[arcura]

Akoue,
Your approach to this in logical and correct.
Real authentic history backs up what you said as true.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Tj3]

Tj3,
Your interpretation of what Newman said is bogus abs has been pointed out to you by me ans several other people over the years.

Fred, so far all I have seen is you and a couple of your friends defending their denomination trying to tell me that it says something other than what it says. Denial doesn't work.

You tried to claim that Newman was referring to the Christian church, but as I pointed out, Jesus did not mix paganism with Christianity in the church, and Constantine was not around in the 1st century, therefore this does not refer to the start of the Christian church.

Then you tried to argue that the source was bogus, which I then refuted with the link to the book itself.

I understand your frustration.

Now I have asked you nicely to quick bothering me with your opinions.
I am not interested in them at all.

Fred, it was not me who posted their opinions about their denomination and started promoting their denomination, in a thread where that was off-topic. If you want to promote your denomination in such a manner, you must know that someone is going to raise the facts which challenge your opinion.

Second, you must understand that you are not the mind police and that others can express their opinion even when you don't agree.

Further, as a couple of people, including the OP, have now requested, if you wish to promote your denomination, then start a new thread. Why do you not respect that request?

[arcura]

Tj3,
I did not read your post.
I asked you nicely NOT to address any more of your post to me.
If you do I will not read to them.
I want nothing to do with you.
So PLEASED, PLEASE do not address any more post to me.
Thanks,
Fred

[adam7gur]

ok..i can go with confused and certainly there was much confusion after the Lords death too. I like that Adam. Good thoughts , think i will bring that up at my Bible Study.

Let me know what comes up!

[Tj3]

Tj3,
I did not read your post.
I asked you nicely NOT to address any more of your post to me.
If you do I will not read to them.

Fred, Read my posts or not. Those who care about truth will check out the facts. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You do not need to comment on each on that you don't read. Just don't read, and don't respond. You are not hurting me either way.

I want nothing to do with you.
So PLEASED, PLEASE do not address any more post to me.

Odd, you want me to stop posting to you, but you seem to have no inhibition about addressing posts to me.

Your option, Fred, is to put me on ignore, but you do not have an option to tell me where I can and cannot post. Your problem even then is that will not stop me posting, nor will it stop others who disagree with you from posting.

Please note once again, this whole thing about your denomination was started by you, and was off-topic. If you cannot handle disagreement with respect to your denomination, don't post statements like that. But once having done so, don't try telling others that they have no right to disagree with you.

[adam7gur]

Please note once again, this whole thing about your denomination was started by you, and was off-topic. If you cannot handle disagreement with respect to your denomination, don't post statements like that. But once having done so, don't try telling others that they have no right to disagree with you.

That's true!

[arcura]

Tj3,
I did NOT read what you wrote.'
It was a wast of time and effort.
I asked you nicely to leave me alone and NOT address your bullying post to me.
So you do not care how others see you.
Never-the- less I will keep my word and NOT read anything you write addressed to me.
So keep on wasting time and effort as you want to.
I still will continue telling the truth, praying for you and wishing you peace and kindness.
Fred.

[Akoue]

Only insomnia could lure me back to this increasingly insipid exchange. So far as I can tell, it was Tj3 who brought things around to this sad state with his "clarification" of the meaning of ekklesia (see #52). I'm certainly not in league with anyone, but I do have an interest in seeing that something approximating principles of fair play are observed (since I'm not here to watch you guys bicker--maybe you could reserve some of this for PM?). It does seem to me, though, that if a Catholic--or anyone else--wishes to participate in the discussion by, among other things, offering for consideration what his or her faith tradition teaches, that is all to the good. (Again, I remind all that I have nowhere advocated for Catholicism. What I have done, here and in another recent exchange, is to point out that some of the objections that have been raised against it have missed their mark. To be sure, anti-"denominationalists" should have ample opportunity to have their say. But, then, in the interests of fairness, so should Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans. There is an unfortunate pattern on these boards for someone to be pegged as a member of one or another "denomination" and for their "denomination" then to come under sustained attack. As someone who doesn't currently have a horse in this race, I have noticed that this tends to have a chilling effect on the conversation--and it most definitely impoverishes the conversation.

I have indicated above where I think a good portion of the culpability for this lies. This isn't to dismiss the contributions of Tj3, many of which have been interesting and provocative (in a good way). But people have to stop letting some of the excesses slide: It doesn't reflect well on the God we claim to serve that this is easily the nastiest part of AMHD. (Compare, for instance, the warm fuzzies at "paranormal phenomena"!)

[Akoue]

Since I find myself in this mess anyway...

