Historical Christianity is One, Holy, Catholic, & Apostolic Church

[Rightlydivide]

Then where did this belief come from, and why should anyone follow it?

I do not have a clear date when the church had all of the four gospels and the rest of the books. Some people like to point to certain lists but that is just evidence that one person gave them value and the lists differed. That is irrelevent of course though. Christ and his disciples and then Paul never deviated from his message but from the very beginning, as Paul talks about in his letter to the Corinthians and John’s vision of the churches, they were departing from the true teachings.
Belief in the Bible takes faith,What is the alternative?
belief in a group of men making a decision who had significantly departed from his true teachings, that would be impossible. God did it in his time and the results and fruits are here today.

 

[Rightlydivide]

hey Rightlydivide,

Do you have ordained women in your protestant community that you attend?

You mean do women teach men? Of course not.

 

[Atreyu]

I do not have a clear date when the church had all of the four gospels and the rest of the books. Some people like to point to certain lists but that is just evidence that one person gave them value and the lists differed. That is irrelevent of course though. Christ and his disciples and then Paul never deviated from his message but from the very beginning, as Paul talks about in his letter to the Corinthians and John’s vision of the churches, they were departing from the true teachings.

So people started practicing sola scriptura once the New Testament canon had been decided - is that what you’re saying? Do you have any evidence for this?

Belief in the Bible takes faith,What is the alternative?

You mean blind faith, right? I mean, I feel like you have just admitted that there is no reason behind your believing in the Bible. The alternative is to actually believe Jesus when he promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church, and to listen to Paul when he says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Together with the witness of the Early Church Fathers, this will enable you to have informed faith - faith based on good reason.

belief in a group of men making a decision who had significantly departed from his true teachings,

No, they didn’t. These men you speak of defined the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea in the early 4th century. These men defined the canon of the Bible. These men faithfully and painstakingly copied the manuscripts of the Bible and protected them from errors. These men defended the Church against the numerous heresies that abounded from the start of the Church. These men (including Ignatius of Antioch) were tortured and gave up their lives while proclaiming the Truth, so that we might believe today.

that would be impossible.

It would be impossible without the protection of the Holy Spirit, true.

God did it in his time and the results and fruits are here today.

That’s right.

I would like to ask you a bit more about Ignatius of Antioch. You stated that all of his letters are forgeries. It was my understanding that he had seven letters that are all genuine. You then condemned him as a heretic. It makes sense for you to do this, because he explicitly and categorically refutes your ecclesiology. However, Ignatius of Antioch was taught personally by the Apostle John. He went to glorious martyrdom not long after the likely death of John. Ignatius was bishop of the third most important see in Christendom, and there was only one person before him to Peter himself in this lineage. And, Ignatius was universally praised by all of his contemporaries and all faithful Christians since - that is of course, until John Calvin came around and introduced an entirely novel ecclesiology that is completely at odds with everything that Ignatius died for.

So who do you trust - John Calvin 1500 years after the event? Or Ignatius and all of the Christians living at that time and since?

 

[Rightlydivide]

So people started practicing sola scriptura

once the New Testament canon had been decided - is that what you’re saying? Do you have any evidence for this?
No. I am saying if they had never departed from the true teachings of Christ there would have been no difference.

You mean blind faith, right? I mean, I feel like you have just admitted that there is no reason

 

[victus]

rightlydivide,

Is Contraception allowed in your protestant community?

 

[Rightlydivide]

rightlydivide,

Is Contraception allowed in your protestant community?

It has never come up since I have been there. I would speculate most of them are too old to have to really worry about it. there is one young couple with 8 children I believe but I cannot imagine how I would ask!

 

[victus]

What protestant community do you attend?

 

[Rightlydivide]

What protestant community do you attend?

I attend a church started 3 years ago. It is not part of a denomination. The minister is a former atheist like myself that I knew in college.

 

[Tomster]

I attend a church started 3 years ago. It is not part of a denomination. The minister is a former atheist like myself that I knew in college.

How can you be sure that your minister is teaching the truth?

 

[Rightlydivide]

How can you be sure that your minister is teaching the truth?

Truth? Did I tell you that the first mass I ever attended the priest talked about his belief that all will reach heaven (universalism) and that hell is “a state of mind”?
So who is that priest accountable to? A bishop who may, or may not, correct his doctrine or improper handling of the liturgy (from what the Catholic told me, he could have sung Looney Tunes and I wouldnt have known the difference).
Who is the pastor accountable to? God, both examples are though I understand. The congregation who holds the Bible to be infallible.
As far as him teaching the verses correctly, I do not always agree with him.
The church IS the pillar and foundation of truth when it does not depart from God’s word. Just like you believe the church is the pillar and foundation of truth when it teaches Catholic doctrine correctly.
I am naturally cynical of course. I come from a mindset that all priests and preachers are hypocrites, sexual deviants, and out for your money. Fortunately, I am overcoming those thoughts.

