1 Tim. 3:15 and Protestantism

[guanophore]

Instead of dodging, show Biblical evidence.

Biblical evidence that the Bible is Catholic? It was produced by, for, and about Catholics. It was written, preserved, promulgated, consolidated and canonized by the Catholic Church. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. How much more evidence could there be?

 

[guanophore]

Then what of Chag HaMatzot, Shavuot, Yom Teurah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, HaShanna Rabbah, Shabbat? All of these are Jewish holidays [Holy Days], which were celebrated by Christ throughout his ministry, and by the Apostles even at the start of - and thoughout - their minstry to the gentiles (as I’ve indicated in Acts).

What of them? They were all Jews. Pious Jews, who had no reason to stop being “Jewish”.

The Catholic Church does not celebrate these holidays like the Apostles did (post Christ's ascension). Some that ARE celebrated were changed while others are ignored altogether.

None of the Jewish feasts have been “ignored” by the Catholic Church. The Gentile Catholics never learned to celebrate the Jewish feasts. Most of the feasts could no longer be celebrated by the Jews when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

[Point of concession: Most Protestants don't celebrate these Jewish holidays either, which is wrong...

And you think it is wrong because?

but we were discussing the timeframe of Paul’s 1st letter to Timothy. My point is to show he still celebrated these Jewish holidays.]

I think you are trying to argue something that we all agree upon.

What does this have to do with the thread topic? Are you trying to say that, since modern Catholics do not celebrate the Jewish feasts, that the Catholic Church is not the church of the NT?

Paul was a Christian, a fulfilled Jew…but he was not a Catholic. Maybe I should better qualify what I mean. When I say “Catholic” I mean “Christianity after the Holy Roman Empire’s integration and funding and marriage to Christianity” during which they changed Sabbath and removed or changed the celebratory date of the Jewish feasts (High Sabbaths).

The mistake you are making here is in your definition of the Catholic Church. It is not Roman, and it did not begin when the Church took over the administration of the Western Empire. It began when Jesus breathed upon the Apostles. From that point, the Church was Catholic.

The Sabbath is a command of God, and cannot be “changed”.

The dates of Christian celebration are within the authority of the Church to set and change.

When I use the word “fulfilled” I DO NOT mean “complete, hence no longer necessary to be or do”.

This may be what is causing the shortcomings in your theology. When Jesus said “it is fulfilled”, He meant that it was no longer necessary to offer any lambs as a sacrifice for sin. He, as the Lamb of God, offered Himself once for all time.

When I use the word “fulfilled” I DO mean “everything one used to do without understanding, plus the Understanding given of Christ”…

The Jews understood their feasts perfectly. It is an error to assume that they did not.

so Paul was a Jew “fulfilled” = Judaism religion “plus Gospel of Christ”. Paul was not a Catholic = “Gospel of Christ minus Jewish holy feasts and celebrations and commandments”.

You are suffering from an erroneous definition of Catholicism.

–To Nicea325–

Thanks for your clarification (and yours too, Dokimas). This was why I said “belief places Christ’s birth at 1 AD” because that’s the common consensus.

Actually, it is not. That is an uncommon perception. Anyone who has studied the history of NT times knows better.

… while proving my initial point…that the span between years 27AD to 33AD [Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension] still places the apostles commencement to the gentiles in the first century, which is why I didn’t mind using the date most people ‘believed’ in.

What does that mean "commencement to the gentiles?

Has there ever been any doubt that the Gospel was transmitted by Jewish Apostles to the Gentiles in the first century? This is how the Catholic Church spread all over the civilized world!
[/quote]

 

[Joshua27]

Are you trying to say that, since modern Catholics do not celebrate the Jewish feasts, that the Catholic Church is not the church of the NT?

Yes. (phew) But neither is any Protestants who also does not.

The Sabbath is a command of God, and cannot be “changed”.

The dates of Christian celebration are within the authority of the Church to set and change.

And this is where I stop arguing, because here we differ in belief. Authority. I don’t believe the Church has the authority to “change times” or should’ve ever sought to “change times”.

Daniel 7:25 - And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

[Disclaimer: I am NOT making a claim of any Church as being anyone! I am simply pointing to a reference that conveys “changing times and laws” in a negative light. So I believe “to change times and laws” is a bad thing that shouldn’t have been done.]

