T
- Status
P
PJM
Guest
This is a fine defense of the practice of relics.
What about “The ark of the Covenant?” And Aarons staff, and the Commanments themselfs? What about the sacred Shroud, ect.
Anyone who has even a slight understanding of the “freefall” of the American Catholic Church, from say 1970 to present, should find it nearly impossible to not accept any and all forms of Spiritual assistnace offered by our God. Relics included.
John MacArthur and his concerns are misplaced. Here is a Preacher that proclaims to be “a bible expert” and still is able to deny:
Mt. 16, John 6, John 20, and other relavent verses, and we are to “honor” his personal opinion? Why is that?
Either God is in charge or He’s NOT! Can’t be both way’s.
Love and prayer’s
D
DLClark
Guest
Church history shows that the Catholic church did not begin untill around the 300s AD after the leaders in Rome set up the church there with its bishops.
The Books of the bible were alread in circulation and considered inspired. What the church councils did was to organize them into the order we have now/ They did not authenticat their inspiration that happened the moment they were written.
G
GoneFishin
Guest
This has turned into a Bible vs. Church debate and unless DLC can show where he is getting his sources nobody is going to take him seriously.
T
Tomster
Guest
Just a guess, “Roman Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner?
T
Tomster
Guest
Disregarding your first sentence which is just plain wrong, I see where you are admitting the authority of the Catholic Church to at least “organize them in the order we have now.” Now you have stepped right into it and admitted an extra-biblical source authenticating the Canon. BTW - The Church did authenticate the correct books and threw out the rest.
The Church started at Pentecost. There wasn’t a New Testament at that point in time.
P
PJM
Guest
Excellent question!
I think you may have missed it. Look at John 21:26…
OPPS. you caught me, there is no verse 26 so it must be COVERED BY VERSE 25:tiphat:
Love and prayer’s,
E
East_Anglican
Guest
Joshua 24:32
And Joseph’s bones, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem in the tract of land that Jacob bought for a hundred pieces of silver from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. This became the inheritance of Joseph’s descendants.
2 Kings 13:21
Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.
2 Kings 2:14
And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over
Matthew 9:20
And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
Matthew 14:36
And besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.
Acts 5:15
Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
Then we have The Ten Commandments , the jar of manna and Aarons staff that buddd kept in a special box - The Ark of The Covenant.
So yes Relics are most certainly biblical but it does not meanspecific doctrines concerning them are.
E
East_Anglican
Guest
Among other things.
C
ChadS
Guest
All the subsequent posters that quoted this post originally missed out on something that DLC wrote but probably didn’t intend. His quote allows for a source of authority outside of the Bible that carried some weight in determining what the canon would be.
What determined the OT was that the book was written by a prophet or was authenticated by the prophets. This flys in the face of his previous arguments that the books were self-authenticating and plainly canonically recognized the moment they were written. If each book that was written was plainly scripture then no authentication would be needed by any prophet or successor to the apostle.
It also begs the question of whether anybody can determine which books are canonical. If they were self-authenticating then the Holy Spirit wouldn’t even be necessary to point out which books belonged to scripture and which ones didn’t. What I mean it should be plainly obvious to anybody which books a Christian would consider canonical regardless of what state of grace they were in.
ChadS
D
DLClark
Guest
- Self-authentication. It is essential to remember that the Bible is self-authenticating since its books were breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, the books were canonical the moment they were written. It was not necessary to wait until various councils could examine the books to determine if they were acceptable or not. Their canonicity was inherent within them, since they came from God. People and councils only recognized and acknowledged what is true because of the intrinsic inspiration of the books as they were written. No Bible book became canonical by action of some church council.
- Decisions of men. Nevertheless, men and councils did have to consider which books should be recognized as part of the canon, for some candidates were not inspired. Some decisions and choices had to be made, and God guided groups of people to make correct choices (not without guidelines) and to collect the various writings into the canons of the Old and New Testaments.
- Debates over canonicity. In the process of deciding and collecting, it would not be unexpected that some disputes would arise about some of the books. And such was the case. However, these debates in no way weaken the authenticity of the truly canonical books, nor do they give status to those that were not inspired by God.