Tj3,

I precisely did not make any claims about Peter's primacy, nor that of Rome (a fact to which I called your attention earlier). I said only that Peter was the first bishop of Rome... not that he was the "head of the church", but that he was the bishop of Rome. That's it. The head of the Church is Christ, a claim no Catholic would deny (unless very deeply confused). If you need evidence for this, you can consult Irenaeus's "Adversus haereses" which includes a list of all the bishops of Rome up until the date at which Irenaeus wrote (second-century). So, no, the Church Fathers did not deny anything that I said. (In fact, throughout, I haven't been advocating for Catholicism in any overt way, though I have tried to call your attention to the Church Fathers.) The only early Christians who denied the authority of Peter were, you guessed it, the gnostics. (Are you just a modern-day gnostic, after all? They also claimed to have transcended "denominations".)

For what it's worth, the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome is something I first heard as a child, in Sunday school--at a Lutheran church. The quote you adduced above, putatively refuting my claim, mentions only the claim of Petrine primacy. Luther himself discussed this at some length, and he accepted the episcopate of Peter. Calvin is another matter altogether--notice I didn't say anything about presbyterians.

[Tj3]

Tj3,
I did NOT read what you wrote.'
It was a wast of time and effort.

It seems to me that taking the time to write "I did not read what you wrote" every time that I post is wasting time and effort. To be blunt, it reminds me of a child who does not want to ehar what his parents are saying and puts his hands over his ears."

I asked you nicely to leave me alone and NOT address your bullying post to me.

Grow up, Fred. If you don't want to talk to me, then don't.

[Tj3]

Only insomnia could lure me back to this increasingly insipid exchange. So far as I can tell, it was Tj3 who brought things around to this sad state with his "clarification" of the meaning of ekklesia (see #52).

Read again. I said nothing about the Greek. Adam however did an excellent job of going through what the Greek says. Post #52 was not mine but Fred's where he claimed claimed that the Catholic church was the 1st century church.

To be sure, anti-"denominationalists" should have ample opportunity to have their say. But, then, in the interests of fairness, so should Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans.

And anyone else also. But let's be clear. I am NOT anti-denominational. I am opposed to denominationalism. There is nothing wrong with denominations in and of themselves. They can be a great tool for enhancing evangelism amongst people of like mind and beliefs. The problem is when the denomination stops serving the people, and the people are told to serve the denomination.

There is an unfortunate pattern on these boards for someone to be pegged as a member of one or another "denomination" and for their "denomination" then to come under sustained attack.

I have seen that on some boards, but not as much here. Indeed there is even one on this thread who insists that I must be called a Protestant when I am not.

I have indicated above where I think a good portion of the culpability for this lies. This isn't to dismiss the contributions of Tj3, many of which have been interesting and provocative (in a good way).

Do you ever post without an attack on someone?

[Tj3]

I precisely did not make any claims about Peter's primacy, nor that of Rome (a fact to which I called your attention earlier).

Let me quote you from an earlier post (68):

"Now the Catholic Church is that community of the faithful whose bishop is the bishop of Rome. The first bishop of Rome was Peter (the first bishop of Constantinope was Andrew, and so on). The first several bishops after Peter came from his circle of students--in fact, since Paul was in Rome at the same time, many of them were instructed by both Peter and Paul. The body of teaching--what Catholics call the deposit of faith--was handed down from one bishop to the next so that the people could be taught the faith as Peter had instructed. This is what Catholics mean by apostolic succession."

Now, if all Catholics have the bishop of Rome as their bishop, how is that not teaching the primacy of Rome. Then you spoke about the first bishop being Peter. How is that not saying that he had primacy?

I'd be interested to see your explanation.

[450donn]

The following link gives a pretty good explanation of the "rapture" which many apparently do not believe in. Please read and comment.
Introduction to the Rapture

[JoeT777]

Now, if all Catholics have the bishop of Rome as their bishop, how is that not teaching the primacy of Rome. Then you spoke about the first bishop being Peter. How is that not saying that he had primacy?

It's likely that Akoue is making a distinction between the primacy of Peter as the “Prince of Apostles” and the first Bishop of Rome. Peter was the called the rock of the disciples and held a place of prominence (prime) among the twelve Apostles. His successors, the Bishops of Rome, are the Vicar of Christ, the sole patriarch of the Western Church holding the perpetual office as the Roman pontiff over all the faithful – even you Tom. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the first among equals with the authority to define faith and morals, the “keys to bind and loosen.”

I’m of the opinion that the distinction between the primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome are strictly academic in nature. In the Catholic Church they both perform the same function, having supreme power in this Christ’s Kingdom carrying the supreme Magisterium.

