History of the Roman Catholic Church

[wisdomseeker]

Not only was Rome not the only power back then, but there were Christians living in places where Roman influence was non-existent. Those Christians were not part of what became Catholic Christianity.

The history of 景教 demonstrates the falseness of that claim.

jonathon

what history? show us. we cant wait to see it.

**St. Cyprian, “He cannot have God for his father who does not have the Church for his mother”. **

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly right, so can you answer the question that so many in here have either refused to answer or been afraid to answer…“Would the Apostles have taught anything verbally, through Tradition, that was contradictory to what they taught in their epistles?”

It’s interesting that you state the sequence backwards…I guess that demonstrates your own theological predilection.

No, the Apostles would not have written anything that they did not first teach orally.

Of course, I doubt that they wrote everything that they taught.

Now, was I first? Do I win a prize or something?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is either an assumption on your part or a regurgitation of something you’ve been told, however, not all Protestants believe as you have presented. A little research on your part would enlighten you to this fact.

Agreed, and this is an important point. Anglicans, Lutherans and others believe in the real presence. They do not actually have it, of course, but they believe they do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok, Ben

To answer your question as to “which” church is the church that Christ originally set up is going to be a long process due to the fact that a lengthly evaluation MUST be made to determine the facts. This is not to say that the RCC is not that church, but neither is it to say that it is, but only that evaluation MUST be made to make that determination. So to start I would like you to tell me what the following verse means to you.

2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

All scripture is God-breathed and useful.

Catholics have no problem with the material sufficiency of scripture, but we do not accept that scripute is formally sufficient.

**MATERIAL AND FORMAL SUFFICIENCY **
By JAMES AKIN
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

 

[jblake]

wisdomseeker;:

what history?

Start with the fact that 天主教徒 is not 景教. Then read the history of the latter, and not confine yourself to the history of the former.

jonathon

 

[Randy_Carson]

This may surprise you me being non-Catholic and all, but I do agree that the Aposltes passed down verbal tradition to the Chruch, that was the point of my original question “Would the Apostles taught anything different verbally than they had written in their epistles.” To wit you correctedly answered “no”, I applaude you on your answer. Of all the people I have posed that question too you, sir, are the only one that has ever responded.

Grrrrr…I see that I was not first.

Now the question is not “Did the Apostles pass down verbal Tradition.” but is “Has that verbal Tradition been corrupted?” Remember that man’s nature is to sin, for whatever reason, if man becomes greedy for power (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) then he will devise ways to twist things to his benefit. If there is a chance that Tradition has be corrupted then to what source do we turn? And even if Tradition has not been corrupted to was source do we compare that Tradition. Tradition and Scripture should be like identical twins, we should not be able to tell them apart.

I address the issue of Apostasy or “going off the rails” in post #40.

Thoughts?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Start with the fact that 天主教徒 is not 景教. Then read the history of the latter, and not confine yourself to the history of the former.

jonathon

what former? what history? are you confined by any history?

St. Augustine.
"This is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church fighting against all heresies. Fight it can; be fought down, it cannot. Let us love Our Lord God, let us love His Church, Him as a father, Her as a mother; Him as Lord, Her as His handmaid. No man offends the one and wins the favor of the other. He will not have God for his father who refuses the Church for his mother. “What does it profit you not to have offended your father, since he will punish your offenses against your mother? What does it profit you to praise the Lord, to honor Him, to preach Him, to believe in His Son, to confess that He sits at the right hand of God the Father, while at the same time you denigrate His Church? Outside the Church you can find everything except salvation. You can have dignities. You can have sacraments. You can sing ‘Alleluia’, answer ‘Amen’, have the gospels and have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Spirit and preach it too. But you will find salvation and all the means of grace alone in the Catholic Church.”

 

[jblake]

wisdomseeker;:

what former?

天主教徒 is obviously the former.
景教 is obviously the latter.

what history?

The history of Christianity, as practised by those who had little to no contact with either Constantinople, or Rome.

jonathon

 

[wisdomseeker]

天主教徒 is obviously the former.
景教 is obviously the latter.

The history of Christianity, as practised by those who had little to no contact with either Constantinople, or Rome.

jonathon

who? the Arians?

