W
Wannano
Guest
Do you believe in all honesty that is exactly what Jesus personally instituted?
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
Yes
Titus 1
This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1
This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
W
Wannano
Guest
Sorry rc, I have read through Titus twice now and do not see where there is any instruction that the elders appointed were the only ones allowed to serve the Last Supper remembrance, or that there is a lawful/unlawful Eucharist. It gives qualifications for elders and deacons but it is speculative as to their specific duties other than preaching. Where do you see the Sacrament of Holy Orders?
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
The point is that presbyters were to be ordained in every town and also appoint elders among each group to ensure doctrine was sound and unity was maintained.
What, then, was the testimony of these first bishops and presbyters in the next generation of leaders?
St Ignatius, St Justin, St Irenaeus, St Clement, St Polycarp… ???
These have Taught that a proper Eucharist is overseen by the bishop and those he has appointed. This has been through Laying on Hands.
What, then, was the testimony of these first bishops and presbyters in the next generation of leaders?
St Ignatius, St Justin, St Irenaeus, St Clement, St Polycarp… ???
These have Taught that a proper Eucharist is overseen by the bishop and those he has appointed. This has been through Laying on Hands.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
I guess it is considered development. You still have not answered most of my questions.
R
rcwitness
Guest
No, not development. Its Tradition not explicit in Scripture.
W
Wannano
Guest
And it is my tradition not to put much stock in Tradition not explicit in Scripture.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
And that leads to creating your own traditions, which means splintered denominations.rcwitness:
And it is my tradition not to put much stock in Tradition not explicit in Scripture.
No matter how much groups try to rely on Scripture alone, they must subscribe to traditions.
Last edited:
P
pablope
Guest
So it seems you just created your own Sacred Tradition…rcwitness:
And it is my tradition not to put much stock in Tradition not explicit in Scripture.
But how do you determine what is explicit and what is not?
By creating another tradition?
W
Wannano
Guest
No, by applying the definition of explicit…something presented clearly in every detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.Wannano:
So it seems you just created your own Sacred Tradition…rcwitness:
And it is my tradition not to put much stock in Tradition not explicit in Scripture.
But how do you determine what is explicit and what is not?
By creating another tradition?
R
rcwitness
Guest
Even explicit passages get disputed among the nations. In fact, I think Martin Luther said something about even explicit passages being hard to understand…pablope:
No, by applying the definition of explicit…something presented clearly in every detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.Wannano:
So it seems you just created your own Sacred Tradition…rcwitness:
And it is my tradition not to put much stock in Tradition not explicit in Scripture.
But how do you determine what is explicit and what is not?
By creating another tradition?
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, of course.
I agree with you that the purpose of the letter was to address the Gnostic denial Jesus coming in the flesh. However, most of the epistles have specific issues they address.This does not preclude that there are other doctrinal truths embedded in them.
I would think it would be difficult. However, the statement is about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood - changed, transformed from Bread and Wine.
Ignatius makes reference to the literal presence of Christ in the elements that are consecrated. I agree, “transubstantiation” and “real presence” are terms that came later.
Denying that Ignatius means what he wrote because our modern terms are different is like saying the Apostles and their disciples did not believe in the Trinity until the term was officialized in 325.
R
rcwitness
Guest
How much more can Christians believe He came in the flesh, was raised in the flesh, and moves with the Holy Spirit by believing in Transubstantiation?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
But i feel you have made the consecrated bread a temple, administered by heirus priests, with limited and timed access, even to be worshipped in the object, the host, almost as glorious as the ark, with His attached presence, the new holy of holies.
He came in the flesh to break all barriers, not to be limited anymore to any one place or thing or intermediary priests for graces, but in us, His new temple.
God is spirit, and in us. Can’t get much closer and intimate than that. His flesh in bread availeth little, having no hands to caress us, or lips to speak, or eyes to melt us…His Adamic body in heaven for the moment. So by design now, we are His hands and feet and lips, to love and build each other up, till His Bodily return.
Last edited:
B
Benadam
Guest
Gnaw was the definitive term. If it wasn’t they would not have been able to decide whether or not to continue believing. They accepted Christ as the Bread from Heaven. Their simple minds didn’t see any obstacles to belief. It was the theologically trained minds of the Jews that questioned. That questioning resulted in Jesus defining the doctrine using the term ‘gnaw’ It wasn’t a doctrine that required defining until it was challenged. Jesus had to throw the pearls which separated the sheep from the goats. I doubt there were any swine among the diciples since they couldn’t use the pearls to trample anyone with.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
That goes both ways. Presumption is being made here that because we both agree to correctness of Trinity that we should both agree to the meaning of Ignatius. The Arians also believed in their wrong views before before 325.