 

[estesbob]

Truth? Did I tell you that the first mass I ever attended the priest talked about his belief that all will reach heaven (universalism) and that hell is “a state of mind”?
So who is that priest accountable to? A bishop who may, or may not, correct his doctrine or improper handling of the liturgy (from what the Catholic told me, he could have sung Looney Tunes and I wouldnt have known the difference).
Who is the pastor accountable to? God, both examples are though I understand. The congregation who holds the Bible to be infallible.
As far as him teaching the verses correctly, I do not always agree with him.
The church IS the pillar and foundation of truth when it does not depart from God’s word. Just like you believe the church is the pillar and foundation of truth when it teaches Catholic doctrine correctly.
I am naturally cynical of course. I come from a mindset that all priests and preachers are hypocrites, sexual deviants, and out for your money. Fortunately, I am overcoming those thoughts.

When you and your pastor disagree on how a should verse to be interpreted how do you resolve it.? You say the church is the pillar of truth but your concept of the church is anybody who is “saved” . Since we’re seeing some 30,000 different Christian versions of the truth how do we know which version is right?

 

[jmcrae]

I do not have a clear date when the church had all of the four gospels and the rest of the books. Some people like to point to certain lists but that is just evidence that one person gave them value and the lists differed. That is irrelevent of course though.

All of which means absolutely nothing, unless Jesus said, “Write down and compile the Bible, and then once everything is in writing, you can start to ignore the Tradition that I am giving you now in my teachings, in favour of the written word that you have written down and compiled.”

Do you have evidence that Jesus ever said this, or anything resembling this?

Christ and his disciples and then Paul never deviated from his message but from the very beginning, as Paul talks about in his letter to the Corinthians and John’s vision of the churches, they were departing from the true teachings.

This message is the Tradition, which has been handed down from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles, down through the Church, to the Catholic Pope and Bishops of our present day. The Bible is part of that Tradition, but it is only a part - it is not the whole thing.

You have heard of reading the Bible in context, I’m sure - and I’m sure you understand that you have to read whole passages of the Bible; not just bits and pieces of it, and that you have to compare your understanding to the whole message of the Bible itself - this is part of what it means to read the Bible in context, but a greater part of reading the Bible in context is to read it within the context of the Tradition that produced it - the Tradition of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Belief in the Bible takes faith,What is the alternative?

To believe both the Bible and the Tradition out of which it came - the men who produced the Bible were guided by the Holy Spirit. Did the Holy Spirit suddenly depart from them in absolutely every other aspect of their teaching? (In which case, what evidence do we have that they were ever guided by the Holy Spirit at all - either with regard to putting the Bible together, or in any other thing?)

Either they were being guided by the Holy Spirit, in which case we can trust them in all things, including the Bible.

Or they were not being guided by the Holy Spirit, in which case, nothing they did is reliable, not even the Bible.

No. I am saying if they had never departed from the true teachings of Christ there would have been no difference.

They never did. You have been deceived into thinking that certain things (perhaps the motherhood and virginity of Mary?) are false, but no - these things are also true - the fact that they are only obliquely referred to in the Bible does not mean that they were not always part of the Tradition that was handed down to us from Jesus and the Apostles.

That [seven of Ignatius’ letters are genuine] is the opinion of the same scholars who reject the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Jesus, and a real hell for those who do not accept him.

I seriously doubt that - most of the people who quote from St. Ignatius believe even more literally than you do in the virginity of Mary, in the Resurrection, and in the existence of Hell.

Ignatius had heretical views about church government but he does not resemble present day Catholicism too much.

You are aware that he died in 107 AD, right? About ten years after the death of the Apostle John. Are you trying to say that it took less than ten years for “heretical” Catholic-style Church government to take root?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ignatius had heretical views about church government but he does not resemble present day Catholicism too much.

I take offense to this for the mere reason this man died for being a Christian and he was eaten by lions and mean. Ignatius never taught heretical views, he himself was taught by St. John. If he had taught anything different, John himself would have taught error. If John taught error, Jesus taught error.

Second, what so called heretical views did Ignatius had?

Of please, I read all of Ignatius of Antioch’s letter. He taught that Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist. He taught that Christians needed to be obedient with the bishop. I can go on and on, on what he wrote.