- Completion of canon. Since a.d. 397 the Christian church has considered the canon of the Bible to be complete; if it is complete, then it must be closed. Therefore, we cannot expect any more books to be discovered or written that would open the canon again and add to its sixty-six books. Even if a letter of Paul were discovered, it would not be canonical. After all, Paul must have written many letters during his lifetime in addition to the ones that are in the New Testament; yet the church did not include them in the canon. Not everything an apostle wrote was inspired, for it was not the writer who was inspired but his writings, and not necessarily all of them.
The more recent books of the cults that are placed alongside the Bible are not inspired and have no claim to be part of the canon of Scripture. Certainly so-called prophetic utterances or visions that some claim to be from God today cannot be inspired and considered as part of God’s revelation or as having any kind of authority like that of the canonical books.
—Basic Theology
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
This is why Protestants unknowingly accept the authority of the Catholic Church for their New Testaments.
Now…back to relics…
po18guy
Well-known member
Your “history” is quite, um, interesting. And where and when did the “reformed” church enter into all of this? Tell us when a small group of “neo-Romans” declared the “reformed” church to be the possessor of all truth? I looked through the bible for prophecies of this and found only references to “false prophets”, “false christs” and “antichrists”??? Please help me here.
M
Monk_Michael
Guest
My Friends of the Roman Church,
I pray that I may call you my friends, I am Fr. Michael Valentine (Sweet), a Celtic Orthodox Priest of the American Orthodox Church, I write under the name of Monk Michael, I often read through these threads but have posted only once. Why do you argue over relics? I saw in an earlier post on this thread where someone mentioned the Transfiguration and that the Word of God was more important than any experience, I generalize the statement of course because I do not remember it word for word, the experience of God cannot be neglected.
In order to keep my posting short and to the point regarding this issue here, please read the following scripture; In the beginning was the WORD, the WORD was with God and the WORD was God. When you read a book, you are reading a synopsis of someone’s speech or words. The idea that the one poster said regarding the transfiguration and the Word of God being more important, remember the above scripture;
Always understand this; the WORD of God is not a book, It is a person: Jesus Christ, and this WORD of God said this; the kingdom of heaven is within you. So, the word of God is the experience of God and the two cannot be separated.
Monk Michael,
monkmichael@newwarriorministries.com
I pray that I may call you my friends, I am Fr. Michael Valentine (Sweet), a Celtic Orthodox Priest of the American Orthodox Church, I write under the name of Monk Michael, I often read through these threads but have posted only once. Why do you argue over relics? I saw in an earlier post on this thread where someone mentioned the Transfiguration and that the Word of God was more important than any experience, I generalize the statement of course because I do not remember it word for word, the experience of God cannot be neglected.
In order to keep my posting short and to the point regarding this issue here, please read the following scripture; In the beginning was the WORD, the WORD was with God and the WORD was God. When you read a book, you are reading a synopsis of someone’s speech or words. The idea that the one poster said regarding the transfiguration and the Word of God being more important, remember the above scripture;
Always understand this; the WORD of God is not a book, It is a person: Jesus Christ, and this WORD of God said this; the kingdom of heaven is within you. So, the word of God is the experience of God and the two cannot be separated.
Monk Michael,
monkmichael@newwarriorministries.com
M
Monk_Michael
Guest
I must also post another reply to the one who posted just above mine. The post that claims the Catholic church was started in the 300’s. It is common for all unlearned to boast about their limited knowledge without any further study. When you attack someone or something you should first always thoroughly study the subject. I will post one writer here for you to study, you may continue on your own or completely disregard what I have posted, if in fact you choose to disregard then you will fall into the category of those in whom Jesus Christ spews out of His mouth as being lukewarm, if you already know everything and choose not to research the truth, you will condemn yourself, here is my quote:
Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Take a close look at the year of the writing, notice the word ‘Catholic’ and the idea that the ‘Bishop’ is the ‘Church’. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter himself, regardless of whether this book is in the Bible or not has no relevance to it’s truth, this is the church as it was formed under the Apostles, the Apostles did not write these things down into a book because it was not necessary, the church did not include it in the Bible because the Bible is not a book on how to organize the structure of the church and run it, that is what the other books are for.
