Articles on "Separated Brethren"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bballer32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But the teachings of judaism did not depend on a canon of Scripture…🤷
What else did it depend on? Oral Tradition? Would you say that the Oral Tradition of the Jews was correct, and remained correct, or had it lost its way at some point?
 
Wow! You have determined that I preach a “different Gospel?”

Tell me, just what Gospel am I preaching than that of Jesus Christ? What truth don’t I have?
It’s not just the truth you don’t have, but it is also the non-truths that you are more than likely preaching (making this claim off of your religion “non-denominational”).

For example: John 6 and the Bread of Life Discourse, Matthew 16:18-19, John 20 and 21.

As a non-denominational Christian, you cannot agree with the Catholic Church on any of these chapters that I have presented (unless you “bite the bullet” [philosophy term :D]) and still be separate. Therefore, by preaching a different explanation on these chapters, you would be preaching a different Gospel than the Catholic Church.

And, as logic and history follow, since God exists, and Jesus is God (giving Him Divine Authority), and Jesus clearly started one physical church and prayed for it’s unity as one, then there must be one visible Church on earth who God works through in fullness. That would be the Catholic Church (again following logic and actually history).

So, by preaching a Gospel that is different from the Catholic Church, you would then be preaching a different Gospel than that of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
 
What else did it depend on? Oral Tradition?
Divine Revelation, the firsthand teachings of the Patriarchs, Moses, then Sacred Tradition (later Talmud), then those who sat on “the Seat of Moses”, prophets, judges.
Would you say that the Oral Tradition of the Jews was correct, and remained correct, or had it lost its way at some point?
Depends on the Oral Tradition. Not everything must be followed exactly the same, there is room for difference of opinion on some matters - see the various Haredi or Orthodox sects.
 
Divine Revelation, the firsthand teachings of the Patriarchs, Moses, then Sacred Tradition (later Talmud), then those who sat on “the Seat of Moses”, prophets, judges.

Depends on the Oral Tradition. Not everything must be followed exactly the same, there is room for difference of opinion on some matters - see the various Haredi or Orthodox sects.
They couldn’t all be correct though. How do we know which ‘oral saying’ is correct? One thing they could agree on is that the Scriptures themselves are correct, correct? Or is that wrong?
 
What else did it depend on? Oral Tradition? Would you say that the Oral Tradition of the Jews was correct, and remained correct, or had it lost its way at some point?
“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." (Mat. 5:17)

They clearly had correct ways because Jesus fulfilled them. Also, the prophets never wrote down their own work. Someone else always did it, which proves Oral tradition happened before scripture.

So, the old law has legitimacy but not as much as Christ’s new Gospel, which is why we as Christians still use the Old Testament; it’s a light for the New Testament
 
They couldn’t all be correct though. How do we know which ‘oral saying’ is correct? One thing they could agree on is that the Scriptures themselves are correct, correct? Or is that wrong?
I don’t think so, since the various Jewish groups did not agree on which books were considered “Scripture” totally. The Books of Moses (Torah) were universally recognized, “there is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty,[4] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later.” – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon

For day to day living, it didn’t really matter what the canon or oral Tradition was, as long as everyone participated in the Temple practices and accepted the authority of the ones in the Seat of Moses.
 
strivingforeternity.org/authority-judaism/
The Mishnah was given orally from generation to generation but not word for word, instead concept by concept.

Jacob Neusner states in his translation of the Mishnah:

The Mishnah itself is generally supposed to have come to closure at the end of the second century, and its date, for conventional purposes only, is ca. A.D. 200. Now, of these two groups—sages from 70–130, and from 135–200—the latter is represented far more abundantly than the former. …

In the aftermath of the war against Rome in A.D.132–135, the Temple was declared permanently prohibited to Jews, and Jerusalem was closed off to them as well. So there was no cult, no Temple, no holy city, to which, at this time, the description of the Mishnaic laws applied. They observe at the very outset, therefore, that a sizable proportion of the Mishnah deals with matters to which the sages had no material access or practical knowledge at the time of their work.

A fundamental issue with the Rabbis was the acceptance of a traditional Torah, transmitted from one generation to another by word of mouth, side by side with the written text. It was claimed that the Oral Torah equally with the Written Torah, goes back to the Revelation on Sinai, if not in detail at least in principle. Forty-two enactments, which find no record in the Pentateuch, are described by the Talmud as ‘laws given to Moses on Sinai’.

