How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[ragsbinwashed]

How do you account for differing, contradictory interpretations from different, sincere people? Do you think that the Holy Spirit is giving different interpretations to different people?

People who study the bible with a preconceived agenda will inevitably find something that will sort of confirm their agenda. Such are not of the Holy Spirit.

No, the Holy Spirit teaches through the institution that Jesus set up for the task: The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth.

Institutions don’t teach anything. Individuals do.

Absolutely true! Prophesies are to be interpreted through the teaching of the Church, NOT through private individuals (not even E.G. White ).

Again, churches don’t teach. Individuals do. So, why did you leave half of my passage off. Here it is again

2peter1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The holy men of God are individuals who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

We could start a thread on the meaning of Revelation 11 & 12 if you’d like.

Why?

So long as I keep Jesus foremost in my mind & heart and obey His commands, yes.

So your church teaches and you keep the commandments?

rags

 

[ragsbinwashed]

You didn’t answer my question. Where in the verse does it say that this constitutes the Church as Church, and not simply one aspect of it? The context is about a particular thing. And what is meant by ‘gathering in the name of Christ’? Is it merely gathering and thinking about who Christ is (and what he has done), or does it also include preaching, Eucharist, baptism, etc?

I think that I more than adequately answered your question, but here it is again.

Yes, you’re probably right. I should have put it in context. Here it is.
Matt1815 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This passage is Matthew teaching us how to deal with wayward brethren. Verse 17tells us the final step in the process, which is to “tell it unto the church” and then he goes on to tell some of the characteristics of the church. The last being v. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Now I don’t see anything in here about eucharist, baptism, or anything about any ritual other that gathering in the name of Christ. That’s what I mean about trying to push the scripture into saying what you want it to say, when it doesn’t say it.

No, he is not merely ministering. He is acting as a sacrificial priest. You cannot escape the fact that Paul says that he is ‘acting as a priest.’ It is right there in the text.

Well here’s the text
Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Were does it say that Paul is a priest?

rags

 

[spina1953]

No, it’s a straight-forward question. I think I see one candidate speaking up just above. Are there others? I’ve put up 28 posts in the thread, now, but none of them are directly related to addressing the question (I’m a serial facilitator of thread drift). I don’t know if anyone has spoken up to claim the concept, and explain their position, save the above volunteer. I haven’t followed the thread, to be able to answer that question I posed. I do think I’ve seen folks denying they recognized such a gap.

GKC

Hi GKC: OK I will accept that from you that the question is straight forward, but I do not know at this time if I am able to answer it but will give it some thought. Yes, one has spoke are there others? I know that you have posted much and none so far have really answered your questions directly related to the questions you asked. I wonder why? Is there something about the question that is hard to reply to? Did I miss something? Maybe, I never know at times if I am understanding the questions being asked or answered.

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: OK I will accept that from you that the question is straight forward, but I do not know at this time if I am able to answer it but will give it some thought. Yes, one has spoke are there others? I know that you have posted much and none so far have really answered your questions directly related to the questions you asked. I wonder why? Is there something about the question that is hard to reply to? Did I miss something? Maybe, I never know at times if I am understanding the questions being asked or answered.

I sometimes feel the same. What I am saying here is not that there are no protestant groups that espouse a 1500 year gap, whatever they might conceive that to be (I assume there are), but are you talking to any such protestants, here. That seems to be essential to answering the title of the thread.

I think one such has raised his hand.

GKC

 

[spina1953]

I sometimes feel the same. What I am saying here is not that there are no protestant groups that espouse a 1500 year gap, whatever they might conceive that to be (I assume there are), but are you talking to any such protestants, here. That seems to be essential to answering the title of the thread.

I think one such has raised his hand.

GKC

Hi GKC: Quite right. Yes, there is one who has raised his hand. However, I really do not know how to answer his question since it does not seem germane to the question, at least in my mind. Maybe someone can answer it. So far as you state there has been no Protestant groups that have espoused any 1500 year gap. I wonder if maybe it needs to be directed to what some call fringe groups that are not considered main-line Protestant groups that may have some thoughts on it?