This may be what is causing the shortcomings in your theology. When Jesus said “it is fulfilled”, He meant that it was no longer necessary to offer any lambs as a sacrifice for sin. He, as the Lamb of God, offered Himself once for all time.

But the Law did not dissapprear. We are STILL meant to follow this Law; to offer a lamb as a sacrifice for sin. We were simply (and profoundly) provided the Ultimate Lamb which perpetually satisfies this eternal Law. The Law still applies and is still necessary…the Messianic Jews knew this. This is what I mean when I say, “The Jewish feasts were either changed or removed”, because you believe the practice of Pesach (physical slaughtering a lamb) is no longer necessary (to know about or to do), when it is still necessary…and Christ provided himself so we can still do it in spirit. “Cast your sins onto the Lamb” is a saying that harkens back to the ritual of Jews laying their hands onto the lamb to transfer their sins before its slaughter. Confessing our sins onto Christ is to continue this Law.

The Jews understood their feasts perfectly. It is an error to assume that they did not.

Not if they denied Christ. To this day, they still don’t understand that all of the feasts are prophecies; samples of the true version. For instance, Christ wasn’t provided as a Lamb because the Jews needed a better sacrifice for their ritual…the ritual was ALWAYS mean as a rehersal (a prophetic shadowpicture) for when Christ finally came to perform it himself. Do you see the distinction I’m trying to convey in this example, if not I’ll reword?

Actually, it is not. That is an uncommon perception. Anyone who has studied the history of NT times knows better.

So then since you know…tell me then, how many people in the whole of Christianity would you guess STUDY the NT? Or even pick up a Bible to read it? Just by recalling your time on this forum, you can tell that people don’t study. Of course, if people studied they would know better. That’s my point. Most people don’t know because most people don’t study…so most people assume the date of Christ Birth is 1 AD, because most people assume that “B.C.” always meant “Before Christ”.

 

[benidict]

Yes. (phew) But neither is any Protestants who also does not.

And this is where I stop arguing, because here we differ in belief. Authority. I don’t believe the Church has the authority to “change times” or should’ve ever sought to “change times”.

Daniel 7:25 - And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

[Disclaimer: I am NOT making a claim of any Church as being anyone! I am simply pointing to a reference that conveys “changing times and laws” in a negative light. So I believe “to change times and laws” is a bad thing that shouldn’t have been done.]

But the Law did not dissapprear. We are STILL meant to follow this Law; to offer a lamb as a sacrifice for sin. We were simply (and profoundly) provided the Ultimate Lamb which perpetually satisfies this eternal Law. The Law still applies and is still necessary…the Messianic Jews knew this. This is what I mean when I say, “The Jewish feasts were either changed or removed”, because you believe the practice of Pesach (physical slaughtering a lamb) is no longer necessary (to know about or to do), when it is still necessary…and Christ provided himself so we can still do it in spirit. “Cast your sins onto the Lamb” is a saying that harkens back to the ritual of Jews laying their hands onto the lamb to transfer their sins before its slaughter. Confessing our sins onto Christ is to continue this Law.

Not if they denied Christ. To this day, they still don’t understand that all of the feasts are prophecies; samples of the true version. For instance, Christ wasn’t provided as a Lamb because the Jews needed a better sacrifice for their ritual…the ritual was ALWAYS mean as a rehersal (a prophetic shadowpicture) for when Christ finally came to perform it himself. Do you see the distinction I’m trying to convey in this example, if not I’ll reword?

So then since you know…tell me then, how many people in the whole of Christianity would you guess STUDY the NT? Or even pick up a Bible to read it? Just by recalling your time on this forum, you can tell that people don’t study. Of course, if people studied they would know better. That’s my point. Most people don’t know because most people don’t study…so most people assume the date of Christ Birth is 1 AD, because most people assume that “B.C.” always meant “Before Christ”.

are we still required to circumcise? peace

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
Are you trying to say that, since modern Catholics do not celebrate the Jewish feasts, that the Catholic Church is not the church of the NT?

Yes. (phew) But neither is any Protestants who also does not.