**
St. Augustine.
Fight it can; be fought down, it cannot. Let us love Our Lord God, let us love His Church, Him as a father, Her as a mother; Him as Lord, Her as His handmaid. No man offends the one and wins the favor of the other. He will not have God for his father who refuses the Church for his mother. “What does it profit you not to have offended your father, since he will punish your offenses against your mother? What does it profit you to praise the Lord, to honor Him, to preach Him, to believe in His Son, to confess that He sits at the right hand of God the Father, while at the same time you denigrate His Church? Outside the Church you can find everything except salvation. You can have dignities. You can have sacraments. You can sing ‘Alleluia’, answer ‘Amen’, have the gospels and have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Spirit and preach it too. But you will find salvation and all the means of grace alone in the Catholic Church.” **

 

[po18guy]

Not only was Rome not the only power back then, but there were Christians living in places where Roman influence was non-existent. Those Christians were not part of what became Catholic Christianity.

Oh, you mean the Gnostics? The Marcionists? The Montanists? The Manichaeists? The Donatists? The Arians? The Pelagianists? The Nestorians? Yes, they did exist outside of the Catholic Church. You are right.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

天主教徒 is obviously the former.
景教 is obviously the latter.

Sorry, but my Chinese is a little nonexistant. Would you be kind enough to translate so that the rest of us can play?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[po18guy]

Sorry, but my Chinese is a little nonexistant. Would you be kind enough to translate so that the rest of us can play?

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

I must admit that it is one of the more unusual “proofs” ever offered here.

 

[jblake]

Ne_OrangeKnight;:

my Chinese is a little nonexistant

You’d be better off reading Japanese, than Chinese. (Most of the current research on Early Christianity outside of the sphere of Roman influence is published in Japanese. (Deliberately ignoring the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, about their mesoamerican archaeological findings.))

• Catholic Christianity: 天主教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督新教
• 景教

I’ve forgotten the term for Orthodox Christianity.

You may also need the term for God:

• 天主 ---- Catholic Bibles;
• 神 — Protestant Bibles;

Some early Protestant texts use 上帝, rather than 神.(The blank space is part of the word " 神".

jonathon

 

[wisdomseeker]

You’d be better off reading Japanese, than Chinese. (Most of the current research on Early Christianity outside of the sphere of Roman influence is published in Japanese. (Deliberately ignoring the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, about their mesoamerican archaeological findings.))

• Catholic Christianity: 天主教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督新教
• 景教

I’ve forgotten the term for Orthodox Christianity.

You may also need the term for God:

• 天主 ---- Catholic Bibles;
• 神 — Protestant Bibles;

Some early Protestant texts use 上帝, rather than 神.(The blank space is part of the word " 神".

jonathon

Oh no, here we go again.

just give us the history of your people dating back all the way to the Apostles. names, we want names. and the discussion is over. that is all.

:bowdown2: :takethat:

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You’d be better off reading Japanese, than Chinese. (Most of the current research on Early Christianity outside of the sphere of Roman influence is published in Japanese. (Deliberately ignoring the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, about their mesoamerican archaeological findings.))

Why are you being so coy, jblake? Why not post your facts and state your case? In English. Then those of us who are challenged in the oriental languages can engage you.

 

[po18guy]

You’d be better off reading Japanese, than Chinese. (Most of the current research on Early Christianity outside of the sphere of Roman influence is published in Japanese. (Deliberately ignoring the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, about their mesoamerican archaeological findings.))

• Catholic Christianity: 天主教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督新教
• 景教

I’ve forgotten the term for Orthodox Christianity.

You may also need the term for God:

• 天主 ---- Catholic Bibles;
• 神 — Protestant Bibles;

Some early Protestant texts use 上帝, rather than 神.(The blank space is part of the word " 神".

jonathon

Sorry to tell you, but once you introduce the man-made theory of the dreaded “Roman influence”, you have driven into the ditch. The Church is One, as Father and Son are One. The John 6:66 followers did not believe in “the way” and felt they had a better idea. Did they?

Perhaps you have specific dates, times, names, philosophies, doctrines, practices and contemporary writings regarding the so-called “Roman influence” that you would care to share.

I honestly think that someone has infected you with Romaphobia.

 

[emarc]

You’d be better off reading Japanese, than Chinese. (Most of the current research on Early Christianity outside of the sphere of Roman influence is published in Japanese. (Deliberately ignoring the publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, about their mesoamerican archaeological findings.))

• Catholic Christianity: 天主教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督教
• Protestant Christianity: 基督新教
• 景教

I’ve forgotten the term for Orthodox Christianity.
You may also need the term for God:

• 天主 ---- Catholic Bibles;
• 神 — Protestant Bibles;

Some early Protestant texts use 上帝, rather than 神.(The blank space is part of the word " 神".

jonathon

i’m afraid it’d take me sometime to answer you. my nephew is marrying his japanese girlfriend next month. she could definitely help (could she be korean).
God bless.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 1 of 2

Christ instituted the perfection of the oral tradition, having all knowledge within Him. On those occasions when He was in the temple, he used the sacred scrolls, since that is where they were safeguarded. Nothing in Catholic teaching counters scripture, since the source is the same. Improper understanding of her teaching leads to all disagreement. Once properly understood, all objections fade.