The Roman governor Quietus asked R. Gamaliel, ‘How many Toroth were given to Israel?’ He answered, ‘Two – one in writing and the other orally’” (Sifre Deut. 351:145a).

Why, however, was it necessary for the Torah to be given in this twofold form? An answer suggested to the question is: “The Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel two Toroth, the written and the oral. He gave them the Written Torah in which are six hundred and thirteen commandments in order to fill them with precepts whereby they could earn merit. He gave them the Oral Torah whereby they could be distinguished from the other nations. This was not given in writing, so that the Ishmaelites should not fabricate it as they have done the Written Torah and say that they were Israel” (Num. R. 14:10). In the word ‘Ishmaelites’ we must detect one of the substitutions which were employed in the Middle-Ages to circumvent the censor. Obviously, Christians are meant. Since the Church adopted the Hebrew Scriptures, they ceased to be the peculiar possession of Jews. Therefore, the Oral Torah, which was not accepted by the Church, safeguarded the distinctiveness of the Jewish people living in a Christian environment. The problem with the word ‘Ishmaelites’ referring to Christians is that by the seventh century the Muslims (Arabs descendants of Ishmael) ruled the area of Israel and Islam tried to unite the two but Judaism would not conform causing Muhammad to split from the use of the Hebrew Scriptures. So depending on when it was written it could have been referring to either or both the Christians and Muslims.

Rabbinic law

Rabbinic law are the rules of the rabbis found in the Talmud and the Midrash. It is important to note that ritual keeping is essential to Judaism. Jewish rabbis believe that the ritual keeps the message over time. The message of the Torah could be lost over time, but if tied to the ritual eventually someone somewhere will question the meaning of the ritual and regain the message from the ritual.

According to the site: Judaism has four major sources of authority accepted today: Tanakh, Mishnah, Midrash and the Talmud
 
Wow! You have determined that I preach a “different Gospel?”

Tell me, just what Gospel am I preaching than that of Jesus Christ? What truth don’t I have?
Well…following the example of St. Paul…this is how he found out that he is teaching the correct gospel:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

As Gal 2:2 states, he was led by the Holy Spirit to submit his message…not go out on his own and preach.

Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

And as in Acts 13, he is ordained prior to going on his first missionary journey.

So my question then, is how have you followed the example of St. Paul to determine if you are indeed preaching the correct gospel?
 
Riser #139
As for my not being able to know the fullness of His truth; just how do you know that? Aren’t you making a huge assumption in that statement?
Not only have you been shown conclusively that Jesus made Peter the Rock, the cornerstone, on which He built His Church, but you have also seen that remarriage after divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, IVF, cloning, lack of the priesthood, all contribute to turning away from the truth and are conclusive evidence also of not having the fullness of Christ’s Truth which is available only in and through the Catholic Church which He founded, and declared that He would be with His Apostles and their legitimate successors until the end of the world.

Don’t you know of the Christ’s Mandate to those upon whom He founded His Church?

“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Thus could St Paul teach that the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
 
Wow! You have determined that I preach a “different Gospel”?
And we didn’t even break a sweat. 🙂

Just kidding. Why would we do that? We aren’t Fundamentalists. (I regret that I haven’t time to read every post in this thread … It starting to sound like I missed some highly interesting ones. 😦 :))
 
It’s not just the truth you don’t have, but it is also the non-truths that you are more than likely preaching (making this claim off of your religion “non-denominational”).

For example: John 6 and the Bread of Life Discourse, Matthew 16:18-19, John 20 and 21.

As a non-denominational Christian, you cannot agree with the Catholic Church on any of these chapters that I have presented (unless you “bite the bullet” [philosophy term :D]) and still be separate. Therefore, by preaching a different explanation on these chapters, you would be preaching a different Gospel than the Catholic Church.

And, as logic and history follow, since God exists, and Jesus is God (giving Him Divine Authority), and Jesus clearly started one physical church and prayed for it’s unity as one, then there must be one visible Church on earth who God works through in fullness. That would be the Catholic Church (again following logic and actually history).

So, by preaching a Gospel that is different from the Catholic Church, you would then be preaching a different Gospel than that of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
It is truly sad.

There is only one Gospel, and that is Christ Jesus. Your Jesus is my Jesus, and there is no difference between them.