Come again? Then tell us all what happened to the NT church? It either continued to grow and develop or it disappeared all together?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
The Sabbath is a command of God, and cannot be “changed”.

The dates of Christian celebration are within the authority of the Church to set and change.

And this is where I stop arguing, because here we differ in belief. Authority. I don’t believe the Church has the authority to “change times” or should’ve ever sought to “change times”.

Change times? Either Christ gave His Church full authority or did not?

Daniel 7:25 - And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Completely taken out-of-context. The above is not referring to the authority of the Catholic Church.The reference is to the persecutions of Antiochus IV and his attempt to force the Jews to give up their customs and to adopt Hellenistic ways.

[Disclaimer: I am NOT making a claim of any Church as being anyone! I am simply pointing to a reference that conveys “changing times and laws” in a negative light. So I believe “to change times and laws” is a bad thing that shouldn’t have been done.]

When used in its proper context it does shed a lot of light.

 

[benidict]

yes. and antiochus changed the times and the laws. making it illegal to celebrate the sabbath, circumcise or do anything that the law required. on penalty of death. he even died in the way daniel predicted. i love how these chapters and verses are taken out of context. and even a cursory reading of maccabees will show it was antiochus, not the Catholic Church, daniel was talking about. Peace

 

[Nicea325]

yes. and antiochus changed the times and the laws. making it illegal to celebrate the sabbath, circumcise or do anything that the law required. on penalty of death. he even died in the way daniel predicted. i love how these chapters and verses are taken out of context. and even a cursory reading of maccabees will show it was antiochus, not the Catholic Church, daniel was talking about. Peace

Exactly! One cannot simply take a verse or verses and isolate them. That is horrible biblical exegesis.

 

[benidict]

Exactly! One cannot simply take a verse or verses and isolate them. That is horrible biblical exegesis.

as a former baptist, we used to do the same thing. especially with daniel and revelation. but we could “prove” premillinialist dispensationalism from these passages. what a mess. only Catholocism has the correct interpretation of these scriptures. i did not realize that until after my conversion. seen in the light of the the teachings of the Church. these passages become quite clear. i can read daniel and revelation, with peace in my heart. not a doom and gloom outlook. peace.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Exactly! One cannot simply take a verse or verses and isolate them. That is horrible biblical exegesis.

as a former baptist, we used to do the same thing. especially with daniel and revelation. but we could “prove” premillinialist dispensationalism from these passages. what a mess. only Catholocism has the correct interpretation of these scriptures. i did not realize that until after my conversion. seen in the light of the the teachings of the Church. these passages become quite clear. i can read daniel and revelation, with peace in my heart. not a doom and gloom outlook. peace.

My experience with many non-Catholics,especially fundamentalits is the obvious error, taking verses way out-of-context. I call it slicing and dicing scripture to give it one’s personal flavor.

 

[Dokimas]

Quote:
That Church was Catholic. It was Catholic since the day it was born.

And correction is noted: No biblical evidence Christ did not FOUND a UNIVERSAL Church? Wrong! Then what exactly did He found? A church only for Jews? For men? Catholic was an adjective used rather early in church history to describe Christ Church.

I tire of being misquoted. I DID NOT say Jesus did not found A universal church. I said it (the universal church) Jesus started is MUCH bigger than those of the CC that are headed to Heaven.​

Let me help you out: the church Jesus founded started with Jews and were open to Gentiles. In His church He’s called male, female, wise, but mostly unwise in this world, slave, free, rich, but mostly poor and people from every nation. I hope this helped.

 

[Joshua27]

“Connotation” (an “idea”) is different from “Context” (a “discourse”), ladies and gentlemen…which is my reason for the Disclaimer. Nothing was taken out of context.

I completely understand the “context” of the passage in Daniel that I quoted, thus I emphasized that ‘the concept of changing times and laws was spoken in a negative “connotation”’. Regardless of who he’s talking about at the time, the point was that if the Angel Gabriel - a messenger from God bringing God’s message - speaks of “changing times and laws” in a negative connotation, then changing times and laws is a bad thing, regardless of when its spoken about or the context.

[For example: Sin…Sin all throughout the bible - regardless of when it is spoken about, or the context - is spoken in a negative connotation. So regardless of what we read about “sin”, we know sin is a bad thing.]