O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Ah, so the Romans were appeasing the Jews when they destroyed the Jewish Temple and built a pagan temple on it’s ruins?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dmwessel
Guest
The definition of a wolf is that they “*feed off *the sheep”Except that St. Paul didn’t say that the Church would fall away from the “true gospel.”
He said that some people would pull some disciples out of the Church.
Ac 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
If disciples are drawn away, there must be something there to be drawn away from.
That would be the Church.
And that Church had, and has, the promise from Christ that the very gates of hell would not prevail against it.
Your theory makes Jesus’ promise null and void.
The disciples were *drawn away from the truth and to *a perverse gospel.
How does that null and void Jesus’ promise? Just because we might be unfaithful does not mean that he then becomes unfaithful.
S
spina1953
Guest
I would like to point out that Acts 20:7 says and I quote "On the first day of the week when we gathered for the breaking of bread, Paul preached to them. I read the Bible and I had no problem in understanding that the Apostles in fact worship on Sunday and that by Tradition by the time of Constantine in the 300’sAD. The Apostles worshiped on Sunday because Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, also Jesus appeared to the Apostles several times on a Sunday till he ascended into heaven.
Thank God for the Orthodox, then.Just to clarify, I don’t believe the Protestants were/are ‘more right’ than the Catholics were. I am stating that after Paul’s death (as he said would happen) that the church fell away from the true gospel.
Which protestants are you referring to, because clearly a Lutheran view of history is quite different than what you are portraying?
Jon
D
dmwessel
Guest
You really do like to twist things don’t you? You stated that the Romans *never *Ah, so the Romans were appeasing the Jews when they destroyed the Jewish Temple and built a pagan temple on it’s ruins?
appeased and I gave the example of how Pontius Pilate appeased the Jews by handing over Jesus to be killed.
Now suddenly you’re bringing up the pagan temple that Constantine built all the while denying that Constantine was indeed a pagan.
D
dmwessel
Guest
Who do you mean by Orthodox?Thank God for the Orthodox, then.
Which protestants are you referring to, because clearly a Lutheran view of history is quite different than what you are portraying?
Jon
and what’s the Lutheran view because I’ve attended Lutheran churches and the High Mass is still very much Catholic-based with Protestant overtones to the rest of the service. As far as I can see, Lutheran is a good mix of Catholic and Protestant.
D
dmwessel
Guest
Just because Adam and Eve failed, doesn’t mean that God changed. His commandments would remain the same throughout eternity, they would not change one iota, no need to because they would be perfect from the beginning.God does not need a new covenant but man does and it was Jesus at the Last Supper who made the new and everlasting covenant so that man could once again have the relationship that Adam and Eve lost when they sinned.
And you’re right though, it was to do with Adam and Eve, the new covenant that *will come * when Christ comes to establish his kingdom will be the reversal of Adam and Eve’s error and Jesus establishes a “new heaven and a new earth”/this is the new covenant.
Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox. You said that the Church had fallen away from the true Gospel, but had only mentioned Catholics and Protestants.=dmwessel;11743981]Who do you mean by Orthodox?
Your view that Constantine changed worship to Sunday is quite different from what I was taught (and what scripture and other writings such as the Didache seem to teach.and what’s the Lutheran view because I’ve attended Lutheran churches and the High Mass is still very much Catholic-based with Protestant overtones to the rest of the service. As far as I can see, Lutheran is a good mix of Catholic and Protestant.
Jon
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
The Temple was destroyed and replaced with a pagan temple like 200 years prior to Constantine’s birth. Kind of hard to build something prior to being born; or are you arguing that he had access to a time machine?You really do like to twist things don’t you? You stated that the Romans *never *
appeased and I gave the example of how Pontius Pilate appeased the Jews by handing over Jesus to be killed.
Now suddenly you’re bringing up the pagan temple that Constantine built all the while denying that Constantine was indeed a pagan.
D
dmwessel
Guest
Oh, I was meaning all Christian churches.Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox. You said that the Church had fallen away from the true Gospel, but had only mentioned Catholics and Protestants.
Your view that Constantine changed worship to Sunday is quite different from what I was taught (and what scripture and other writings such as the Didache seem to teach.
History shows that major changes occurred to Christianity during Constantine’s time.
