a question for "Bible Only" churches

[jmcrae]

The following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

“Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine’s decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.”

There is nothing in that that says anything about Constantine starting up a new form of Christianity in competition with the existing form.

He simply made an already-existing religion legal, and exchanged the worship of the Roman gods for Christianity, the worship of Jesus Christ as the one True God, as the state religion.

 

[jmcrae]

From history-world.org/a_history_of_the_catholic_church.htm

"Alongside this apostolic argument for Roman primacy–and often interwoven with it-- Rome was honored because of its position as the capital of the Roman Empire : the church in the prime city ought to be prime among the churches. As the capital Rome drew visitors or tourists or pilgrims from everywhere and eventually became, for church no less than for state, what Jerusalem had originally been called, “the church from which every church took its start, the mother city [metropolis] of the citizens of the new covenant.” Curiously, the transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople by the newly converted emperor Constantine in 330, which weakened Rome’s civil authority, served only to strengthen its spiritual authority: the title “supreme priest [pontifex maximus],” which had been the prerogative of the emperor, now devolved upon the pope.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I ALWAYS (not in every post, but often) admit I could be incorrect. You always admit the CC, thus your understand, could NEVER be incorrect. This is why you are very wise when you don’t answer my question. You’d open yourself up to the idea you could be incorrect.​

Wise? What a childish form of a question. If I show you something, will you admit error? The Mormons would certainly have a field day with that.

If you had evidence, as I said, you, and all others wishing to prove the Catholic Church wrong, would be broadcasting it through all available medias.

 

[Dokimas]

There is nothing in that that says anything about Constantine starting up a new form of Christianity in competition with the existing form.

He simply made an already-existing religion legal, and exchanged the worship of the Roman gods for Christianity, the worship of Jesus Christ as the one True God, as the state religion.

For the first time in the history of the early church it became united with the government of a world power. That’s quite new.

 

[Dokimas]

Prodigal Son in black; Doki in color

If I show you something, will you admit error? If you prove to me I’m in error, I sure hope I’m man enough to admit it. Try me. The Mormons would certainly have a field day with that.I’m missing your point.

If you had evidence, as I said, you, and all others wishing (very important correction: I do NOT wish to prove the CC wrong.) to prove the Catholic Church wrong, would be broadcasting it through all available medias. **Here we go again … This is a hypocritical statement. You broadcaste all the time hwo the beliefs of us non-catholic Christians that differ from the CC are wrong. Please look in the mirror at the rolled eyes! **[You put these rolled eyes in the origianl post.]

 

[jmcrae]

For the first time in the history of the early church it became united with the government of a world power. That’s quite new.

Yes, for the Church it was a new situation, and very welcome (state religions as such were nothing new, though), but it was an existing government, and an existing religion - there was no “new religion” being created there.

 

[Nicea325]

*Originally Posted by Dokimas​

For the first time in the history of the early church it became united with the government of a world power. That’s quite new.*

If you are making reference to Edict of Milan you are dead wrong. The edict has nothing to do with unification with the Roman State. It is merely granting religious freedom to Christians. Where do you people come up with such nonsense?

 

[Dokimas]

*Originally Posted by Dokimas​

For the first time in the history of the early church it became united with the government of a world power. That’s quite new.*

If you are making reference to Edict of Milan you are dead wrong. The edict has nothing to do with unification with the Roman State. It is merely granting religious freedom to Christians. Where do you people come up with such nonsense?

I don’t know what the Edict of Milan is so I don’t think I am wrong, based on your argument.

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t know what the Edict of Milan is so I don’t think I am wrong, based on your argument.

If you don’t know, than you are not prepared to discuss. Learn all the pertinent information before you go spouting off.

 

[Dokimas]

If you don’t know, than you are not prepared to discuss. Learn all the pertinent information before you go spouting off.

I didn’t spout off about something I didn’t know. I admitted what I didn’t know and made no comment about it other that I didn’t know about it. What I did do is I linked to info about the merger of the church and the Roman government by Constintine.

 

[CWBetts]

I didn’t spout off about something I didn’t know. I admitted what I didn’t know and made no comment about it other that I didn’t know about it. What I did do is I linked to info about the merger of the church and the Roman government by Constintine.

If you are ignorant of the Edict of Milan, you have nothing to say.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son in black; Doki in color

If I show you something, will you admit error? If you prove to me I’m in error, I sure hope I’m man enough to admit it. Try me. The Mormons would certainly have a field day with that.I’m missing your point.

If you had evidence, as I said, you, and all others wishing (very important correction: I do NOT wish to prove the CC wrong.) to prove the Catholic Church wrong, would be broadcasting it through all available medias. **Here we go again … This is a hypocritical statement. You broadcaste all the time hwo the beliefs of us non-catholic Christians that differ from the CC are wrong. Please look in the mirror at the rolled eyes! **[You put these rolled eyes in the origianl post.]

I post what I believe and that is that the Catholic Church is right. There’s nothing hypocritical about stating one’s beliefs. I’m sorry if I can’t honestly say, ‘oh there are many applications of faith and it doesn’t really matter which one someone chooses’. There is one faith. We are to be of the same mind and judgement, of the same accord, take note of those who create dissensions and divisions. Scriptures don’t teach many doctrines and many ways.

 

[Dokimas]

If you are ignorant of the Edict of Milan, you have nothing to say.

Looks like I followed your advice, I haven’t commented about it.

