a question for "Bible Only" churches

[Dokimas]

Not even going to comment on the “good night sweet pea” wish? Man you are tough!

… and you’re a mocker. Now that we understand each other we may not get too far in conversation or relation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Your condescending tone is duly noted. The falsehood presented are also noted.

**And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each **

Where does it prevent a priest from reading a selected prayer?

As long as time permits is vague and not considering the differences in the times.

Does your Church do this, or is this something you’re only holding out to bash Catholicism with? It certainly appears to be ‘selecting’ certain passages that you can misread.

Do you believe the following by Justin Martyr?

Notice something here Prodigal because you can I believe learn from it. Although I do not know if you will.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers and Apostolic Fathers, with one exception, the Didache, support your view on the Last Supper.

I will always and I mean always say when I do not have patristic support of a view. There is no patristic support for my view. Now, are you ready to continue to engage the other dozen areas where the earliest writings support my view and not yours?
You use the word priest. Are you under the impression that the early church used that particular term? We can get into that if you wish. Yes, actually. Expository preaching starts at the beginning of a text and does go to the end with time permitting. But that is not my point and you know it. We are looking at some writings here and what they do and do not support. There is no set liturgy here. Time permitting and saying prayers to the best of your ability do not support your view but mine.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Right - I’m off to Mass.

Be safe.
I found an online copy of the book…well sort of. It skips right over the Didache without comment! Ugh. But I am reading quickly. How do you know that seminaries use that, I would have had to look up their textbooks online I suspect.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Notice something here Prodigal because you can I believe learn from it. Although I do not know if you will.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers and Apostolic Fathers, with one exception, the Didache, support your view on the Last Supper.

I will always and I mean always say when I do not have patristic support of a view. There is no patristic support for my view. Now, are you ready to continue to engage the other dozen areas where the earliest writings support my view and not yours?

So you believe we can pick and choose what is correct to believe and not believe? Seriously, this is most confusing. Please explain.

You use the word priest. Are you under the impression that the early church used that particular term? We can get into that if you wish. Yes, actually. Expository preaching starts at the beginning of a text and does go to the end with time permitting. But that is not my point and you know it. We are looking at some writings here and what they do and do not support. There is no set liturgy here. Time permitting and saying prayers to the best of your ability do not support your view but mine.

Priest is derived from ‘presbyter’, which is derived from the Greek ‘presbyteros’.

Time permitting and saying prayers to the best of your ability support your view, why? Because you prefer to read it that way? Just as with scriptures, there’s interpretational differences it appears. You say 'there is no set liturgy here, and then hold it to mean something you view.

What Church are you affliated with?

 

[Rightlydivide]

jmcrae will you accept Hamilton Hess. Professor of Theology at the University of San Francisco? I have a quote if you will.

“Up until the early fourth century, the prerogative of suffrage in episcopal elections was customarily attributed to the people”

I find a great search engine. Cheating of course. I type the key words into Amazon and I get scores of sources. I should quit buying books. Just so I know, how many historical sources will persuade you? All Catholic of course.

 

[Rightlydivide]

So you believe we can pick and choose what is correct to believe and not believe? Seriously, this is most confusing. Please explain.

Priest is derived from ‘presbyter’, which is derived from the Greek ‘presbyteros’.

Time permitting and saying prayers to the best of your ability support your view, why? Because you prefer to read it that way? Just as with scriptures, there’s interpretational differences it appears. You say 'there is no set liturgy here, and then hold it to mean something you view.

What Church are you affliated with?

No its not confusing at all. I find support in patristic writings for my views early on. I do not need them them but Catholic like to quote history. In fact you know as well as I do that they have a series of quotes that support their views on everything. Sometimes in context, sometimes not.
Listen the crux of this conversation is whether or not the early church was the Catholic Church in doctrine and practice. It was asserted that if the early church believed like they do know, then I have no choice but to accept their canon.
The problem is, thats not the case. I have showed that and will continue to. My church is not part of a denomination. It was founded by an atheist. Deja vu. I told you this already.

Now are you going to comment on how early Christians rejected images in churches or not

When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have s ent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort — opposed as they are to our religion — shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A than of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offense unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge.”

 

[Dokimas]

I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth.

Looking at your statement this thought immediately comes to mind. You state the Catholic Church is only a part of the one true Church. The Catholic Church has much documentation to establish it’s history. What we are lacking is any documentation of the presence of any other Church that would have made up the one true Church, as you view it.

Because of my statement above, it’s easy for me to see there was only one Church. History, both Church and secular, establishes the date of the ‘other’ Christian Churches being founded and it’s hundreds of years later, all much closer to the present time than the time Christ built a Church.