 

[Rightlydivide]

When you and your pastor disagree on how a should verse to be interpreted how do you resolve it.? You say the church is the pillar of truth but your concept of the church is anybody who is “saved” . Since we’re seeing some 30,000 different Christian versions of the truth how do we know which version is right?

I don’t have to resolve it. What a strange question. That is the
Bible’s defintion of church, I posted it earlier.
I know the same way you do. I rely on what I consider to be authoratative, the Bible.
You rely on what you consider to be authoratative, your “big three”. But how did YOU know? You prayerfully made a decision I imagine. Hey, I looked into the all of the churches claiming they are following the Bible and tradition and they DO NOT agree either.
I had lunch with a priest from one of the Orthodox churches, well it was a group of us, and he was going on and on about how the Catholics violated tradition by doing this and that.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Truth? Did I tell you that the first mass I ever attended the priest talked about his belief that all will reach heaven (universalism) and that hell is “a state of mind”?

They will gain heaven if they persevere in the end and remain obedient to the faith.

So who is that priest accountable to? A bishop who may, or may not, correct his doctrine or improper handling of the liturgy (from what the Catholic told me, he could have sung Looney Tunes and I wouldnt have known the difference).

Any priests who teaches contrary to what the church teaches, is not teaching true doctrine of the Catholic Church. Priest ought to be obedient to the bishop and teach what the Holy Mother the Church teaches in its fullness.

Who is the pastor accountable to? God, both examples are though I understand. The congregation who holds the Bible to be infallible.
As far as him teaching the verses correctly, I do not always agree with him.
The church IS the pillar and foundation of truth when it does not depart from God’s word. Just like you believe the church is the pillar and foundation of truth when it teaches Catholic doctrine correctly.

The Church is infallible when teaching moral and faith issues. The Church members are not impeccable.

I am naturally cynical of course. I come from a mindset that all priests and preachers are hypocrites, sexual deviants, and out for your money. Fortunately, I am overcoming those thoughts.

Do you really know all the priests and their hearts and mind. Yes, there are sinful priest. Does that make you any more important than they? I recall reading Jame’s Epistle during my Evening Prayer Vesper.

James 4:11-12:

Do not, my brothers, speak ill of one another. The **one who speaks ill of his brother or judges his brother is speaking against the law… **It is the law he judges. If, however, you judge the law you are no longer an observer of law, you are its judge. There is but one Lawgiver, and Judge, one who can save and destroy. Who **then are you **to judge your neighbor?

We are not perfect, and neither are you. Unlike you, however, I have been blessed with knowing good priests. Their testimony amazes me and inspires me to become like one of them. I believe God himself is calling me to the priesthood. So I take offense on what you say to the priests.

When priests sin it is because Christians, particularly Catholic Christians do not pray for them. As Christians, we are taught to pray for one another. We are to strengthen our fellow man’s faith. Confirm his faith.

I have been Catholic for 32 yrs now since I was baptized as an infant, on Nov 22, 1975.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I take offense to this for the mere reason this man died for being a Christian and he was eaten by lions and mean. Ignatius never taught heretical views, he himself was taught by St. John. If he had taught anything different, John himself would have taught error. If John taught error, Jesus taught error.

Second, what so called heretical views did Ignatius had?

Of please, I read all of Ignatius of Antioch’s letter. He taught that Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist. He taught that Christians needed to be obedient with the bishop. I can go on and on, on what he wrote.

Except he did not write most of it I bet. What are your first copies of this so called “real” letters?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Except he did not write most of it I bet. What are your first copies of this so called “real” letters?

This has already been this discussed. He wrote 13 letters, which only 7 letters were considered to be authentic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

All of which means absolutely nothing, unless Jesus said, “Write down and compile the Bible, and then once everything is in writing, you can start to ignore the Tradition that I am giving you now in my teachings, in favour of the written word that you have written down and compiled.”

Do you have evidence that Jesus ever said this, or anything resembling this?

 

[estesbob]

I don’t have to resolve it. What a strange question. That is the
Bible’s defintion of church, I posted it earlier.
I know the same way you do. I rely on what I consider to be authoratative, the Bible.

You rely on what you consider to be authoratative, your “big three”. But how did YOU know? You prayerfully made a decision I imagine. Hey, I looked into the all of the churches claiming they are following the Bible and tradition and they DO NOT agree either.

 

[Rightlydivide]

This has already been this discussed. He wrote 13 letters, which only 7 letters were considered to be authentic.

That means you do not know. Considered to be authentic by the same scholars who deny the truth of every doctrine you hold I bet. I dont buy it, people were all the time trying to slip things in and change documents.
Forgories all over the place.