R
- Status
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
and which path is more narrow?
a quick review of the catechism will certainly show you that the Catholic teachings are far more narrow and difficult to obey than the wide open path of protestantism and sola scriptura where you can have it your way like you are at burger king.
wide is the path of destruction.
a quick review of the catechism will certainly show you that the Catholic teachings are far more narrow and difficult to obey than the wide open path of protestantism and sola scriptura where you can have it your way like you are at burger king.
wide is the path of destruction.
A
anthony022071
Guest
W
wanner47
Guest
W
wanner47
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Rightlydivide;3035529:
It does line up with what Jesus says in the Bible. I looked at the 31 verses when I posted the thread.
I have never said that all opinions are valid. Please show me where I said that.
The Pope are not infallible.The only infallible leaders I know of in Christian history are the Popes and Christ himself (and Christ was the only one who was infallible 100% of the time).What other ones have there been?
I disagree.
There are also Scriptural examples of Church authority in the
Nothing compared to the amount of quotes that clearly show the offices of the NT from scripture. Read the book of Acts…did you really just say that to me?
I have not said I am speaking for God. Please show me where I said that.
Why would Jesus leave us (by your logic) an infallible book but not an infallible way to interpret it?
Yes, it does interpret itself. It has to be RIGHTLY DIVIDED
leave us the Bible. I don’t recall him, prior to his ascension, handing Peter a book and saying, “Here, follow this book and NOTHING ELSE.”
It was God’s will to have a Bible. I know you do not deny that.
That never happened.
.
No but God did work through the church to give the world the Bible
The Catholic church did not do this. The early church was not the Catholic church.
Of course not. Why would one be needed? Seems like something Thomas would have said. Prove it to me, unless I see this I will not believe.
I do not think the Catholic church determined the canon. I have said that time and time again.
Because, gosh this thread asks the same questions, that did not happen. The early church was not the Roman Catholic Church. It was the church. Later, they called themselves catholic. Later even more, it becomes the CATHOLIC church. But you see, I have read the Ante-Nicene fathers and so I know that the early church was not Roman Catholic by any stretch. Not even close really.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
M
Metaron
Guest
Ugh, please, people, be charitable. We’re all brothers in Christ, including Rightlydivide. Let’s keep this conversation civil! Context, context! Research, research, research! Logic! 
M
Metaron
Guest
Uh… I don’t ever remember Christ saying that anywhere, in the Bible.
How does one determine which opinions are valid, seeing that they are all contradictory.
Facts and research to support this claim, please.
How do you explain the sudden end to controversy when Bishop Peter rules and everyone shuts up? If he were fallible, wouldn’t they continue to argue, including Bishop James of Jerusalem?
But, how can you know your interpretation is correct? Please, I’m willing to learn from you.
No, individuals interpret it and come up with their own contradicting opinions. This is one of the reasons I left my evangelical/fundamentalist/anabaptist family’s Protestantism and became Anglican, then Catholic. All I’ve done is do my best to pursue the Absolute Truth. That is all I want.
Yes, it was. But it was not widely available until the printing press was invented, so the Church did it’s best to explain it to the masses.
The Churchfathers say otherwise.
Again, the Churchfathers say otherwise, as do every secular and even Protestant scolars agree.
And, in that case, what happened to the early Church? Did it then die out? Did it just pop up again, in the form of your church-community?
Carthage, Rome, Trent… All Roman Catholic Councils and synods.
Not even close? Hm. I read the ante-Nicene Fathers also. Here’s what I learned the Early Church did:
- They had liturgy.
- They had the threefold ministry of Bishop, presbyters, and deacons (although other titles were used interchangably with these)
- They venerated saints.
- They used religious imagery and symbols.
- They believed in the Real Presence.
- They believed in Apostolic succession (as per Ignatius and Clement)
- They prayed for the dead.
8.Etc, etc, etc…
(Or, arguably, the Orthodox Churches or apostolic Anglicans…)Does your church-community believe the above views of the early Church?
W
wanner47
Guest
Did you read those 31 verses in their proper context as opposed to the ones you posted in the OP (where you didn’t read the following verse showing that Paul said the haircutting thing was a were local custom and not a teaching for the whole of Christianity)?
Moreover, I have a wholly different interpretation of those 31 verses. What makes your interpretation more valid than mine?
In this post, you said:
I honestly absolutely feel he gave his Bible and all who follow its teachings will reach heaven. I absolutely and honestly think this. (bolding mine)
So, if a person sincerely believes he is following the teachings of the Bible, according to you, it means he is going to heaven. I don’t think you’ll find a Christian denomination on this earth that says it’s not following the teachings of the Bible. Therefore, if they are all following the teachings of the Bible, all of their opinions, by your logic, are valid.
Yes, they are, in certain circumstances and when teaching on certain topics. See here.
Nice non-denial there.
In this post: “Yes, of course I am deciding what God meant.”
YOU are taking it upon your fallible human self to decide what God is saying through the Scriptures; therefore, when you give your “opinion,” you are speaking for God.
You have a Bible that interprets itself? Wow. Does it have a little mouth on the cover that opens up and speaks to you?
What do you mean by “rightly divided”?
No, I don’t. But I do deny that it was God’s will that everyone is left to interpret the Bible for themselves.
Yes, it did. From here: “The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419).”