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: Quite right. Yes, there is one who has raised his hand. However, I really do not know how to answer his question since it does not seem germane to the question, at least in my mind. Maybe someone can answer it. So far as you state there has been no Protestant groups that have espoused any 1500 year gap. I wonder if maybe it needs to be directed to what some call fringe groups that are not considered main-line Protestant groups that may have some thoughts on it?

Possibly you are correct, though I’m outside my comfort zone with that question. Instinctively, I feel that you can find groups of protestants that say precisely that there was such a gap. And then there is the great apostasy of the Mormons (not protestants, of course) which would give you more of a 1700 year gap. But the trick is to get engaged with such folk, for an explanation, and so far, it looks like you have a target population of one, on hand. As far as I know, anyway.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
As far as I am concerned this is what designates a church.

So, rags, what brings you to CAF? You have said that our faith is “absurd”, and you seem pretty solid in the foundation of your beliefs on a few verses of apocalyptic literature.

You don’t seem to be in need of any “Catholic Answers”.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

So, rags, what brings you to CAF? You have said that our faith is “absurd”, and you seem pretty solid in the foundation of your beliefs on a few verses of apocalyptic literature.

Seriously guanophore? You really want to misquote me? Here’s what I said

So, if you have a congregation of true believers and there is no ordained priest there, you don’t have a church. I find that quite absurd.

I found the idea that you had to have a priest present in order to have a church quite absurd and I still do, because the bible says differently. I never said nor even implied this "You have said that our faith is “absurd”. The real question seems to be why would you misquote me?

You don’t seem to be in need of any “Catholic Answers”.

Didn’t think I had to. I thought this was a forum where we discuss various aspects of our respective faiths. Was I wrong? If so what is the actual purpose of this forum?

rags

 

[KjetilK]

People who study the bible with a preconceived agenda will inevitably find something that will sort of confirm their agenda. Such are not of the Holy Spirit.

So we are supposed to just bend the knee to your interpretation, an interpretation without precedence in history before the 19th century at the earliest?

Now I don’t see anything in here about eucharist, baptism, or anything about any ritual other that gathering in the name of Christ.

But that is the problem. You need to define what ‘gathering in the name of Christ’ means. I agree that ‘gathering in the name of Christ’ is what constitutes the Church. I just happen to believe that this included preaching his Gospel and administering the sacraments he commanded us to administer.

Well here’s the text
Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

No, that’s not the text. That is something masquerading as a translation.

Were does it say that Paul is a priest?

It is right there in the GREEK TEXT. Have you actually bothered to read my posts at all? The verb, which your translation has mistranslated ‘ministering,’ is ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgounta). That is the participle form of ἱερουργέω (hierourgeo), which means ‘to act as a sacrificial priest.’ It does not mean ‘to minister.’ It is connected to the noun ἱερεύς (hiereus), which means ‘sacrificial priest.’ Next time you should use a translation that actually translates the Greek text.

 

[ragsbinwashed]

So we are supposed to just bend the knee to your interpretation, an interpretation without precedence in history before the 19th century at the earliest?

I’m not asking you to bend your knee to anything. This is my opinion.

But that is the problem. You need to define what ‘gathering in the name of Christ’ means. I agree that ‘gathering in the name of Christ’ is what constitutes the Church. I just happen to believe that this included preaching his Gospel and administering the sacraments he commanded us to administer.

Why do I have to define it? It’s self explanatory.

No, that’s not the text. That is something masquerading as a translation.

So, we should bend the knee to your translation?

It is right there in the GREEK TEXT. Have you actually bothered to read my posts at all? The verb, which your translation has mistranslated ‘ministering,’ is ἱερουργοῦντα (hierourgounta). That is the participle form of ἱερουργέω (hierourgeo), which means ‘to act as a sacrificial priest.’ It does not mean ‘to minister.’ It is connected to the noun ἱερεύς (hiereus), which means ‘sacrificial priest.’ Next time you should use a translation that actually translates the Greek text.

Here’s what the blue letter bible lexicon has to say about the word translated as ministering.

ἱερουργέω
Transliteration

hierourgeō

Pronunciation
hē-e-rür-ge’-ō (Key)

Part of Speech

verb

Root Word (Etymology)

From a compound of ἱερόν (G2411) and the base of ἔργον (G2041)

Outline of Biblical Usage

I.to minister in the manner of a priest, minister in priestly service

A.of those who defend the sanctity of the law by undergoing a violent death

B.of the preaching of the gospel

Fits in nicely with
1 Peter 2 King James Version (KJV)
1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Rags

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hi Spina,
Well the OP described it as, essentially, denying ancient documents, etc., even the writings of martyrs!