Now we get down to the crukst (sic) of the matter. When Christ was reading from the Scirptures, we MUST agree that he was reading from the Books that make up the OLD TESTAMENT. None of the New Testament was yet in existance. And we must also consider that when Paul wrote concerning “all scripture is useful for …” that he was also referring to the same documents and writings we can assume that most of the Epistles and even the Gospels were not yet know. Therefore, much of what is shown in the older writings of the Hebrews MUST be considered VALID for us as Christians as we are Grafted into the Tree of God’s chosen people and not the other way around. If we want to understand what Christ taught, other than what is in the Gospels, then we need to study the Old Testament, for it is there that we find many of the answers for the questions that are asked.

First,

(Don’t start a statement with “First” unless you plan to follow it with a “Second”, it’s improper dialogue technique.)

one must trust the Holy Spirit to lead both the Apostles, and their hand chosen successors. To doubt that they were lead into all truth, as Christ spoke, is to nod to the evil one, is it not?

Actually, I believe that the promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance was not just limited to the Apostles or their so called handpicked successors.Now, I know that all other churches teach against the Catholic Church in some manner.

But, but in doing so, they open the door to total corruption of the word.

Corruption of the word is not something new. It’s happened before so why would you think it strange that it would happen again. Read the first three chapters of Genesis and you’ll see what I mean.

Once considered, who on earth is to determine who, what, when, where, why, and to what degree this “corruption” has proceeded.

Thus the reason for Paul instructing us to study to show ourselves approved. Using the scriptures as a litmus test against what is being taught, make sure it all matches.

It’s a fatal error to accept without question anything any HUMAN tells us and claims it to be truth and then telling us NOT to check it out for ourselves but to take what they have to say as ultimate truth. And is some cases forbidding that questions be asked.

First,

See above

every member of every church is corrupted by sin.

And you statement encompasses yours as well. However, all are sinners, but that does not mean we allow that sin to corrupt us. The Holy Spirit has the power to protect us from that corruption so to state that ALL are corrupted by sin is taking a fatalistic view and denying the power of the Holy Spirit.

Please separate personal sins from the principles taught. Failure to do so dooms every church.

You lost me on that one.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Part 2 of 2

Another problem here is that you also are agreeing that scripture might also be corrupt, since its source is the same Apostles and their successors.

Scripture, in and of itself, cannot be corrupted, what can happen is that it can be turned into a lie, ie, when Satan tempted Eve with the fruit and made her doubt the warning of God concerning the forbidden fruit. “Thou shalt not surely die, for God knows on the day that thou eats of it thou shalt be as God.”

Actually, you can tell them apart. The oral tradition is complete, while scripture remains incomplete.(John 20:30, 21:25)

I’m not sure what you are trying to prove by using these scriptures, however, If you read them again you will notice that they pertain to ACTIONS of Christ, not teaching. Did Jesus tell his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to the and he would begin rememberance to them all the things that he had TAUGHT them? These scriptures do not support YOUR argument.

Consider: there is not three years worth of teaching and preaching in the New Testament. This is especially so considering the parallelism of the synoptic Gospels. Where’s the remainder?

What Gospels are you reading. The span of which the Gospels spreads is Three and one half years. The time from the beginning of Christ’s ministry until his crucifixion. After that the first few chapters of the ACTS of the Aposltes tells the last three and one half years culminating in Stephen’s stoning and ultimately the removal of the Gospel message from the Jews and giving of it to the Gentiles.

To justify separation from the original Church, one must provide clear and convincing evidence of corruption. This must go far beyond allegations, insinuation and mere disagreement. Specificity must reign supreme, or the assertion fails. I have seen nothing approaching such detail amongst the claims of "restoration"churches. It begins to sound like the “witnesses” against Christ, whose testimony did not agree.

You wish to find evidence of where the Church went wrong, you but need only look at the Decalogue, especially the WHOLE of the Second Commandment. And when you read it ask yourself, if you have purified water and introduce into that water fecal matter, does the water become contaminated or does the fecal matter become pure by virtue of the water’s purification?

 

[jblake]

Ferde Rombola;:

us who are challenged in the oriental languages can engage you.

The data quite literally gets lost in the translation.

jonathon