Your issue is that I do not agree that the church addressed in Matthew 16 is the Roman Catholic Church. It is Jesus’ church, and it is not bounded by walls and layers of a hierarchy which has proved itself to be in error on occasion. The Catholic church is a wonderful assembly in and of itself; but it is not the church that Jesus started. That one spans the borders of physical church property and its members are united in heart and mind under one leader - Jesus.

Your accusation about my Gospel being false is a false accusation in itself.

I have read here that people seem to admit that Protestants don’t hate the Catholics for what they believe but for what they* THINK *that Catholics believe. It seems the reverse is also true.

There is enough arrogance on both sides to go around.
 
Jesus Himself tells the Eleven that He “will be with [them] always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Peter himself quotes the book of Psalms when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas: “May another take his place of leadership” (Acts 1:20). And Paul spoke of the first four generations of apostolic succession when he told Timothy, “[W]hat **you **have heard from **me **before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach **others **also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

Since “the very end of the age” did not accompany the martyrdom of Peter, how could there not have been a passing of the baton?
So, you assume to know who these faithful men are? Do they have to elect each other or does God choose them?

Is it your rule that God cannot choose anyone unless that person is a member of the RCC?
 
Wouldn’t it then make more sense to strengthen a Catholic organization, rather than assisting a “non-denominational” (aka evangelical/calvinist) one?
No, not in the way you mean it. What I do is plant the seeds and offer the choice to accept or to go somewhere and learn more. The churches in our area are invited to attend and be part of these events.

Mostly, they do not come. They restrict themselves to the walls of their buildings or go anywhere else rather than come to help shine the love of Jesus upon our communities. I don’t recruit Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. I move to make disciples.

I trust God to place His mighty hand on our efforts, and He does. However, those with the commission from Jesus to be out and testifying remain both absent and silent. However, God has not yet closed the door for me to do so.
Hindrance? Jesus was hindered everywhere he went, didn’t stop him. Neither did it stop the Apostles.
I am hindered, but I persevere. I don’t need to add reasons to be hindered; I have enough already.
Here’s where the Truth is being obscured by your man-made interpretation. Peter (Kepha) is Aramaic (my church uses Aramaic/Syriac every Sunday) for “Rock”. Jesus is definitively passing on his Rock characteristics to Simon renamed Rock. The wordplay Jesus uses is more evident in Aramaic - I am the solid CornerStone, you have the rock of Faith and because you are so, I call you Rock. You will be Rock for your brethren.
My man-made interpretation? Touche’! I say that yours is the man-made interpretation, in Greek and Latin. There is a difference between the Peter = piece of a large rock and The Rock. It is Peter’s faith that is The Rock. Jesus is the chief cornerstone.
Not by Catholics. We call you separated brothers. We are brothers by baptism.
We can only go by what Christ revealed not by our own conclusions, whether they are niceties or seem mean.
I think you just conflicted the teachings I have heard on here. I am the one who goes by what Christ revealed, but I get accused of error because I am not going by what the RCC reveals. Is this the time that I can have it both ways?
 
Well…following the example of St. Paul…this is how he found out that he is teaching the correct gospel:

Galatians 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

As Gal 2:2 states, he was led by the Holy Spirit to submit his message…not go out on his own and preach.

Now look at Acts 13:
1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.

And as in Acts 13, he is ordained prior to going on his first missionary journey.

So my question then, is how have you followed the example of St. Paul to determine if you are indeed preaching the correct gospel?
I am one of the least likely candidates to be a minister, and the people who knew me “way back when” would fall off their barstools if they saw me now.

I do what I do because God has laid the task upon me.

I think I am in a better position to know that God has chosen me that anyone here is able to say that God did not. The accusations of a false Gospel coming from my brethren is surely being heard and seen by God. Are you all good with that?
 
And we didn’t even break a sweat. 🙂

Just kidding. Why would we do that? We aren’t Fundamentalists. (I regret that I haven’t time to read every post in this thread … It starting to sound like I missed some highly interesting ones. 😦 :))
Yeah, I know. I obviously don’t know the true Gospel Message because I have not completed RCIA, right?

I think it is somewhere in 2nd Pontifications 12 that says that those who have not been blessed by the RCC cannot know the truth.
 
It’s not just the truth you don’t have, but it is also the non-truths that you are more than likely preaching (making this claim off of your religion “non-denominational”).

