a question for "Bible Only" churches

[CWBetts]

How…can I be wrong about primacy beyond Victor…when I have not stated my view?
If I have, please show me. Have I given my view?

Next, as it relates to Victor, you stated the following in this post

No. In the case of Victor, they did not go to him or write him to settle the case. That did not occur.

Why are you obsessed with this one case? The Primacy of Rome and the Pope are abundantly clear in the Fathers, and more significant, there are NO INSTANCES where the Fathers clearly say that Rome does NOT have primacy.

 

[Nicea325]

**No. In the case of Victor, they did not go to him or write him to settle the case. That did not occur. **

Incorrect! You believe because no one wrote to the bishop of Rome or they made no special trip it negates his primacy? I know the the case was not settled and that is not proof he had no primacy.And for the 1 billion time,where are the protests from the bishops,priests,deacons or the congregation explicitly claiming he had no jurisdiction over any other diocese or bishop? The bishops who disliked his decision to cut-then off is not a challenge to his primacy,but the fact that previous popes didn’t have a problem with them having a different tradition in regards to Easter.

Since you have failed to answer me,I am assuming you cannot admit there is no overwhelming evidence against the pope’s primacy.You never provided an extensive letter by one bishop challening Victor’s primacy or jurisdiction History says otherwise.

End of discussion.

 

[Nicea325]

**Why are you obsessed with this one case? The Primacy of Rome and the Pope are abundantly clear in the Fathers, and more significant, there are NO INSTANCES where the Fathers clearly say that Rome does NOT have primacy. **

Rightlydivide cannot admit he had no such evidence showing where bishops were protesting against his primacy. He has dodged my question over and over and over.

If they fail to answer it is because they know they are in error and cannot admit it.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

They use faulty reasoning by saying that since the Catholic Church is called the “Roman Catholic Church”, it must have been founded by a Roman Emperor, namely Constantine. They point to the “Edict of Milan”, issued in 313 A.D., as “proof”. Now if anyone would just read the “Edict” for themselves, they would find that it merely gave Christianity the freedom to practice the faith openly and with no fear of persecution from the Romans. After all, for centuries Christians were persecuted mercilessly by the Romans from the very beginning. It was the Romans who nailed Jesus Christ to the cross and it was a Roman soldier who thrust a spear into His side. Do you recall the Roman Circus and all of those hungry lions?
Nothing at all is said in the “Edict” about Constantine founding the “Catholic Church”, which is not even mentioned by name in the document, and the persons who perpetrate this false charge cannot provide any other genuine historical document which supports it. By Bob Stanley

 

[Bill_Pick]

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

Constain was not a Christian or a Cathloic until his death bed and then he a Baptism as a Cathloic.
They use faulty reasoning by saying that since the Catholic Church is called the “Roman Catholic Church”, it must have been founded by a Roman Emperor, namely Constantine. They point to the “Edict of Milan”, issued in 313 A.D., as “proof”. Now if anyone would just read the “Edict” for themselves, they would find that it merely gave Christianity the freedom to practice the faith openly and with no fear of persecution from the Romans. After all, for centuries Christians were persecuted mercilessly by the Romans from the very beginning. It was the Romans who nailed Jesus Christ to the cross and it was a Roman soldier who thrust a spear into His side. Do you recall the Roman Circus and all of those hungry lions?
Nothing at all is said in the “Edict” about Constantine founding the “Catholic Church”, which is not even mentioned by name in the document, and the persons who perpetrate this false charge cannot provide any other genuine historical document which supports it. by Bob Stanley

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dokimas​

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

You ‘BELIEVE’ is the key emphasis.What you believe does not make it an historical fact. Sorry to rain on your parade,but you are dead wrong.

Please provide one Christian bishop or pagan writer talking about this NEW Catholic Church? :ehh:

 

[Bill_Pick]

Doc, Here are some of your error in failing to read the history of Constantine (285-337) which is quite interesting, as he was a pagan Roman Emperor who was Baptized into the Catholic Church just before he died in 337. If he had founded the Catholic Church in 313 as some claim, then why did he wait until 337 before joining it? How could he have founded a Church to which he did not belong? How could a non-baptized pagan found a Christian Church?