What does the Didache say? Actually I just briefly looked it up and my question to you is, why do we need another writing? We already have the writings of the prophets and apostles? I’m quite sure this is not inspired as are the scriptures.
D
dmwessel
Guest
You didn’t clarify but made it sound as though Constantine built the temple. Obviously there were times when the Romans did try to appease, but you said they never did, of which now you’re trying (rather cunningly) to get out of.The Temple was destroyed and replaced with a pagan temple like 200 years prior to Constantine’s birth. Kind of hard to build something prior to being born; or are you arguing that he had access to a time machine?
And apparently the Romans did try to appease on many occasions as it was better for them to get along then to be fighting all the time. Not to say they were not also barbarians at times.
D
dronald
Guest
What is your personal opinion on Romans 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.Oh, I was meaning all Christian churches.
History shows that major changes occurred to Christianity during Constantine’s time.
What does the Didache say? Actually I just briefly looked it up and my question to you is, why do we need another writing? We already have the writings of the prophets and apostles? I’m quite sure this is not inspired as are the scriptures.
…10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
…13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.
…22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Wait, I should have clarified I wasn’t talking about Constantine when I referenced the destruction of the Jewish Temple? That should be something anyone with even a basic knowledge of Roman history or Jewish history or Constantine would already know. The fact you needed clarification on such a basic item should give you pause in regards to what you think you know about Constantine and the Romans.You didn’t clarify but made it sound as though Constantine built the temple. Obviously there were times when the Romans did try to appease, but you said they never did, of which now you’re trying (rather cunningly) to get out of.
And apparently the Romans did try to appease on many occasions as it was better for them to get along then to be fighting all the time. Not to say they were not also barbarians at times.
D
dmwessel
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShabbatI would like to point out that Acts 20:7 says and I quote "On the first day of the week when we gathered for the breaking of bread, Paul preached to them. I read the Bible and I had no problem in understanding that the Apostles in fact worship on Sunday and that by Tradition by the time of Constantine in the 300’sAD. The Apostles worshiped on Sunday because Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, also Jesus appeared to the Apostles several times on a Sunday till he ascended into heaven.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
My actual statement regarding the Romans and appeasement- “The Romans weren’t well known for appeasing anyone. Especially those who didn’t take up arms against them.”You really do like to twist things don’t you? You stated that the Romans *never *
appeased and I gave the example of how Pontius Pilate appeased the Jews by handing over Jesus to be killed.
Apparently you think “weren’t well known for” means “never.”
D
dmwessel
Guest
Yeah well I got caught up in the moment…but you sir don’t appear to be trying to arrive at the truth, you just seem to want to make a point at anyone’s expense.Wait, I should have clarified I wasn’t talking about Constantine when I referenced the destruction of the Jewish Temple? That should be something anyone with even a basic knowledge of Roman history or Jewish history or Constantine would already know. The fact you needed clarification on such a basic item should give you pause in regards to what you think you know about Constantine and the Romans.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
oh the ironyYeah well I got caught up in the moment…but you sir don’t appear to be trying to arrive at the truth, you just seem to want to make a point at anyone’s expense.
D
dmwessel
Guest
There again you twisted my words, I know what barbarians the Romans were but there were times that they did appease.My actual statement regarding the Romans and appeasement- “The Romans weren’t well known for appeasing anyone. Especially those who didn’t take up arms against them.”
Apparently you think “weren’t well known for” means “never.”
Pilate was in fact Roman and the Bible says (because you seem to have missed it) that Pilate *gave in *to their demands:
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
This was *most definitely * appeasement and I will not answer you any more on it.
D
dmwessel
Guest
Let’s see how very brave you are when you have a number of people on your back.oh the irony
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
I said “weren’t well known for.” You’re the one who has claimed I said “never.” The only charitable conclusion I could come to is you think “weren’t well known for” means “never.”There again you twisted my words and I didn’t say “weren’t well known for”, I know what barbarians the Romans were.
Pilate was in fact Roman and the Bible says (because you seem to have missed it) that Pilate *gave in *to their demands:
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
This was *most definitely * appeasement and I will not answer you any more on it.
One of us has been intentionally or unintentionally twisting the other’s words, but it wasn’t me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.