JoeT

[JoeT777]

The following link gives a pretty good explanation of the "rapture" which many apparently do not believe in. Please read and comment.
Introduction to the Rapture

As I understand it the John Darby view of “rapture”, it is that the body of elect will rise up to meet Christ in the clouds to come into His Messianic Kingdom. The Kingdom of God already exists on earth in the form of the Catholic Church. It is Catholic belief that the Kingdom of God is preserved in the Church, "the kingdom of God"; cf. Col. I, 13; I Thess. ii, 12; Apoc. I, 6, 9; v, 10, etc.

JoeT

[450donn]

Certain religions believe that there will be only 144000 thousand that are chosen. The body elect is in reality the church of Christ. In other words those that believe in Jesus Christ and profess him as Lord and King.

[Tj3]

It's likely that Akoue is making a distinction between the primacy of Peter as the “Prince of Apostles” and the first Bishop of Rome.

I do not see where he has made any such differentiation, but in any case, neither appear to have any basis in fact.

Peter was the called the rock of the disciples and held a place of prominence (prime) among the twelve Apostles.

The "Rock" according to scripture was Jesus, not Peter,a and there is again no evidence of primacy amongst the apostles - indeed quite the opposite.

His successors,

There is also no evidence for any succession, assuming that any such office existed.

the Bishops of Rome, are the Vicar of Christ,

This refers to replacement for Christ. Christ remained head of His church according to scripture.

the sole patriarch of the Western Church holding the perpetual office as the Roman pontiff over all the faithful

Pontiff, eh? That is the title of the priest of the pagan Roman religion. This camen into the church through the mixing of the pagan religion with the church that Cardinal newman spoke of. The pagan high priest was the emperor who was known as "Pontifex Maximus".

Pontiff refers to a "bridge" and the pagan priest was to be the b ridge between God and man. Yet scripture says that those who are in Christ are all priests and there is no other mediator between God and man except for Christ Himself.

[Tj3]

Certain religions believe that there will be only 144000 thousand that are chosen.

Like the JWs. The problem with that is the 144,000 referred to Revelation are all Jewish male virgins who witness during the tribulation. In adfdition to this special group, we also have a great crowd of witnesses from various nations. So the number saved are definitely not limited to 144,000.

The body elect is in reality the church of Christ. In other words those that believe in Jesus Christ and profess him as Lord and King.

Absolutely right.

[Akoue]

Yes, I think I did make a distinction between the episcopate of Peter and the primacy of Peter (or of Rome, etc.). I expressly asserted the claim that Peter was the bishop of Rome, stating that I was not defending the claim to primacy (the primacy claim has been debated extensively on other threads and can be resumed on another if anyone wishes). That's called "making a distinction", people.

Now, we know that there were bishops (episkopoi) in the early Church, right? (Acts 20.28, Titus 1.5-7; the word episkopos occurs in both of these). We know that they were to "shepherd the church of God" (op.cit.). It sometimes appears that Tj3 means to deny that there were bishops (e.g. "assuming that any such office existed"). Since this would be silly, in light of the references I just offered, I'll proceed as though he means only to deny that Peter was the bishop of Rome. Since I've already offered Irenaeus to support this claim, there isn't much for me to do unless and until Tj3 offers some good reason for rejecting the claim that Peter was bishop of Rome--say, proving that Irenaeus isn't to be trusted. I have been asked to provide some good reason for thinking that Peter held this office and, well, there it is. Now, yes, the burden of proof shifts back to the other side, to offer *good reasons* to reject my claim.

It's true that for Catholics primacy follows episcopacy, by which I mean to say that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is taken to derive from the fact that Peter is taken to have been, as has been said by JoeT777, "prime" among the Apostles (a claim which one can dispute, though--for whatever it's worth--it was universally held among writers of the first centuries. [Tj3: Don't reply: "No it wasn't". I encourage you, if you deny this claim, to provide any *evidence* from the writings of the Church fathers to oppose it]). This isn't, though, a purely academic distinction, since it has been a central bone of contention between Catholics and Orthodox. Both accept that the bishop of Rome, beginning with Peter, has a special status, but they disagree about the juridical extent of that special status.


And no, as I've indicated, talk about the Vicar of Christ does not suggest, nor even remotely hint at, replacement of Christ. Notice the term "vicar". No Catholic denies that Christ is the head of the Church; no Catholic believes himself to be a follower of Peter *in preference to* Christ; no Catholic denies that Peter was other than a follower and servant of Christ. It's fine to debate the merits of Catholicism, but you have to at least make some vague effort at presenting the views of Catholicism in a fair light; then, if you can knock them down, you've really accomplished something. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills--windmills made of strawmen.

The word "ekkelsia" was also used for pagan gatherings. Does this mean that the writers of the NT were importing paganism intoo Christianity when they used the word? Presumably not. So then it doesn't follow from the use of the word "pontifex" that the Catholic Church was importing paganism. These guys were using the language that existed, that's all. (How else were they supposed to communicate with people who weren't already believers?)