The Bible is a collection of books put together for instruction so that everyone could have the same guidelines. If you are using a modern Bible then you are using a fake book of scriptures, if you cling to a modern King James you are using a falsified copy of the original King James no matter what it says in the introduction, I have a copy of an original 1611 King James in my posession, it contains many more books than today’s so-called King James.
If your Bible is Protestant you are missing approximately 30 verses or so from the book of Daniel because they were removed. There is so much more to Holy Writ than you can even imagine. I only write these things and chastise for the benefit of your eternal soul, it is with love that I give you this information. You may choose to disregard it but in so doing you will continue to promote a lie and therefore will stand in the last day with a whole lot of explaining to do.
The choice is yours.
Monk Michael*
Ignatius of Antioch
“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
Take a close look at the year of the writing, notice the word ‘Catholic’ and the idea that the ‘Bishop’ is the ‘Church’. Ignatius was appointed by St. Peter himself, regardless of whether this book is in the Bible or not has no relevance to it’s truth, this is the church as it was formed under the Apostles, the Apostles did not write these things down into a book because it was not necessary, the church did not include it in the Bible because the Bible is not a book on how to organize the structure of the church and run it, that is what the other books are for.
The Bible is a collection of books put together for instruction so that everyone could have the same guidelines. If you are using a modern Bible then you are using a fake book of scriptures, if you cling to a modern King James you are using a falsified copy of the original King James no matter what it says in the introduction, I have a copy of an original 1611 King James in my posession, it contains many more books than today’s so-called King James.
If your Bible is Protestant you are missing approximately 30 verses or so from the book of Daniel because they were removed. There is so much more to Holy Writ than you can even imagine. I only write these things and chastise for the benefit of your eternal soul, it is with love that I give you this information. You may choose to disregard it but in so doing you will continue to promote a lie and therefore will stand in the last day with a whole lot of explaining to do.
The choice is yours.
Monk Michael*
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I would call it less of an argument than defense of the faith. For if one rejects relics, he will reject the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church recognizes veneration of relics. So as long as one defends charitably, there is nothing wrong with defending the nature of relics and their Scriptural roots.
po18guy
Well-known member
Monk Michael, as a brother in Christ, you are always welcome! As a Christian who believes in Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, we are separated only by a thin plastic wall! May the warmth of Jesus Christ melt that wall!
Your posts are very encouraging. May those with no knowledge of Church history take you up on your offer to look into that history!
Christ’s peace.
M
Monk_Michael
Guest
Greetings in Christ Jesus,
First to MarcoPolo: thank you for your reply to my post. in my use of the word ‘argument’ I should have used something different. I merely meant two opposing statements that continued to go on for quite some time in the thread. In today’s English the word denotes some sort of vicious yelling and screaming match back and forth and I see that this is the manner in which it was taken. So, I apologize for the use of that word.
I was simply making a small point that without the scripture to defend the point, it is pointless to defend it to someone who only allows scripture to be the deciding factor and it can be a tremondous waste of time remaining in opposition, sometimes we must simply allow others to remain wrong until the Holy Spirit moves them, sometimes that may take many years, as Roman Catholics you are probably very aware of the years of prayer and attempted teaching by St. Monica for and to her son who was ultimately to become St. Augustine of Hippo.
To: po18guy: thank you for your kind reply, it is always my hope that those to whom I speak actually begin to study the history, it requires an open and honest heart and the willingness to accept the truth as it is unveiled, unfortunately, pride is such an incredibly subtle sin that burrows the deepest into our very fabric, and because of that, it becomes necessary to have an incredibly intense desire to understand the truth and the fasting and prayer that goes along with the search, without these things the truth will not be found.
It is sad to say that between the pride of most and the fact that many seem to just be simply too lazy to research, they condemn themselves through in-action. While condemning themselves they speak even louder against all of Catholicism in any form. Which again, the reason for my statement, sometimes you just have to leave them alone regardless of how many times they write, if they continue to dispute they will only convince themselves that they are even more so the right and it will become even more difficult to convince them of the truth.
This is my philosophy anyway, I put their names into a book of prayers that I keep and the prayers that I myself can see that they need and two times each day, morning and evening I pray for all of those in the book, at Divine Liturgy/Mass they are included, this is our greatest weapon; prayer with faith.