 

[Bill_Pick]

How do you KNOW the CC history is correct? Is it because the CC has written the history of itself? Sounds like circular reasoning to me, not to mention the possibility for self written history to be self-serving.

How do you know the history of the USA is right because they wrote in,or why do we have cars in the USA,Because of common sense

 

[Dokimas]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dokimas​

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

You ‘BELIEVE’ is the key emphasis.What you believe does not make it an historical fact. Sorry to rain on your parade,but you are dead wrong.

Please provide one Christian bishop or pagan writer talking about this NEW Catholic Church? :ehh:

No problem. If been told I’m all wet before. However, if you’re honest with yourself, you have your believe that the CC has the correct historical records. Seems we both are subject to puting trust in what we’ve read.​

Except for the general term ‘universal’ which is what catholic means, when did the church beging to call itself Catholic? Answer this and you’ll be on your way to answer your own question.

 

[coolduude]

No problem. If been told I’m all wet before. However, if you’re honest with yourself, you have your believe that the CC has the correct historical records. Seems we both are subject to puting trust in what we’ve read.

Not really following this part of it. If I interpreted it correctly, you are wrong. You see, Catholics know their history is correct, we don’t have to make that leap of faith and believe it is correct. How do we know it is correct? Corroborative sources say so. The same can’t be said for your church.

Except for the general term ‘universal’ which is what catholic means, when did the church beging to call itself Catholic? Answer this and you’ll be on your way to answer your own question.

It does not matter when our church began being called Catholic. To quote Shakespeare:
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

In other words, it does not matter if our church is called Catholic or not, the fact remains the same that we are the One, True, Church and history is on our side. A name won’t change that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No problem. If been told I’m all wet before. However, if you’re honest with yourself, you have your believe that the CC has the correct historical records. Seems we both are subject to puting trust in what we’ve read.​

Except for the general term ‘universal’ which is what catholic means, when did the church beging to call itself Catholic? Answer this and you’ll be on your way to answer your own question.

**Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.**

St. Ignatius wrote, approximately 107 - 110AD:

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution 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 [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

This was before scriptures were known as ‘The Holy Bible’.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bah! You said:

This made me think you’d share something besides an opinion to consider. You placed an unreasonable request to your offer of documentation. It’s like a child going to their mother and saying, ‘mom if I ask you something, will you say yes?’

Let me give you your biggest challenge to Catholic history being self written and self serving. The Catholic Church had possession of scriptures since the beginning, even if you want to limit that to the 300s. Now you’re going to say those are totally God inspired, but we wrote the history to be self serving? Do you really understand the implication of your ‘speculation’?

Had the Church wanted to write a self serving history, it had every opportunity to do it within scriptures. Protestants did not get scriptures until the 1500s. That alone should show any honest person that the Catholic Church is honest, because we delivered scriptures that could be twisted and used against the very Church that preserved them through the ages.

You are now playing a cat and mouse game with documentation, for what I believe is, it simply does not exist. It’s no more than an opinion, and now it appears to be biased, since you’re avoiding the discussion.

If the protestants where like the Cathloic Church we would have over 95;000 non-Cathloic church,we now have over 36;000 non-cathloic churchs. How many diff believe do you think we have,WOW we can have a diff believe for each day of the week

 

[Dokimas]

**Acts 9:31

St. Ignatius wrote, approximately 107 - 110AD:

This was before scriptures were known as ‘The Holy Bible’.**​

As I qualified my statement by saying I’m not including the general use of ‘universal’ / ‘catholic’ church term. One man using it doesn’t mean it was the CC of today.​

BTW, I’d agree that when Jesus is in our midst then we are part of His universal church. He said where two or mare are gathered together, there’d He be.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why are you obsessed with this one case? The Primacy of Rome and the Pope are abundantly clear in the Fathers, and more significant, there are NO INSTANCES where the Fathers clearly say that Rome does NOT have primacy.

I am not obsessed. I have attempted to stick to the facts of the case. In previous posts, incorrect historical assertions were made concerning this specific case. Since that time, I have attempted to clarify and establish what occured in the case of Victor.
I had a choice CWBetts. I could have let the topic stray away from the facts concerning the Victor case. I choose to not let that occur. Instead, I attempted in every post to try to be historically accurate. At anytime during the Victor discussion, I have been open to someone proving their statements with facts.
I believe, and I have been on this forum awhile, that I encountered one of the worst examples of trying to change the subject I have seen. Its okay to disagree with my conclusions concerning the Victor case. I personally do not believe it is acceptable to misrepresent the facts.

