJV
The word here for children is "ben" which is used widely to designate the direct descedents. Indeed, in hebrew, a person is ofetn referred to as XXX ben YYY where XXX is their name and YYY is their father's name. Thus it means XXX, the child of YYY.
So we do have some direct references to Mary having other children. What we do not have is any reference which says that she was perpetually a virgin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Wow, I’m impressed. How did you know Eusebius was right handed?
Let me see you can appear to know the bible, so you have never read where Paul went to Peter and the Apostles about preaching to the gentiles?
Maybe that is just in mine?
As for Paul being sent to the Gentiles, I read this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Acts 13:1-3
13:1 Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." 3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
NKJV
Acts 13:46-52
46 Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, "It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us:
'I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.' "
48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region. 50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
NKJV
I see nowhere where Paul went to Peter for permission to preach to the Gentiles. God commanded him through prophets and teachers and Peter's name is not even mentioned amongst them.
You said specifically that Paul went "to see Peter for permission to do certain things".
Maybe it is just in your Bible. Give us the references and let's see.
See JoeT,Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
This is my whole problem.. There is no Eusebius in those 66 books we discussed earlier. And IF they are not IN those 66 books.. they ARE NOT THE WORD OF GOD! It isn't a hard concept. You cannot add to the Word... EVER! The word is the word. That is my problem with Catholicism. LOL and I don't care what the Church taught... if it ain't in the 66 books I ain't interested.
Well, I would disagree with you on the point you make that God is free to reveal himself outside of the confines of the Bible. He isn't the author of confusion either. And he isn't a man that he should lie. So when he says don't add to the Word.. it I BEST not to add to the Word.
You’re correct; there is no History of the Church by Eusebius in the Bible. But events did occur after the Ascension of Christ. Did all progress of mankind stop once the 73 books of the Bible were written? Was this the end of all recorded history once the Scriptures were written (the last of which was written around 90 AD.)? [Don't tell me, if God meant for man to fly we’d be born with wings.] The destruction of Jerusalem isn’t discussed. Did it never happen? Nor is Hannibal mentioned in the Bible; did he never invade Rome? Nor is Hitler mentioned in the Bible; did he not kill 4 to 6 million Jews and Christians?Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
Eusebius recorded historical events as they related to the Church. Those events show that the Kingdom of God on earth (the Catholic Church) had a functioning hierarchy with Peter at its head. In short it existed; it existed from the ascension to at least Eusebius’ time. Eusebius’ history records some events surrounding the original 12 Apostles, mentions many of the written documents of that early Catholic Church, including what we know as the Bible today. So, whether Eusebius was right handed or not, whether he was an appointee of Constantine or not, we know that;
“… during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor…proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.” Church History (Eusebius) 2.14.6
Thus there was an organization, it was headed by Peter commanded in divine armor spreading the light of God’s Word of salvation.
Now let me ask a question. Where did your faith come from: from the Bible? And how did the Bible come to you through some 2,000 years of this so called non-biblical history? Who decided which of the Holy Scripture was to be included?
JoeT
Great point JoeT. Has she not heard of the middle ages, all those monks laboriously writing out illuminated copies the Bible by hand before printing presses were invented? It's like she thinks her church just dropped from the sky or something, that Christ was crucified but then He made a special exception for her and came back again? This is exactly what Paul means by impaling Christ afresh for themselves.
Paul talks about his ministry at Galatians 1:11-24 and 2:1--10.
TJ3, Paul was not one of the 12, or the 13th, or even in the top 72: Luke chapter 10:1--24.
Paul if we can believe what he reports received his commission directly from a vision of Christ that he received on the road to Damascus; the others with him did not see it (again, Galatians 1:11--24). He went on to practically write most of the New Testament by himself, so yes I personally do believe it happened to him just like he said.
TJ3 as to your post #63, yes we agree on those points, but I can tell you a lot of the Protestant churches do just this, because I have heard it said and done myself.
Also I have gone to baptisms and they baptise in the name of their church, not in the name of the father, son and holy ghost.
I know that many do. And I openly oppose it, just as I do when Catholic Churches do the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
Now that I have never heard or seen. Before I would believe that, I would want to see the validation.Quote:
Also I have gone to baptisms and they baptise in the name of their church, not in the name of the father, son and holy ghost.
First, I note that Joe chose to add some books to the Bible. These were added during the Council of Trent by the Roman Catholic denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
But putting that aside for now,when you say that to oppose or support a denomination is like "impaling Christ afresh for themselves" sounds to me like you believe that your denomination is essential for salvation. Where is that in scripture? This sounds like one of those extra-Biblical additions that classT is concerned about.
Really? I looked at the reference that you gave and I do not see anything that would say that paul was not one of the 12. Could you be more specific with respect to your interpretation of this passage in the context that you have applied to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by wildandblue
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 AM. |