I’m not sure it’s fruitful conversing with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No its not confusing at all. I find support in patristic writings for my views early on. I do not need them them but Catholic like to quote history. In fact you know as well as I do that they have a series of quotes that support their views on everything. Sometimes in context, sometimes not.
Listen the crux of this conversation is whether or not the early church was the Catholic Church in doctrine and practice. It was asserted that if the early church believed like they do know, then I have no choice but to accept their canon.
The problem is, thats not the case. I have showed that and will continue to. My church is not part of a denomination. It was founded by an atheist. Deja vu. I told you this already.

Now are you going to comment on how early Christians rejected images in churches or not

Yes it is confusing. You use sources you don’t necessarily believe in to denigrate other beliefs you don’t believe in. It makes it hard to understand your message, or purpose. Also, why forget the Catholic doctrines written about by the early Church fathers, because some are vague and open to misinterpretation? Or because some expressed opposing views in theological ‘debates’?

Epiphanius was known for some opinons based on hearsay and ‘jumping the gun’ on certain things. I will be reading more on the subject and comparing them with other Church fathers. That doesn’t however justify ‘new’ Churches birthed since the 1500s and more recent, in my opinion. I mean does two wrongs make a right?

Catholic Encyclopedia

His character is most clearly shown by the Origenist controversies, which demonstrated his disinterested zeal but also his quickness to suspect heresy, a good faith which was easily taken advantage of by the intriguing, and an ardour of conviction which caused him to forget the rules of canon law and to commit real abuses of power.

Actually, you did not tell me about your Church. To remind you, you used the excuse that certain atheists were seeking you out and you didn’t want to be discovered. Now, I am more than curious. What is atheist Deja Vu supposed to mean or be? Please provide me a link to your Church’s website, even if you feel the need to pm it to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not sure it’s fruitful conversing with you.

That’s just as good excuse as any, I guess.

We get into discussions and the most I get is, I understand your view, but disagree, and that’s only been recently. Without explanation, there’s nothing to consider.

Then there are plenty of ‘putting words in my mouth’ accusations and accusations of ‘dodging’, or ‘falsehoods’, after I’ve explained why it’s not dodging and it appears you take my questions as putting words in your mouth. That’s why my most recent post to you was put together the way it was. To show I didn’t make false statements, put words in your mouth or dodge anything. It was a pain to go back through the thread searching for your quotes, but I’m doing my best to show you that you are ‘mistaken’, for a better choice of words.

 

[Dokimas]

That’s just as good excuse as any, I guess.

We get into discussions and the most I get is, I understand your view, but disagree, and that’s only been recently. Without explanation, there’s nothing to consider.

Then there are plenty of ‘putting words in my mouth’ accusations and accusations of ‘dodging’, or ‘falsehoods’, after I’ve explained why it’s not dodging and it appears you take my questions as putting words in your mouth. That’s why my most recent post to you was put together the way it was. To show I didn’t make false statements, put words in your mouth or dodge anything. It was a pain to go back through the thread searching for your quotes, but I’m doing my best to show you that you are ‘mistaken’, for a better choice of words.

I have given reasons from the Bible why my understanding is different than yours. You reject it for all kinds of reasons. I get no where with you so it’s easier emotionally to just let it go.​

Okay, I’m mistaken. Let’s let it be at that. I’m out matched, out thought, out debated. You win.​

Nite, ProdicalSon. God bless.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have given reasons from the Bible why my understanding is different than yours. You reject it for all kinds of reasons. I get no where with you so it’s easier emotionally to just let it go.​

Okay, I’m mistaken. Let’s let it be at that. I’m out matched, out thought, out debated. You win.​

Nite, ProdicalSon. God bless.

I’m afraid, that’s a cop-out response. Where did you suppose you were to get with me? That I would listen to you say, ‘I disagree’ and drop my faith? Surely, one can see I take a lot of time to post scriptures and then provide explanations, sometimes explanations that are almost ‘word for word’ or ‘word by word’.

I don’t expect to change your mind, I do however challenge beliefs to give an opposing view, from a Catholic perspective, for lurkers who may be giving thought to some arguements presented against Catholicism. I see some very good points raised at times, at least some that are open to interpretation, and I present the defense of the faith to the best of my ability.

My main goal is to show people that Catholic beliefs come from an interpretation of scriptures, even if they don’t agree with the interpretation. Some are so alienated to Catholicism, they just can’t bring themselves to even admit that.

I do not claim to ‘know it all’. I learn alot, as I go. It is not my purpose to ‘win’. I enjoy the challenges that make me do more research, as I’m sure many Catholics here do.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Yes it is confusing. You use sources you don’t necessarily believe in to denigrate other beliefs you don’t believe in. It makes it hard to understand your message, or purpose. Also, why forget the Catholic doctrines written about by the early Church fathers, because some are vague and open to misinterpretation? Or because some expressed opposing views in theological ‘debates’?