Take this quote for example

Okay,I might have got confused Victor with another pope,but the fact remains the same,they wanted the bishop of Rome to settle the issue

In this particular quote they admit they may have been confused about the facts. That was a good and honorable start. However, they follow it up with an assertion that “they” wanted the bishop of Rome to settle the issue. Was that true in the case of Victor? No. That simply cannot be historically supported.

Then an attempt was made to change the topic and to challenge my view about primacy. In fact, Nicea said my view about primacy were not correct. I asked him what my views were. What had I said? He did not provide that. The reason is that he had already started his next line of debate which included I believe asserting a position I had yet to state. Listen, Catholic and Protestants are both capable and often have good substantive discussions concerning issues. I know what a good discussion looks like. I am trying to keep this one as such.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I qualified my statement by saying I’m not including the general use of ‘universal’ / ‘catholic’ church term. One man using it doesn’t mean it was the CC of today.

It’s noted that St. Ignatius used a capital ‘C’, which is unusual for a noun, or adjective.​

BTW, I’d agree that when Jesus is in our midst then we are part of His universal church. He said where two or mare are gathered together, there’d He be.

Yes, Christ said that when discussing the authority of His Church, with those He chose and appointed. It was not spoken to the multitudes.

BTW, how do you apply binding and loosing on earth to each and every individual?

 

[Rightlydivide]

**No. In the case of Victor, they did not go to him or write him to settle the case. That did not occur. **

Incorrect! You believe because no one wrote to the bishop of Rome or they made no special trip it negates his primacy? I know the the case was not settled and that is not proof he had no primacy.And for the 1 billion time,where are the protests from the bishops,priests,deacons or the congregation explicitly claiming he had no jurisdiction over any other diocese or bishop? The bishops who disliked his decision to cut-then off is not a challenge to his primacy,but the fact that previous popes didn’t have a problem with them having a different tradition in regards to Easter.

Since you have failed to answer me,I am assuming you cannot admit there is no overwhelming evidence against the pope’s primacy.You never provided an extensive letter by one bishop challening Victor’s primacy or jurisdiction History says otherwise.

End of discussion.

Did they (Asian bishops) or did they not appeal to the Bishop of Rome in the case of Victor to solve this issue. If your answer is yes, please provide historical evidence.
I am not sure what your incorrect applies to exactly.
You have also made some new statements in this post but lets clarify what you mean first. My discussion is not ended. I choose when that occurs…or the mods do when closing a thread!

 

[Dokimas]

It’s noted that St. Ignatius used a capital ‘C’, which is unusual for a noun, or adjective.​

Yes, Christ said that when discussing the authority of His Church, with those He chose and appointed. It was not spoken to the multitudes.

BTW, how do you apply binding and loosing on earth to each and every individual?

Please note the original discussion. I was challenged about using the term ‘believe’. I was then challenge to find one historian that wrote about a new church. I asked my question which you answered. Thank you for providing that the ‘new’ church starting maybe in the 2nd century because you sited the term CC used then first.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please note the original discussion. I was challenged about using the term ‘believe’. I was then challenge to find one historian that wrote about a new church. I asked my question which you answered. Thank you for providing that the ‘new’ church starting maybe in the 2nd century because you sited the term CC used then first.

Yes, as I also stated, 'written prior to scriptures being called ‘The Holy Bible’.

Why didn’t you address where I pointed out the phrase you stated was ONLY spoken to the Apostles, and how does an individual apply binding and loosing to themselves?

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, as I also stated, 'written prior to scriptures being called ‘The Holy Bible’.

Why didn’t you address where I pointed out the phrase you stated was ONLY spoken to the Apostles, and how does an individual apply binding and loosing to themselves?

As I’ve discussed with you on more than one occation, the writings that make up the NT were around before the therm CC was made in the early 2nd century making your point mute, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Why didn’t you address where I pointed out the phrase you stated was ONLY spoken to the Apostles, and how does an individual apply binding and loosing to themselves?

And that’s your opinion.​

I don’t believe I’ve ever desired to bind or loosen; BTW, I’m not sure what that means.