I guesss I am trying to say we both attach our understanding to Ignatius and nothing modern about our views…it is not quite as settled as Christology is.
B
Benadam
Guest
It makes sense that Jesus would want to maintain local presences all around the globe. Any number anytime any place. Because He was limited in the way you say ‘one place or thing’’ before He resurrected.
If that were true would God Incarnate at all? Consider the laying on of hands to transmit the Holy Spirit. Consider, what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven. You may not think material reality is intimate but God does methinks. The hands the lips the eyes that melt the heart. Did the Incarnation give you an advantage in that way? Consider this too. This is the intimacy it offers. Jesus’ material and local presence on earth is the same presence of His in Heaven. Where He is materially worshiped on earth becomes one with the worship of Him in heaven That happens only with a material presence on earth because it is tied to the mystery of Christ’s Hypostatic Union.
Last edited:
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Salutations
Our church is the oldest. Religion is a govt and a society unto itself. As w govt and society, there are good and bad moments. Baptists state that they are Anapedo-Baptists and trace roots to St. Peter. The division was over infant Baptism.
King Henry VIII-Anglican church(wanted divorce), I think was second. Or Martin Luther, who was a Catholic Monk. He took issue w 99 acts/beliefs in Catholic Church. He posted his list of 99 on the door of the Cathedral in Worms. John Knox-Presbyterians, WESLEY -Methodists. It goes on.
Henry quit out of arrogance and a worldly agenda. Martin used prayer and discussion w higher ups. He stated,”I CAN GO NO FURTHER!” Godly guidance for correction in Catholic Church? Did God want division? Probably not. John Knox read the Bible intently. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows all things. Then, God should know who is going to heaven! PREDESTINATION! God gives us free will. We get to make choices. He can know our destination but, I feel He choices not. It must be boring knowing everything. Maybe He turns the TV off?? CHUCKLE. They felt God gave them direction w His teachings…
God would prefer, I feel to have unity. It is what it is…
May we be sensitive to God’s will in our lives and have the courage to follow it. If YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.
IN Jesus Name
Amen
Tweedlealice
Our church is the oldest. Religion is a govt and a society unto itself. As w govt and society, there are good and bad moments. Baptists state that they are Anapedo-Baptists and trace roots to St. Peter. The division was over infant Baptism.
King Henry VIII-Anglican church(wanted divorce), I think was second. Or Martin Luther, who was a Catholic Monk. He took issue w 99 acts/beliefs in Catholic Church. He posted his list of 99 on the door of the Cathedral in Worms. John Knox-Presbyterians, WESLEY -Methodists. It goes on.
Henry quit out of arrogance and a worldly agenda. Martin used prayer and discussion w higher ups. He stated,”I CAN GO NO FURTHER!” Godly guidance for correction in Catholic Church? Did God want division? Probably not. John Knox read the Bible intently. God is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows all things. Then, God should know who is going to heaven! PREDESTINATION! God gives us free will. We get to make choices. He can know our destination but, I feel He choices not. It must be boring knowing everything. Maybe He turns the TV off?? CHUCKLE. They felt God gave them direction w His teachings…
God would prefer, I feel to have unity. It is what it is…
May we be sensitive to God’s will in our lives and have the courage to follow it. If YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.
IN Jesus Name
Amen
Tweedlealice
B
Benadam
Guest
Not sure if this is what you meant but…Benadam:
can you please cite any discourse "explanations’, beyond the simple “you must gnaw” ?
discourse besides gnaw
M
mcq72
Guest
There is no greater calumny than which leads to death, even crucifixion, that actually led to eternal life, whether intended by the accusers or not. In fact the false disciples actually were desirous as Satan, that Christ would not suffer, but actually sit on a throne. Yet Christ himself says ,"The son of man MUST be lifted up ( on a cross) so to draw men to Him (for our eternal life)!
So maybe Christ meant as what you suggest, that He was not here as a belly filler or to free them from Roman occupation, but that unless calumny to the maximum (Calvary) be done against Him, no one would have eternal life with Him in a resurrected body.
So maybe Christ meant as what you suggest, that He was not here as a belly filler or to free them from Roman occupation, but that unless calumny to the maximum (Calvary) be done against Him, no one would have eternal life with Him in a resurrected body.
Last edited:
- Status