.
So you accept that God worked through the Catholic Church to give us the Bible – why won’t you accept that God also gave the Church the authority to interpret it as well?
Yes, it was. If you believe otherwise, you have not read the writings of the early Church fathers.
How else would we know which books belong in the Bible? There were many writings under consideration for inclusion in the canon; there were Gnostic gospels, and so forth. It was the Church that determined the criteria for the canon of Scripture, and the Church that closed the canon after the councils had concluded.
You’re wrong.
So, you read the ante-nicene fathers, who taught about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, intercession by the saints, the sacrifice of the Mass… and you say it WASN’T the Catholic Church?
Do you believe that the “true” church allegedly “disappeared” for several hundred, if not thousand, years? Wouldn’t that mean Jesus was a liar when he made the promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church?
W
wanner47
Guest
I have, and I’m confused about what you mean. I’m asking you to clarify what you mean about the Catholic Church having the wrong “date” for Easter, given that it’s a different date every year.
Are you referring to the claim that Jesus was actually crucified on a Wednesday (which is refuted here), or are you referring to something else?
P
peary
Guest
jimmy;3033184:
**So, what did they do? Go into a trance like Mohammad and decide what books to choose for the Canon of scripture? Oh, please…**
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Bold mine. I’ve been following this argument. Interesting. The last bastion of defence by this protestant is that the early church was not the Catholic Church! He seems to accept the early church but then saying it was not the Catholoc Church. I think the reply above should have people reflecting that maybe they have listened too much to their pastors without really understand the history of the church.So, you read the ante-nicene fathers, who taught about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, intercession by the saints, the sacrifice of the Mass… and you say it WASN’T the Catholic Church?
Do you believe that the “true” church allegedly “disappeared” for several hundred, if not thousand, years? Wouldn’t that mean Jesus was a liar when he made the promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
This is basic knowledge.
Who appealed to the Apostle John for how they did things concerning Easter?
A
anthony022071
Guest
A
anthony022071
Guest
Jesus said nothing to advocate sola scriptura. He had to interpret scripture for the Pharisees and scribes,who were well versed in the scriptures. He was infallible,and they,who studied scripture,were not infallible. When the scribe asked Jesus what the greatest commandment was,he did not know what was meant by “neighbor”. The scribes were lawyers,and therefore exegetes in the law. To the Jews,a neighbor was a fellow Jew,or someone living among the Jews. Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan to show that a neighbor is anyone who is in need. That is something that the Jews did not understand and were not willing to understand. Many Christians do not accept that lesson either. That is an example of why an infallible interpreter of scripture is needed,because there are deeper meanings and nuances behind the words than can be read at face value.
A
anthony022071
Guest
“For the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order–to the Corinthians afirst…there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world…Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).
“Learn also diligently, and from the Church, what are the books of the Old Testaments, and what those of the New.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:33 (A.D. 350).
“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.” Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384), Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Do you call the worship of the Didache or described by Justyn as liturgical? It was not a set formula. They read scripture for an undetermined time. They said prayers to the best of their ability. Even if someone says one prayer that is scripted, I suppose one has to find a balance between what you would say is liturgical and what is not.
To be sure, I do not have a problem persay with liturgy that does not contradict the Bible. But based upon the Didache and Justyn, you could just as easily be describing worship in a Disciples of Christ church as much as anyone else.
They did and they were interchangeable. A clear cut distinction did not occur. This is especially important because of the importance given to the role of bishop as it relates to what Catholic term Apostolic Succession.
We would need to carefully define this. When is the first veneration of a Saint? Polycarp when they carefully buried his bones? I have heard the late 2nd century used as an example of this but the passage is not any different than how I would treat the bones of my Aunt.
Well…you are aware because you have read Justyn Martyr and others how this was not the case early on. You read how Eusebius calls statues of Christ “indiscriminate”? You read how a bishop tore down the first picture of Christ he saw in another church.
The most anyone can usually point to is that later on some drawins appeared on walls. But I really think that this forum in general is an oversimplification, not you personally, approach to what I have read. These things were very controversial.
Well Justyn Martyr did for sure. I do not know how many else did.
Clement believes in the apostles selecting people and then the congregations picking their leaders.
I do not remember the first example of this off the top of my head.
Absolutely not. Just because I can discuss these men does not mean I hold them authorative.
M
mercygate
Guest
I am very familiar with the image of Jesus in the linked photo you posted here because my archaeology professor, Dr. Clark Hopkins, excavated the house church at Dura-Europos.
Images of Jesus with long hair do not appear in Christian iconography until the mid sixth century, when an artifact was uncovered in Edessa (modern Turkey) in the Selucid Empire. The image “not made by human hands” was known as the mandylion (handkerchief) and has been thought to be:
- a cloth with the imprint of Jesus’ face made when Jesus dired his face on a towel and gave the towel to the arhcivist of the King of Odessa who had sent the archivist to the Holy Land to ask Jesus to come and heal him of leprosy. Jesus sent the cloth instead, and the king was healed.
- Veronica’s veil. The legend is that a woman used her veil to dry the blood from Jesus’ face as he made his way to Calvary. “Veronica” means “true image” (vero = true, icon = image).
- The Shroud of Turin
- the separate cloth found that wrapped Jesus’ head found in the tomb on Easter morning.
- Status