Monk Michael
First to MarcoPolo: thank you for your reply to my post. in my use of the word ‘argument’ I should have used something different. I merely meant two opposing statements that continued to go on for quite some time in the thread. In today’s English the word denotes some sort of vicious yelling and screaming match back and forth and I see that this is the manner in which it was taken. So, I apologize for the use of that word.
I was simply making a small point that without the scripture to defend the point, it is pointless to defend it to someone who only allows scripture to be the deciding factor and it can be a tremondous waste of time remaining in opposition, sometimes we must simply allow others to remain wrong until the Holy Spirit moves them, sometimes that may take many years, as Roman Catholics you are probably very aware of the years of prayer and attempted teaching by St. Monica for and to her son who was ultimately to become St. Augustine of Hippo.
To: po18guy: thank you for your kind reply, it is always my hope that those to whom I speak actually begin to study the history, it requires an open and honest heart and the willingness to accept the truth as it is unveiled, unfortunately, pride is such an incredibly subtle sin that burrows the deepest into our very fabric, and because of that, it becomes necessary to have an incredibly intense desire to understand the truth and the fasting and prayer that goes along with the search, without these things the truth will not be found.
It is sad to say that between the pride of most and the fact that many seem to just be simply too lazy to research, they condemn themselves through in-action. While condemning themselves they speak even louder against all of Catholicism in any form. Which again, the reason for my statement, sometimes you just have to leave them alone regardless of how many times they write, if they continue to dispute they will only convince themselves that they are even more so the right and it will become even more difficult to convince them of the truth.
This is my philosophy anyway, I put their names into a book of prayers that I keep and the prayers that I myself can see that they need and two times each day, morning and evening I pray for all of those in the book, at Divine Liturgy/Mass they are included, this is our greatest weapon; prayer with faith.
Monk Michael
po18guy
Well-known member
How often we forget that it is solely by the Holy Spirit that hearts are converted. How often we use our tongues in futile effort when our spirits could accomplish so much more in the silence of prayer.
As with a brother in quicksand, the better it is to throw him a spiritual rope than to allow him to sink as he argues his plight.
Christ’s peace be with you.
R
Ruthie
Guest
There were many manuscripts floating around in the 4th century, claiming to be gospels, which did not make it into the Canon. The “Gospel of Thomas” and the “Gospel of Judas,” for example. Why were these not included? Because Catholic* councils found them unBiblical. There is no proof that any of the NT was authorized, at the time of writing, by an Apostle or one of his disciples. Thee was only word of mouth passed down to the members of these councils.
*The Church was first called Catholic sometime before AD 117, by St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to the Smyrneans (Ch 8), which he wrote on the way to his martyrdom in Rome. He was “very probably” a disciple of John. Sources: newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm
Perhaps these following thoughts have already been spoken. If so, I’m sorry.
I don’t understand your interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20. “Private interpretation” means to me that I get to read the Bible and interpret it for myself. Isn’t that what you advocate? Isn’t that why there are so many sects of non-Catholic Christians?
One of the things that drove me into the Catholic church was participating in a private Bible study forum with non-Catholic Christians of many stripes. After two years, I realized that each of these groups based their beliefs on certain verses, and ignored any verses to the contrary. It seemed to me that they chopped the Bible up into bits, and kept their favorite bits, and swept the rest away.
That sure sounds like “private interpretation” to me.
I believe the Bible, as the word of God, cannot contradict itself, and that therefore, we must read the whole thing before we decide what the writers meant to tell us. So I did this, looking for meanings that brought “contradictory” verses together. I formed beliefs based on this - and found them codified in the Catholic church.
It has seemed to me for a while now that those who say “The Bible alone” are actually treating the Bible as an idol. It does not contain all that Jesus did and taught (see the last verse of John’s Gospel), or all that His Apostles taught. To find out what the first Christians did and believed, we have to read what they wrote and passed on to their disciples. Again, we have to read all of it, not “cherry-pick” the words that we agree with.
We should also know something about the teaching methods used back then, and Greek idioms, and, and, and…
Your sister in Christ,
Ruthie
- Status