So, by preaching a Gospel that is different from the Catholic Church, you would then be preaching a different Gospel than that of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Hi B,

Tell it like it is, do not hold back. Better to be hot or cold. Even honest.

In love may I ask if you do not think some Protestants think the Catholic Church is the one teaching a different gospel than Christ’s ?

As we find in the book of Job, Elihu humbly states that the older, the aged should teach wisdom, but they failed Job. In the end it is God that puts understanding in the heart of man, even a younger man

Blessings
 
It is truly sad.

There is only one Gospel, and that is Christ Jesus. Your Jesus is my Jesus, and there is no difference between them.
Agreed.
Your issue is that I do not agree that the church addressed in Matthew 16 is the Roman Catholic Church. It is Jesus’ church, and it is not bounded by walls and layers of a hierarchy which has proved itself to be in error on occasion. The Catholic church is a wonderful assembly in and of itself; but it is not the church that Jesus started. That one spans the borders of physical church property and its members are united in heart and mind under one leader - Jesus.
Prove to me where Jesus says his Church is invisible. No where in all of the bible does Christ or St. Paul declare that the Church is an invisible body of believers. That’s just been a protestant belief since the reformation. It’s a stem of indifferentism, pluralism, and leads to relativism.
Your accusation about my Gospel being false is a false accusation in itself.
Why? You haven’t shown me how it’s not false.
I have read here that people seem to admit that Protestants don’t hate the Catholics for what they believe but for what they* THINK *that Catholics believe. It seems the reverse is also true.

There is enough arrogance on both sides to go around.
I do applaud you on this argument. Yes, to a certain extent, Catholics, for the most part, don’t know exactly what Protestants believe. And this is because they hardly know their own faith, so why learn about another one.

However, you guys are the ones that broke away from the Church of Christ for reasons that you thought were what Catholics taught and believed. That is why for us to really know what you believe isn’t nearly as important because we know that it is already flawed to some degree and that all of your beliefs were originally Catholic, but now tainted with a few heresies here and there and division.

I for one love learning what Protestants truly believe so that I can help address them to the proper understanding of Christ’s teachings.
 
I am one of the least likely candidates to be a minister, and the people who knew me “way back when” would fall off their barstools if they saw me now.

I do what I do because God has laid the task upon me.

I think I am in a better position to know that God has chosen me that anyone here is able to say that God did not. The accusations of a false Gospel coming from my brethren is surely being heard and seen by God. Are you all good with that?
Well…and good…but you did not answer the question, and I think we are not questioning your motive…but the question asked is how do you know you are teaching and spreading the correct gospel?

Are you teaching those that you speak to to believe in the Real Presence, as an example?

So my question then, is how have you followed the example of St. Paul to determine if you are indeed preaching the correct gospel?

How can you be sure you are teaching the gospel, the true gospel of Christ?

And I pointed out the Biblical model exemplified by St. Paul…he had to submit his gospel…to determine he is teaching the true gospel from Christ…so how have you followed the example of St. Paul?

And let me point out another gospel passage to you:

Romans 10:
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”[g]

Again, citing the example of St. Paul in Acts 13, where he is laid hands on first…so the question again to you…is how were you sent to teach and who sent you, following the example of St. Paul?
 
My man-made interpretation? Touche’! I say that yours is the man-made interpretation, in Greek and Latin. There is a difference between the Peter = piece of a large rock and The Rock. It is Peter’s faith that is The Rock. Jesus is the chief cornerstone.
I don’t understand why you think that Jesus was referring to the rock of Peter’s faith, rather than Peter himself being the rock upon which His church would be built. In the Old Testament, whenever God changed someone’s name, it meant something very important. Jesus changed Simon’s name from Simon BarJona, to Simon Peter. Simon Peter means Peter the Rock. And Jesus said that it is upon this rock that He would build His church. There isn’t anything to indicate that Jesus was speaking here of faith only, that I can tell.
 
Yeah, I know. I obviously don’t know the true Gospel Message because I have not completed RCIA, right?

I think it is somewhere in 2nd Pontifications 12 that says that those who have not been blessed by the RCC cannot know the truth.
Well…who decides what is the truth? Do you decide what is the truth?

This is how the Bible instructs us:

from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

So how have you followed this passage to determine the spirit of truth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top