Epiphanius was known for some opinons based on hearsay and ‘jumping the gun’ on certain things. I will be reading more on the subject and comparing them with other Church fathers. That doesn’t however justify ‘new’ Churches birthed since the 1500s and more recent, in my opinion. I mean does two wrongs make a right?

Catholic Encyclopedia

Actually, you did not tell me about your Church. To remind you, you used the excuse that certain atheists were seeking you out and you didn’t want to be discovered. Now, I am more than curious. What is atheist Deja Vu supposed to mean or be? Please provide me a link to your Church’s website, even if you feel the need to pm it to me.

Actually…yes I did. But allow me to share at will.
I was on the net quite a bit as an atheist. When I converted, I was very open over at CARM and then a fairly well known atheist site that is not so well know now…times have changed!
I received spam email including some that sent a virus to my computer. It is a long story but I almost got fired. But I get mad at almost being fired and I quit. But it was still ugly. I promised my wife I would never reveal my identity which by the way is not a mystery to several posters on here because jeez louise how many people fit my basic profile?
Well, I cannot exactly take back my promise for many reasons.
So no of course not. I don’t know you. Deja vu is referrring to the fact I have shared a lot of this before.
What do you want to know about my church that I have not shared?
I will take exception. I do not deningrate others beliefs. You have a very bad habit of using words (you dropped the infallible comment instead of admitting that you were wrong) in a way they are not usually used.
I am defending Bible Christian beliefs on a thread directed at us! I believe that is allowed.
My point is clear. You say the earliest history supports your view. I say it supports mine. I have already stated that not every patristic writing supports my view (an example of me manning up and admitting where my case is weak).
My purpose is to answer and defend my beliefs in a thread directed at my people. My people…I cracked myself up!

 

[CWBetts]

Actually…yes I did. But allow me to share at will.
I was on the net quite a bit as an atheist. When I converted, I was very open over at CARM and then a fairly well known atheist site that is not so well know now…times have changed!
I received spam email including some that sent a virus to my computer. It is a long story but I almost got fired. But I get mad at almost being fired and I quit. But it was still ugly. I promised my wife I would never reveal my identity which by the way is not a mystery to several posters on here because jeez louise how many people fit my basic profile?
Well, I cannot exactly take back my promise for many reasons.
So no of course not. I don’t know you. Deja vu is referrring to the fact I have shared a lot of this before.
What do you want to know about my church that I have not shared?
I will take exception. I do not deningrate others beliefs. You have a very bad habit of using words (you dropped the infallible comment instead of admitting that you were wrong) in a way they are not usually used.
I am defending Bible Christian beliefs on a thread directed at us! I believe that is allowed.
My point is clear. You say the earliest history supports your view. I say it supports mine. I have already stated that not every patristic writing supports my view (an example of me manning up and admitting where my case is weak).
My purpose is to answer and defend my beliefs in a thread directed at my people. My people…I cracked myself up!

My pet peeve: “Bible Christians” Why? Because Catholicism is true Bible Christianity. We don’t have to contort Scriptures to fit our preconceived notions

 

[Rightlydivide]

My pet peeve: “Bible Christians” Why? Because Catholicism is true Bible Christianity. We don’t have to contort Scriptures to fit our preconceived notions

Well you know…I did not start the thread or title it…I believe another Catholic did…

 

[Rightlydivide]

Forum rules and recommendations regarding the revealing of personal data

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=177274

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually…yes I did. But allow me to share at will.
I was on the net quite a bit as an atheist. When I converted, I was very open over at CARM and then a fairly well known atheist site that is not so well know now…times have changed!
I received spam email including some that sent a virus to my computer. It is a long story but I almost got fired. But I get mad at almost being fired and I quit. But it was still ugly. I promised my wife I would never reveal my identity which by the way is not a mystery to several posters on here because jeez louise how many people fit my basic profile?
Well, I cannot exactly take back my promise for many reasons.
So no of course not. I don’t know you. Deja vu is referrring to the fact I have shared a lot of this before.
What do you want to know about my church that I have not shared?
I will take exception. I do not deningrate others beliefs. You have a very bad habit of using words (you dropped the infallible comment instead of admitting that you were wrong) in a way they are not usually used.
I am defending Bible Christian beliefs on a thread directed at us! I believe that is allowed.
My point is clear. You say the earliest history supports your view. I say it supports mine. I have already stated that not every patristic writing supports my view (an example of me manning up and admitting where my case is weak).
My purpose is to answer and defend my beliefs in a thread directed at my people. My people…I cracked myself up!

