So, what you’ve just accepted is that it is still a valid baptism.Only if running water is not available. That is what is says.
So, archaeological proof is not proof anymore?
That’s interesting.
But you’re right. College professors have never used personal bias to refute real proof before. My bad.
And besides, I never mentioned artwork, I simply showed proof of inscriptions. When the artwork began, I could care less, for it’s got nothing to do with the point.
In the first century Rome’s Christians did not have their own cemeteries.If they owned land, they buried their relatives there, otherwise they resorted to common cemeteries, where pagans too were buried. That is how Saint Peter came to be buried in the great public “necropolis” (“city of the dead”) on Vatican Hill, available to everybody. Likewise Saint Paul was buried in a necropolis along the Via Ostiense.
catacombe.roma.it/en/storia.htmlIn the first half of the second century, as a result of various grants and donations, the Christians started burying their dead underground. That is how the catacombs were founded. Many of them began and developed around family tombs, whose owners, newly converted Christians, did not reserve them to the members of the family, but opened them to their brethren in the faith.
I’m not questioning whether it was a “fair request”. I’m asking what difference it makes to your argument. Why not present your strongest rebuttal regardless?Because arguing against someone else personal interpretation puts us on the same footing. It was a fair request.
No it wasn’t. I was merely pointing out that your interpretation was a personal opinion and not fact, and that you rejected the other views without proving that your view had any more basis than ours.Because arguing against someone else personal interpretation puts us on the same footing. It was a fair request.
The Bible does not teach the difference between a…what did you call it…a discipline and a dogma.So, what you’ve just accepted is that it is still a valid baptism.
What you are then looking at, once you’ve accepted that Baptism by pouring or dipping is valid, is that this is a discipline, not a dogma.
Think about it. Is the water magic? Or is it a sign of the Graces that God bestows. Once you understand that it is a sign, then the disciplines that a Church instills (one that has the authority to instill it) justify dipping and immersion and pouring.
The entire section says that it went to the Apostles and elders. It says that over and over again. It never says it went to Peter to decide.No it wasn’t. I was merely pointing out that your interpretation was a personal opinion and not fact, and that you rejected the other views without proving that your view had any more basis than ours.
Given that this is a site that is general knowledge, it is not a definitive work on the subject. It does not prove its claims.
No, what you have shown is that the exclusively Christian Catacombs didn’t start until middle 2nd century. You cannot tell me that Christians were not buried with non-christians. The carbon dating and the rulers noted on the grave are either false, and you haven’t shown me proof that they are false, or they are true.
An evasion of the point where I asked you to prove that the reason they were silent was because they were listening to Paul and not because Peter had spoken. Your claim was explicit in the rejection of the other view. Therefore I was asking for the proof of your claim.The entire section says that it went to the Apostles and elders. It says that over and over again. It never says it went to Peter to decide.
Oh really? What gave the Church the authority to remove James eating restrictions on Gentile Christians in Acts 15?The Bible does not teach the difference between a…what did you call it…a discipline and a dogma.
And yet, Peter decided, as he did in numerous other instances, i.e. Gentiles’ inclusion in the Covenant.The entire section says that it went to the Apostles and elders. It says that over and over again. It never says it went to Peter to decide.
Well tomorrow I can hit the library then. No problem. I MIGHT know a little about this subject…but I will prove it then.Given that this is a site that is general knowledge, it is not a definitive work on the subject. It does not prove its claims.
No he did not. He made a general point and James specifically answered the question. What are you talking about? It never says Peter decided.And yet, Peter decided, as he did in numerous other instances, i.e. Gentiles’ inclusion in the Covenant.
So you will prove then that no Christians were buried in any catecombs before the first half of the Second Century then?Well tomorrow I can hit the library then. No problem. I MIGHT know a little about this subject…but I will prove it then.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery [priest] as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." *Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). *That’s not the point of this thread.
I am merely stating that it’s absurd to ask me to prove something I don’t believe in existed from the beginning.
Whereas I am asking you to prove something you do believe in.
I am not asking you to disprove that which is false. I am asking you to prove that which you believe is true.
I am no longer going to respond to those who want to turn the tables and make this thread about Protestant beliefs or any other non-Catholic beliefs.
If you want to talk about proofs for Protestant doctrines start a new thread.
This thread is about whether or not there is any documentation from the 1st century for extra-biblical doctrines claimed by the Catholic Church.
Take your pick. Any doctrine that has been disputed as non-Scriptural by Protestants will do. You pick the topic within the limitations set for this thread.
I’m all ears.
I do not believe in disciplines. It is not a word I find in scripture. There were no restrictions on gentile Christians. The gentiles were not under the old covenant. Jewish Christians could not decide. So they met to decide. Peter had a direct visions from God earlier and then they also use scripture to help decide. What you are saying does not make sense.Oh really? What gave the Church the authority to remove James eating restrictions on Gentile Christians in Acts 15?
Disciplines, my friend.
Sure, it may take a day, I have basketball practice tomorrow but I will try to make it tomorrow. Happy to.So you will prove then that no Christians were buried in any catecombs before the first half of the Second Century then?
James placed the Noahide eating restriction on the Gentile converts. Acts 15:19-20 -I do not believe in disciplines. It is not a word I find in scripture. There were no restrictions on gentile Christians. The gentiles were not under the old covenant. Jewish Christians could not decide. So they met to decide. Peter had a direct visions from God earlier and then they also use scripture to help decide. What you are saying does not make sense.
These restrictions were later lifted, as evidenced in Pauls letters to the Galations (at least I think it was Galations).It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood.