An in depth study of the bible can only lead to Catholicism

[Publisher]

cont…

**As much validity in Luke as in Matthew…the birth narrative contradict one another almost in every way…we don’t realize it as we’ve been taught the story through our Christmas Pagents…“Matthew” has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem and living in a house…no mention of a census…no mention of a stable…no mention of them going to the temple to meet Simeon and Anna…then fleeing to Egypt. “Luke” has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth and contrives to get them to Bethlehem…no mention of the slaughter…no mention of them fleeing to Egypt…no mention of Magi…no mention of a house in which they lived…after going to the temple they go back to Nazareth. Which one is correct?

If both are read independantly…they contradict…if they are “blended” then violence is done to the text as now we have a third version of what happened…the gospels aren’t history…they are religious writings to convey Jesus’ teachings.

Did the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew happen on a mount? Or did it happen on the plains as in Luke? They used common sources and wove their story…not history.**

I think trite the age old addage that “The victors write history” This is only partly true. The victors do not write history in its entirety. Have you noticed how history always reveals evidence that depart from the party line of the victors? There is always evidence to the contradict or support the “victors take on history” The very rocks record history as well. How many americans look positively on their treatment of the Native Americans? Fewer than in 1900. Yet, certainly the Americans won the indian wars. Yet we have evidence that the propeganda was not true.

**Just as the history of the Native Americans survive and we now know the tradgedy of really occured…genocide at the hand of “Christian men” to the indiginous people of America…so now we are seeing with new discoveries such as Nag Hamaddi and other archeological finds how much religious propaganda was fed to us for almost two millenia.

The Truth is something we live…it is something we do…**

Final note. Dan Brown considers the gnostic gospels to be as valid as the NT ones. His story is fictional but the basis on which he portrays his story is to his liking by his own admission.

He considered the Gnostic Gospels as valid representations of diverse early Christian thought. That is true.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you agian for you answers. You are a delight to corrospond with. If I may -

I understand you base your premise that the Catholic church IS the Church…that is where we disagree. It is an institution which presereved much of Western history and the dominant religious ideas of those first centuries after Jesus of Nazareth left this world. Friends do not believe that the “ancient church” to be the Catholic church…to keep going back asking “Why it was necessary to have…outside of the ancient church…” really doesn’t address our beliefs.

Christ is present in our world now, calling men and women to follow him. Those who follow the Light Within and share in his incarnation share in his Life. Those that share in his Life ARE members of the Church in our modern age, just as those in ancient times were members of the Church who shared in his Life then. It is our witness and testimony that “Christ is Present among his people to teach them himself.”…to teach them to love…to show mercy…to seek justice…to be people of peace and compassion. The two great commandments…"Love God and love one’s neighbor IS the sum of the Law and the Prophets…all else is "fluff"

I find little here to contend with, except of course our differing positions on the Ancient Church, but I will comment just briefly on your last statement (Bolded and underlined). While I fully agree with the two great commandments and try to model my life on them as well, I think it is wrong to refer to all else as “Fluff”.

James said:
Since Christ, in the same passage where he says that he is with “two or three gathered in His name”, also tells us to take our troubles to “The Church” and to abide by the decision of “The Church” (Mt 18 15-18) May I ask how Quakers interpret this passage?

If I am a member of the Church and meet with other members of the Church…would I not take my trouble to them? The Church is present where his people are present. Surely you’re not implying that if a Catholic has issue with another Catholic they must take it to the 1.5 billion members of the Catholic church to resolve the issue? Wouldn’t they take their problem to a local assembly of believers?

And if the trouble you take to them is a matter of doctrine, which another member is falsely teaching (sinning agianst you and the Spirit) and your local community cannot agree on who is right what then?
To carry this to the next level, if this same issue comes up in your community and in a community 500 miles away and each community reaches different and opposing decisions, how do you determine which is truly “Spirit Led” and which is in error?

Finally, This is why I don’t find the 2 or 3 gathered as being a convincing argument for “Church Authority”. In the passage in Matthew, the second step described is the taking of “two or three others so that each fact may be confirmed”. Since, as you state, Christ is present among these 3 or four, this satifies the “telling it to the Church” by your definition of church. But the passage does not stop there. It includes a third step which is, “Tell it to The Church” AND, if they refuse to listen to “The Church” they are to be put outside.

You are right, we as catholics do not simply take issues to the “Local community”. We look to the leadership and direction of the Universal Church as compiled in the Bible, the Catachism and in Canon Law which has developed over the centuries to answer specific questions universally and thus avoid fractious problems within a community.

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, James

It would be greatly appreciated if you would sharethe in depth study that lead to this quote:

I understand you base your premise that the Catholic church IS the Church…that is where we disagree. It is an institution which presereved much of Western history and the dominant religious ideas of those first centuries after Jesus of Nazareth left this world. Friends do not believe that the “ancient church” to be the Catholic church…to keep going back asking “Why it was necessary to have…outside of the ancient church…” really doesn’t address our beliefs.

As I appreciate the question: “Why it was necessary…” is that Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity determined from all eternity that it was necessary to found His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) upon Peter (Matt 16) and reinforced this idea by telling Peter after he turned to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22) and then after the Resurrection Christ again instructed Peter to take the leadership role and feed my lambs and sheep (John 21)

Christ founded His Chruch in the 1st Century, not the 17th, He established the necessity for Sacraments such as: Baptism (Matt 15, Mark 7, and Luke 11), Confession (John 20)and Holy Eucharist (Matt 26, John 6) and He rose from the dead to prove His statements were True. The early believers went to their death proclaiming the truth of Christ’s Mission. This is a thumbnail version of my in depth study of the Bible that clearly points to the Catholic Church as the True Chruch.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

 

[Publisher]

Thank you agian for you answers. You are a delight to corrospond with. If I may -

I find little here to contend with, except of course our differing positions on the Ancient Church, but I will comment just briefly on your last statement (Bolded and underlined). While I fully agree with the two great commandments and try to model my life on them as well, I think it is wrong to refer to all else as “Fluff”.

And if the trouble you take to them is a matter of doctrine, which another member is falsely teaching (sinning agianst you and the Spirit) and your local community cannot agree on who is right what then?

Friends seek the sense of the meeting on issues. We don’t vote on any issue…we discuss and “wait upon the Lord” for an answer…sometimes this takes many weeks to many years…but we finally get a resolution with all parties in agreement…and if not in agreement…at least there will be no discention on the matter as the Friend who cannot agree will “stand down” on the issue and bow to the “sense of the Meeting”.

To carry this to the next level, if this same issue comes up in your community and in a community 500 miles away and each community reaches different and opposing decisions, how do you determine which is truly “Spirit Led” and which is in error?

Same policy…if it effects the Yearly Meeting…or the Quarterly Meeting and not a local Monthly Meeting only…time and prayer and meeting for worship and discussion is employed until the matter is resolved.

Finally, This is why I don’t find the 2 or 3 gathered as being a convincing argument for “Church Authority”. In the passage in Matthew, the second step described is the taking of “two or three others so that each fact may be confirmed”.

See above…

Since, as you state, Christ is present among these 3 or four, this satifies the “telling it to the Church” by your definition of church. But the passage does not stop there. It includes a third step which is, “Tell it to The Church” AND, if they refuse to listen to “The Church” they are to be put outside.

Not very often is anyone “read out of Meeting”…be it a Monthly Meeting, Quarterly Meeting or Yearly Meeting…but it does occur.

You are right, we as catholics do not simply take issues to the “Local community”. We look to the leadership and direction of the Universal Church as compiled in the Bible, the Catachism and in Canon Law which has developed over the centuries to answer specific questions universally and thus avoid fractious problems within a community.

And we too look to Leadership of the Universal Church…the Head of the Church and it seems to work for us.

Peace
James

Peace to you.

 

[JRKH]

Hi, James

It would be greatly appreciated if you would sharethe in depth study that lead to this quote:

I understand you base your premise that the Catholic church IS the Church…that is where we disagree. It is an institution which presereved much of Western history and the dominant religious ideas of those first centuries after Jesus of Nazareth left this world. Friends do not believe that the “ancient church” to be the Catholic church…to keep going back asking “Why it was necessary to have…outside of the ancient church…” really doesn’t address our beliefs.

As I appreciate the question: “Why it was necessary…” is that Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity determined from all eternity that it was necessary to found His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) upon Peter (Matt 16) and reinforced this idea by telling Peter after he turned to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22) and then after the Resurrection Christ again instructed Peter to take the leadership role and feed my lambs and sheep (John 21)

Christ founded His Chruch in the 1st Century, not the 17th, He established the necessity for Sacraments such as: Baptism (Matt 15, Mark 7, and Luke 11), Confession (John 20)and Holy Eucharist (Matt 26, John 6) and He rose from the dead to prove His statements were True. The early believers went to their death proclaiming the truth of Christ’s Mission. This is a thumbnail version of my in depth study of the Bible that clearly points to the Catholic Church as the True Chruch.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

I believe you have directed your question incorrectly. It is not I, but “Publisher” who made the statement you are questioning. I will allow him/her to answer you on this.

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, James,

Oooooooooooooops … sorry about that

I believe you have directed your question incorrectly. It is not I, but “Publisher” who made the statement you are questioning. I will allow him/her to answer you on this.

Publisher, if you would be so good as to respond to my misdirected post, I would appreciate it… thanks!

Peace
James

Publisher, if you would be so good as to respond to my misdirected post, I would appreciate it… thanks!

God bless,

 

[JRKH]

Peace to you.

And to You Publisher,

Friends seek the sense of the meeting on issues. We don’t vote on any issue…we discuss and “wait upon the Lord” for an answer…sometimes this takes many weeks to many years…but we finally get a resolution with all parties in agreement…and if not in agreement…at least there will be no discention on the matter as the Friend who cannot agree will “stand down” on the issue and bow to the “sense of the Meeting”.
(Snip)

Same policy…if it effects the Yearly Meeting…or the Quarterly Meeting and not a local Monthly Meeting only…time and prayer and meeting for worship and discussion is employed until the matter is resolved.
(Snip)

Not very often is anyone “read out of Meeting”…be it a Monthly Meeting, Quarterly Meeting or Yearly Meeting…but it does occur.
(Snip)

And we too look to Leadership of the Universal Church…the Head of the Church and it seems to work for us.

Thank you for this clarification. The thing that I note in this is that, if I or some other person of the Catholic faith were to describe how the Church makes doctrinal determinations and how councils function, I don’t think that we could describe it any better than you have here.
The Church ponders and prays and discusses and waits upon the Lord in all of Her deliberations.

Something to consider when one seeks to understand the Will of the Lord, and how He administered His Church in the 16 or so centuries before the founding of the Quaker movement.

Peace
James

 

[Publisher]

And to You Publisher,

Thank you for this clarification. The thing that I note in this is that, if I or some other person of the Catholic faith were to describe how the Church makes doctrinal determinations and how councils function, I don’t think that we could describe it any better than you have here.
The Church ponders and prays and discusses and waits upon the Lord in all of Her deliberations.

Something to consider when one seeks to understand the Will of the Lord, and how He administered His Church in the 16 or so centuries before the founding of the Quaker movement.

Peace
James

There have always been those who would be called the “Friends of God”…even Abraham was called “Friend” by God. Those “Friends of God” joined together in a society and testify they are merely members of the Body of Christ and His Church…not the only ones called “friends” by God…

If you count Him as Friend…we are of the same Body and share in the same Light…each of us bears the Image of God and shares in His Spirit.

 

[JRKH]

There have always been those who would be called the “Friends of God”…even Abraham was called “Friend” by God. Those “Friends of God” joined together in a society and testify they are merely members of the Body of Christ and His Church…not the only ones called “friends” by God…

If you count Him as Friend…we are of the same Body and share in the same Light…each of us bears the Image of God and shares in His Spirit.

Indeed. God has called us from the beginning. And all who Follow the Will of God are indeed His friends, and His Children.
Christ has called us friends and these friends of God did indeed join together in a society. They did so from the beginning and so the “Society of Friends”, better known as the Universal (Catholic) Church has been in existance ever since.

I do not say the above in opposition to you or your faith community, but rather to try and demonstrate that the Friends of God have been organized for much longer than the last couple hundred years.
Also, it is not that I feel you are wrong in your faith, but rather to encourage you (and others) to seek the fullness available in the Ancient Church, particularly through the great gift of the Holy Eucharist.

May God continue to Bless you on Your Journey.

peace
James

 

[sambos671]

How did this become about Quakers? Not that I have anything against Quakers. But I would expect to see debate from a historical nature. Do Quakers believe in the Eucharist? I believe I have significant different opinion about the Gospels of the NT and their origin or relevance to reporting events that occured in Jesus’ life and that of his apostles. Though I do agree with our quaker friend about the importance of living the teachings of Christ. Though I also believe that the Church is the proper medium by which the Holy Spirit communicates to man. Otherwise following the train of thought that there was a remote figure that resembles Jesus of the NT but not the same person. And that He was not accurately recorded by the 4 gospels of the NT save for his moral teachings and that the 4 gospels are on a level playing ground with the gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Judas or Mary Magdelene. Then I must conclude that the 4 gospels are fiction in some respect giving us an inaccurate picture of Jesus as he was. The Crusifixion, death, and subsequent resurrection is irrelevant. I may conclude that the Jews like Ben Masada are correct in that Jesus was a good rabbi that was misunderstood purposely by his followers or specifically Paul, but Jesus was not God nor the son of God. That any religion as long as it meets with the standards of this moral teaching of Jesus is just as useful. Because the bottom line is one of many (from the thoughts presented here) versions of Christianity (which now is comprable with the ancient mystery religions) which all are equally valid (and some denied Jesus divinity altogther) and the most popular one won. Which latter subdivided again but no different from the begining. I must then conclude as long as I live morally I don’t really need a “religion” nor do I need to partake in Eucharist, nor do I need to participate in an “organized” religion. In fact. I can be an athiest and as long as I feed the poor, help the widows, visit the imprisoned, and overall be a good person causing harm to none (a good wiccan proverb) then I’m good. Is this correct?

 

[JRKH]

How did this become about Quakers? Not that I have anything against Quakers. But I would expect to see debate from a historical nature.

(Snip)

My apologies.
I have had my questions re: Quakers answered and so will drop the side discussion.
Thanks for you patience.

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Publisher,

Sorry for the mix up … … I will try this again.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would share the in depth study that lead to this quote:

**“I understand you base your premise that the Catholic church IS the Church…that is where we disagree. It is an institution which presereved much of Western history and the dominant religious ideas of those first centuries after Jesus of Nazareth left this world. Friends do not believe that the “ancient church” to be the Catholic church…to keep going back asking “Why it was necessary to have…outside of the ancient church…” really doesn’t address our beliefs.” **

As I appreciate the question: “Why it was necessary…” is that Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity determined from all eternity that it was necessary to found His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) upon Peter (Matt 16) and reinforced this idea by telling Peter after he turned to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22) and then after the Resurrection Christ again instructed Peter to take the leadership role and feed my lambs and sheep (John 21)

Christ founded His Chruch in the 1st Century, not the 17th, He established the necessity for Sacraments such as: Baptism (Matt 15, Mark 7, and Luke 11), Confession (John 20)and Holy Eucharist (Matt 26, John 6) and He rose from the dead to prove His statements were True. The early believers went to their death proclaiming the truth of Christ’s Mission. This is a thumbnail version of my in depth study of the Bible that clearly points to the Catholic Church as the True Chruch.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

 

[Publisher]

Hi, Publisher,

Sorry for the mix up … … I will try this again.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would share the in depth study that lead to this quote:

**“I understand you base your premise that the Catholic church IS the Church…that is where we disagree. It is an institution which presereved much of Western history and the dominant religious ideas of those first centuries after Jesus of Nazareth left this world. Friends do not believe that the “ancient church” to be the Catholic church…to keep going back asking “Why it was necessary to have…outside of the ancient church…” really doesn’t address our beliefs.” **

As I appreciate the question: “Why it was necessary…” is that Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity determined from all eternity that it was necessary to found His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) upon Peter (Matt 16) and reinforced this idea by telling Peter after he turned to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22) and then after the Resurrection Christ again instructed Peter to take the leadership role and feed my lambs and sheep (John 21)

Tom, I understand your position. I do not share it. You state Christ “determined from all eternity it was necessary to found His Church(and that it would be the Catholic Church…” That IS the Catholic position…one not shared by the EO, OO and CO, let alone TEC, Lutheran, Methodist and particuarly Friends.

Christ founded His Chruch in the 1st Century,

**Agreed, no one stated that the 17th century was the starting place…simply that those of us called Friends chose to join together in a society of believers and witness to the Presence of Christ in our midst as he ministers to us and regenerates us with His Spirit. The Church is found in the following centuries after Christ as men believed in him and lived in fellowship with him and worshiped together as His Body. The institutional church of the time CC, EO and others do not make up His Church…but members of those institutions who have received His Spirit do…those whom he has redeemed make up the Chuch of God…those whom He has baptised into His Body by His Spirit. The Church is beyond the institutional heirarcy of Rome or Constantinopal or Cantebury or Swarthmore.

If you have found that faith that brings you into communion with Him, wonderful…I am not trying to call you away from such a relationsip with your brothers and sisters and Christ. For the People called Quakers, we have found Him to be sufficient…we have experienced Him in our midst and rejoice with those who may find Him in other faith traditions…**

not the 17th, He established the necessity for Sacraments such as: Baptism (Matt 15, Mark 7, and Luke 11), Confession (John 20)and Holy Eucharist (Matt 26, John 6) and He rose from the dead to prove His statements were True. The early believers went to their death proclaiming the truth of Christ’s Mission. This is a thumbnail version of my in depth study of the Bible that clearly points to the Catholic Church as the True Chruch.

**
The One Baptism that truly marks us as His own is with His Spirit…and the true eu-charis…a secular concept Paul used of “charis/charisma”, the relationship between craftsman and patron…when a patron bestowed “charis” to a craftsman to bestow a gift upon them simply because they appreciated their art and craftsmanship…the craftsman then was obligated to “give back” to the patron his best work as a sign of thanks **which was called “eucharis”…so our Patron has bestowed upon us unmerrited “charis”…“grace” out of love…and out of love we “give back” our “best work” in thanksgiving “eucharis” as a sign of our deep thanks and devotion to the Patron who is God. These are not original ideas with me…I have a good friend who shared them with me…Paul used the mundade and common ideas of his time to explain this astounding grace we receive direct from His Hand.

He also used the term “ecllisea” a term for a gathering of citizens…a congregation.
We support one another in prayer and works of mercy and peace, bearing one another’s burdens and pain. Each of us a priest and minister to ourselves and one another, we did not exchange the rituals and requirements of the old covenant for new ritual requirements under the New…it is NEW and Different…as we share in the Life of Christ in our Midst.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

May you find Grace and Peace

 

[StillWondering]

Actually, an implication is not a strong enough basis for what the church claimed in 1870AD for the bishop of Rome (which, if denied could merit a Catholic damnation).

In the rest of the world this passage is understood as part of the castigation of Saint Peter, after a grueling confession over his triple denial of Christ. The result was Saint Peter was once again allowed to join his brothers and admonished to do his job as bishop properly.

The manner of his death he would accept as his penance.

Well, why do you say the Church claimed that in 1870. From my understanding of the language, it is ratifying a long held belief. It’s like saying I am a chocalate lover. What makes anyone think I did not like chocalate before. For sure if I say “while I never liked chocalate before, now I do” then yeah that is clear. So I do not think your claim has merit unless there was editing between the original text and the English text available.

And it is not merely an implication. Tend my sheep seems to say, “hey this is my guys here, take care of them”. Feed my lambs and feed my sheep seems to say “hey there Peter, my people here are hungry, make sure to provide for their sustenance”.

In fact, this is just personal interpretation here, I think it also represents Peter as the person representing Christ to tend to his bishops too since there are sheep and there are lambs (young sheep).

Lastly, the acts have several scenes where Peter acts in an authoritative way among both followers and other notable teachers of the time. I believe you could think of a few, but I’ll mention Acts 15: 6-12 where Peter resolve all the disagreements during the council in Jerusalem. “After much debate…Peter got up and said to them, ‘My brothers…’ The whole assembly fell silent…”. In addition, in Luke 22: 31-34, Peter is told by Christ about how he will betray Jesus. Christ added He prays for Peter to “once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” In regards to correcting his followers, he wrote letters as well as talked to them directly. In Acts 11:1-18, he listened to the complaints of those who followed him and explained how the Gentiles came to be baptized. “When they heard this, they stopped objecting and glorified God…”. Finally within this topic, I would like to mention Acts 2: 14-40 where during Pentecost, “Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them…”

 

[sambos671]

I was watching “religulous” last night and something caught my attention. Bill Maher seems to hold certain views that have been purported. For instance. The NT Gospels we not writen as early as tradition has it. That therefore they cannot be trusted to accurately have recorded the teachings and sayings of Jesus. Because of this he makes a further step to saying Jesus isn’t even a historical figure and compares Christianity (much to the same effect as Zeitgeist) to Horis, Mythras, etc… it leaves him believing Christianity as a whole is ridiculous and dangerous. Is there then a correlation with denying the teachings of the Church with regard to scripture and its revelation that logically leads a person to a agnostic assumption as I mention in post 50?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Publisher,

In keeping with the focus of this thread, allow me to press my question: where in the Bible is there a justification for leaving the Faith founded by Christ and going a group of men who have cut their own path?

Tom, I understand your position. I do not share it. You state Christ “determined from all eternity it was necessary to found His Church(and that it would be the Catholic Church…” That IS the Catholic position…one not shared by the EO, OO and CO, let alone TEC, Lutheran, Methodist and particuarly Friends.

It isn’t that I do not understand that you do not agree with me… But, if this lack of agreement is from, “An in depth study of the bible…” where does it come from? Whether others do not agree is really immaterial - truth is singular, error multiple. No? Just look at al the Protestant denominations out there with their own different intrepretations of the Bible and how they simply contradict one another.

Agreed, no one stated that the 17th century was the starting place…simply that those of us called Friends chose to join together in a society of believers and witness to the Presence of Christ in our midst as he ministers to us and regenerates us with His Spirit. The Church is found in the following centuries after Christ as men believed in him and lived in fellowship with him and worshiped together as His Body.

Having a group of folks come togethr to praise and worship God is not in question. But, to do, 1600 years leater, in unique ways that differ from what Christ said in the Bible is where I am coming from.

The institutional church of the time CC, EO and others do not make up His Church…but members of those institutions who have received His Spirit do…those whom he has redeemed make up the Chuch of God…those whom He has baptised into His Body by His Spirit. The Church is beyond the institutional heirarcy of Rome or Constantinopal or Cantebury or Swarthmore.

I really can not speak for any other organization besides the Catholic Church, but this much I know, historically, from the time of Christ’s public ministry to this very day - there has been a direct relationship between the Apostles and the Catholic Church. What others have chosen to do, they will have to answer for - the issue is what actually is in the Bible to support either the actions taken by the Catholic Church (who actually brought the Canon of Scriptue (Bible) into existence!! ) ) or others who have chosen their own path.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Sambos671,

You know, there was a time that such a program (something openly hostile to a religious point of view) would NOT have been allowed on the national airways. It is patently offensive and is engaged in ridicule and not a thoughtful discussion. This is just another example at how hostile our society has become to religion.

I was watching “religulous” last night and something caught my attention. Bill Maher seems to hold certain views that have been purported. For instance. The NT Gospels we not writen as early as tradition has it. That therefore they cannot be trusted to accurately have recorded the teachings and sayings of Jesus. Because of this he makes a further step to saying Jesus isn’t even a historical figure and compares Christianity (much to the same effect as Zeitgeist) to Horis, Mythras, etc… it leaves him believing Christianity as a whole is ridiculous and dangerous. Is there then a correlation with denying the teachings of the Church with regard to scripture and its revelation that logically leads a person to a agnostic assumption as I mention in post 50?

You may want to find a good book to read while Bill Maher spews his filth.

God bless

 

[sambos671]

Hi, Sambos671,

You know, there was a time that such a program (something openly hostile to a religious point of view) would NOT have been allowed on the national airways. It is patently offensive and is engaged in ridicule and not a thoughtful discussion. This is just another example at how hostile our society has become to religion.

You may want to find a good book to read while Bill Maher spews his filth.

God bless

Thanks I do. Do not misunderstand I’m not taking Mr. Maher’s point of view and I do find it offensive. My point is rather germaine to the discussion at hand. My OP indicates that having taken an indepth look at scriptures, and history has lead me back to the Catholic Church. I am purplexed that others have not taken this track which I believe is sensible. And wonder if people who are still protestants (I’m indicating the more fundamental side of things rather than others such as Lutheran, Anglican, etc) ask themselves the same questions? And if they do why do they find their answers to be satisfactory? However, a Pilgrim brings in the Quaker question and indicates that at the very start there was no one tradition or basic teaching of the apostles but many competing Christianities that “faught each other for orthodoxy”. The populist one won. Though that cannot be true since Arius and his followers were more popular and had greater numbers of believers and had support of the Emperor’s mother (during Ambrose). So the contention is that the NT gospels aren’t accurate in record but holding the principles of the Orthodox teaching which won out. My suggestion then is if this is the case (which I do not believe as I do not hold to the Jesus Seminar of John Dominic Crossan nor to Dan Browns historical point of view) would it not by logic lead one down the path of agnosticism such as I’ve noted with Bill Maher? I hope you understand how I am viewing this.

 

[Publisher]

Hi, Publisher,

In keeping with the focus of this thread, allow me to press my question: where in the Bible is there a justification for leaving the Faith founded by Christ and going a group of men who have cut their own path?

Tom, I understand your position. I do not share it. You state Christ “determined from all eternity it was necessary to found His Church(and that it would be the Catholic Church…” That IS the Catholic position…one not shared by the EO, OO and CO, let alone TEC, Lutheran, Methodist and particuarly Friends.

It isn’t that I do not understand that you do not agree with me… But, if this lack of agreement is from, “An in depth study of the bible…” where does it come from? Whether others do not agree is really immaterial - truth is singular, error multiple. No? Just look at al the Protestant denominations out there with their own different intrepretations of the Bible and how they simply contradict one another.

Agreed, no one stated that the 17th century was the starting place…simply that those of us called Friends chose to join together in a society of believers and witness to the Presence of Christ in our midst as he ministers to us and regenerates us with His Spirit. The Church is found in the following centuries after Christ as men believed in him and lived in fellowship with him and worshiped together as His Body.

Having a group of folks come togethr to praise and worship God is not in question. But, to do, 1600 years leater, in unique ways that differ from what Christ said in the Bible is where I am coming from.

The institutional church of the time CC, EO and others do not make up His Church…but members of those institutions who have received His Spirit do…those whom he has redeemed make up the Chuch of God…those whom He has baptised into His Body by His Spirit. The Church is beyond the institutional heirarcy of Rome or Constantinopal or Cantebury or Swarthmore.

I really can not speak for any other organization besides the Catholic Church, but this much I know, historically, from the time of Christ’s public ministry to this very day - there has been a direct relationship between the Apostles and the Catholic Church. What others have chosen to do, they will have to answer for - the issue is what actually is in the Bible to support either the actions taken by the Catholic Church (who actually brought the Canon of Scriptue (Bible) into existence!! ) ) or others who have chosen their own path.

God bless

I understand that is your belief…but it is not one I share…and I do not find compelling evidence outside of Catholic/Orthodox writings. The ECF’s were the architects of the idea of “apostolic succession”…all competing faith traditions which existed eventually either was “absorbed” into the proto-catholic/orthodox movement OR eventually supressed completely…only in the last century do we have archeological discoveries of writings that suggest “the rest of the story”.

Friends didn’t “leave the Faith” in the 17th century…they embrace the Living Christ in their midst…and shared in the same experience of which the apostles and prophets shared. Quakerism is first and foremost a faith of experience with God…I would rather trust my own counsel and experience with God than accept the counsel of one claiming to be priest or minister for God on my belhalf.

I realize your faith in the bond between the CC and the apostles exists and is proof eonugh for you…it is not for me. The experience of that Present Reality is enough for me.

Peace to you Friend.

 

[Graubo3]

I understand that is your belief…but it is not one I share…and I do not find compelling evidence outside of Catholic/Orthodox writings. The ECF’s were the architects of the idea of “apostolic succession”…all competing faith traditions which existed eventually either was “absorbed” into the proto-catholic/orthodox movement OR eventually supressed completely…only in the last century do we have archeological discoveries of writings that suggest “the rest of the story”.

Publisher,

This ‘Christian competing faith’ concept is rather new to me, only since coming to this forum as a matter of fact. Would you please suggest some sources that I may study this further. No offense, but this sounds somewhat like it may have its origins from the Ivy League. I am always curious. Thank you.

Peace, Graubo