 

[Dokimas]

I post what I believe and that is that the Catholic Church is right. There’s nothing hypocritical about stating one’s beliefs. I’m sorry if I can’t honestly say, ‘oh there are many applications of faith and it doesn’t really matter which one someone chooses’. There is one faith. We are to be of the same mind and judgement, of the same accord, take note of those who create dissensions and divisions. Scriptures don’t teach many doctrines and many ways.

I agree that a person is not hypocritical for having a belief. What is hypocritical is complaining that someone tells you you are wrong and yet you tell them they are wrong.​

I, too, think it natters how people apply the Bible to their faith. Choices matters, but not all. Being of the same mind doesn’t mean we’ll always agree on all things. For instance, Paul and Barnabus disagreed on John Mark to the point they went their separate ways. I agree the Bible doesn’t teach many different ways to Jesus.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I agree that a person is not hypocritical for having a belief. What is hypocritical is complaining that someone tells you you are wrong and yet you tell them they are wrong.​

I, too, think it natters how people apply the Bible to their faith. Choices matters, but not all. Being of the same mind doesn’t mean we’ll always agree on all things. For instance, Paul and Barnabus disagreed on John Mark to the point they went their separate ways. I agree the Bible doesn’t teach many different ways to Jesus.

Look, it’s not hypocritical to state a belief and then defend it when someone tells you that you are wrong. Do you think it would be better if I stated my belief, let you tell me I’m wrong, then I say, ‘oh yea I am wrong’. That’s not conviction of one’s beliefs. If that’s what you’re looking for in a debate, you’ve come to the wrong place.

Being of the same mind doesn’t always mean we’ll always agree? When it comes to doctrines from the authority, that Paul also tells us to hold to and obey, it most certainly does, in my opinion. That one statment from Paul substantiates an authoritative Church.

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

If there wasn’t an authoritative Church, why does he say to obey your prelates?

 

[avflf]

Being of the same mind doesn’t always mean we’ll always agree? When it comes to doctrines from the authority, that Paul also tells us to hold to and obey, it most certainly does, in my opinion. That one statment from Paul substantiates an authoritative Church.

Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

If there wasn’t an authoritative Church, why does he say to obey your prelates?

Possibly because Paul never wrote Hebrews.
Hebrews is a very consciously “literary” document. The purity of its Greek was noted by Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius (Historia Eccl., VI, xiv), and Origen of Alexandria asserted that every competent judge must recognize a great difference between this epistle and those of Paul (Eusebius, VI, xxv). Wiki.
Of the supposed 13 Pauline Epistles there are grave doubts that he wrote 6 of them - Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Plus there is a missing Epistle to the Laodecians that is mentioned in Colossians. Also, The Shepherd of Hermes and 1 Clement were accepted by the early church as canonical.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Possibly because Paul never wrote Hebrews.
Hebrews is a very consciously “literary” document. The purity of its Greek was noted by Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius (Historia Eccl., VI, xiv), and Origen of Alexandria asserted that every competent judge must recognize a great difference between this epistle and those of Paul (Eusebius, VI, xxv). Wiki.
Of the supposed 13 Pauline Epistles there are grave doubts that he wrote 6 of them - Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Plus there is a missing Epistle to the Laodecians that is mentioned in Colossians. Also, The Shepherd of Hermes and 1 Clement were accepted by the early church as canonical.

Are you trying to say Hebrews is not the inspired word of God and should be removed from the Bible?

 

[CWBetts]

Possibly because Paul never wrote Hebrews.
Hebrews is a very consciously “literary” document. The purity of its Greek was noted by Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius (Historia Eccl., VI, xiv), and Origen of Alexandria asserted that every competent judge must recognize a great difference between this epistle and those of Paul (Eusebius, VI, xxv). Wiki.
Of the supposed 13 Pauline Epistles there are grave doubts that he wrote 6 of them - Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Plus there is a missing Epistle to the Laodecians that is mentioned in Colossians. Also, The Shepherd of Hermes and 1 Clement were accepted by the early church as canonical.

There is no reason to think that Paul did not write all of the Epistles attributed to him. According to Patristic Tradition, he did write them, and as a Catholic, I give Tradition the position of being correct. The burden of proof is on you to show that these books were not written by St. Paul

 

[aquabatix]

Possibly because Paul never wrote Hebrews.
Hebrews is a very consciously “literary” document. The purity of its Greek was noted by Clement of Alexandria, according to Eusebius (Historia Eccl., VI, xiv), and Origen of Alexandria asserted that every competent judge must recognize a great difference between this epistle and those of Paul (Eusebius, VI, xxv). Wiki.
Of the supposed 13 Pauline Epistles there are grave doubts that he wrote 6 of them - Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. Plus there is a missing Epistle to the Laodecians that is mentioned in Colossians. Also, The Shepherd of Hermes and 1 Clement were accepted by the early church as canonical.

There is know way to know for sure**. We were not there and can not prove it. Perhaps Paul hired a different scribe to write this letter and he was better at Greek then the others. Perhaps it was edited during or after he wrote it to be more formal considering who he was writing to. To assume he did not write any of those listed is to assume such based on grammar facts. Just because he used a certain word in a letter and did not use it anywhere else does not prove it is not written by him, it just says that this particular letter uses specific words, that’s it.

Plus, Clement only says he noticed the “purity of the Greek”, that’s it. Nothing about the authorship. They may be recognized as peculiar, but not doubting the authenticity.

 

[avflf]

Are you trying to say Hebrews is not the inspired word of God and should be removed from the Bible?

Did you actually read the post? Please tell me where I said what you’re implying?