Well, I don’t remember you divulging as much information about your Church as you’ve done in this post and I certainly wouldn’t want you to break a promise to your wife.

It’s one thing to ‘pick’ at another’s Church, or faith. It’s quite another to do so with your Church veiled so it prevents direct discussions referencing specific doctrines where we may both agree or disagree. When you use ‘pieces’ of writings and reject other ‘pieces’ of the same author, it seems contradictory and does not help your point, in my opinion.

Infallible…I didn’t read your defintion, I don’t need too. I believe in the infallibilty of Christ and His promises to protect the men He chose and appointed; appointed authority over His Church. Men who were mortal and not able to withstand the time of His promise, clearly indicating, in my opinion, the promises made to the offices of His appointment. As I’ve explained, those offices to be filled with successors, once vacated, in order to ‘fulfill’ scriptures.

Maybe it was the wrong choice of words for your assertion of truth, since you don’t claim it to be necessarily ‘truth’, or without the possibility of error. That’s the confusing part to me. The willingness to accept the possiblity of error and then make claims against another Church, or faith. Here’s another phrase for you, ‘fullness of truth’. That’s what I seek. So I can’t accept anyone’s teaching who admits to the possibility that they may be in error. That’s not scriptural to me, with my faith in God’s power to accomplish all things, especially those things Christ spoke, and with the scriptures and explanations I’ve provided, I feel anyone can see how my interpretation, which is the Catholic interpretation, is derived from scriptures, even if they don’t agree with the interpretation.

I know the Protestant argument, that Christ promised the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, will guide them and teach them all things. I say that is not reading in context, of who was being spoken too. There’s a difference of what was spoken to who. When He spoke to the Apostles, He spoke to the authority, He chose and appointed. When he spoke to the multitudes, He spoke to all. When He commanded them to ‘teach’ or ‘preach’, He spoke only to those He chose and appointed. He never spoke such to the multitudes. He never spoke of appointing a multitude. He instructed the multitude to follow the authority.

This doesn’t mean we can’t learn from those things He taught the Apostles, we can. We can understand some of the things He commanded them to teach us.

Scriptures…the begining of history. With the writings of the early Church fathers, it’s a Catholic history. Often times we see people use ‘heretics’, or the misguided, those without the keys, as their proof of more than one Church, then immediately reject the doctrines of the heretics. That is a tactic that discredits all Churches, including the one Christ built. There was a Church, in many locations. Letters were not sent to the ‘invisible’ Church, or random people if you prefer. They were sent to the authorities of those Churches, appointed by those with the authority given them by Christ.

Since the reformation, we have many who are their own authority now…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Forum rules and recommendations regarding the revealing of personal data

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=177274

A Church affliation is not exactly personal information.

We can take another route, without breaking a promise to your wife, you know.

When was your Church started? How many members are there in your Church?

If it’s purely a ‘single’ Church, in a single location, with only a few members, I could understand not revealing it because it would be near personal, but a single Church with a few members also tells another story…in my opinion.

Most Churches, even those claiming to be ‘non-denominational’, are affliated with other Churches in other locations. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that doesn’t share their beliefs (teachings and doctrines) publically, somehow. Keeping that kind of information ‘hidden’ also seems to go against some of what I would imagine you consider teachings of Christ to ALL Christians. Am I wrong, or don’t you take His commission personally, to go out and teach all nations to observe all things He has commanded you through the inspired word of God? Seems like it would be kind of hard to do, by keeping it ‘hidden’?

I didn’t mean to go on, but this tactic of using the forums rules got me thinking it over again. Like I said, and posted while you were digging this up, I had accepted or understood a promise to a wife.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Lets see at one time what I have said…
a former outspoken atheist
An elder in his church.
Several earned degrees.
Health problems.
Missionary trip for several months before I came back due to health.
Drug addict for a long time.
Famous last name. Shirt tail kin if you will…
Yes, I think I would be rather easy to pick out on my website…uh since I am on it!

Our church does not do formal membership but you could call it 350 on average.
It started with less than a dozen. We have planted, with our members, over twenty churches though.
No, I have said it a hundred times. The man who started it was not affiliated with any group. We never were and never have been.
Our view are very public. My identity on the net is not. You see in real life people do not get worked up. But the net offers people a chance to do horrible things to others. Never underestimate the power of Satan. I don’t.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I should add something. Your views on exegesis and the intended audience are very important. While we might not share the conclusions, I applaud you understanding that reading scripture without understanding the different audiences is impossible.
It is one of the central themes in all of scripture. I think we could find much in common.

 

[Lapey]

… and you’re a mocker. Now that we understand each other we may not get too far in conversation or relation.

:thumbsup:at least we know who each other is now