As for me, as most Lutherans would say, there has been no gap.

Jon

OK. If there was no gap, then the Church that Martin Luther dissented from was the one that held Jesus’ divine authority, right?

 

[spina1953]

Possibly you are correct, though I’m outside my comfort zone with that question. Instinctively, I feel that you can find groups of protestants that say precisely that there was such a gap. And then there is the great apostasy of the Mormons (not protestants, of course) which would give you more of a 1700 year gap. But the trick is to get engaged with such folk, for an explanation, and so far, it looks like you have a target population of one, on hand. As far as I know, anyway.

GKC

Hi GKC: I can understand you being outside your comfort zone to the question. What I call fringe groups I am sure that they do not consider themselves a fringe group; to me it was just a way of saying that they are not part of the Main Line Protestant Belief system. I am also sure that there start up denominational churches that one sees springing up everywhere it seems who some I understand think there is a gap of some kind and furthermore, some think all have left the true faith but them. Seems a bit radical to me, yet they are free to believe what they want of course its just that I can’t agree with it. I also see that there are others out there that now have said something on this thread that I think helpful in understanding this gap if there really is one.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

People who study the bible with a preconceived agenda will inevitably find something that will sort of confirm their agenda. Such are not of the Holy Spirit.

How do you know YOU aren’t studying the bible “with a preconceived agenda”?

Institutions don’t teach anything. Individuals do.

Individuals who are “sent out” from the institutionalized Church.

Ro 10:13 For, “every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?
15 And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!”

So, why did you leave half of my passage off. Here it is again

2peter1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The holy men of God are individuals who spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Yes.
How do you suppose this changes my point?
[Hint: it does not]

We could start a thread on the meaning of Revelation 11 & 12 if you’d like.

Why?

To show you how wrong your interpretation is without hijacking this thread.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This passage is Matthew teaching us how to deal with wayward brethren. Verse 17tells us the final step in the process, which is to “tell it unto the church” and then he goes on to tell some of the characteristics of the church. The last being v. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

So, your contention is that I could go to ANY group of 2-3 Christians for a resolution?

What happens if we each go to different groups, and they come to different conclusions?

That plan isn’t a very good one if one sincerely wants to find the Truth. I reject the notion that Jesus’ plan isn’t a good one; therefore I reject your interpretation.

Well here’s the text
Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Were does it say that Paul is a priest?

rags
I believe that KjetilK has already answered that in post 786 above, appealing to the original Greek.

 

[spina1953]

I have taken a look at my Bible; reading Rom.15:16 and it goes with 15 where Paul says: “I have written to you rather boldly in parts of this letter by way of reminder. I take this liberty because God has given me to grace to be a minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles, with the priestly duty of preaching the Gospel of God so that the Gentiles may be offered up as a pleasing sacrifice, consecrated by the Holy Spirit.”

Paul hear is describes his role as a priest functioning in God’s sanctuary Paul is given the duty from God through Christ Jesus to minister to the Gentiles> Paul already knows that there are Christians in Rome that a Church there has been founded not by him and had acknowledged by Paul. So I am not sure how that explains the gap question.

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: I can understand you being outside your comfort zone to the question. What I call fringe groups I am sure that they do not consider themselves a fringe group; to me it was just a way of saying that they are not part of the Main Line Protestant Belief system. I am also sure that there start up denominational churches that one sees springing up everywhere it seems who some I understand think there is a gap of some kind and furthermore, some think all have left the true faith but them. Seems a bit radical to me, yet they are free to believe what they want of course its just that I can’t agree with it. I also see that there are others out there that now have said something on this thread that I think helpful in understanding this gap if there really is one.

If it is progress, all to the good.

GKC

 

[spina1953]

If it is progress, all to the good.

GKC

Hi GKC: Yeas. If it is progress all to the good! Maybe something will come out of it all at least I hope so. its just sometimes its so hard to learn anything worthwhile.

 

[andrewstx]

I sometimes feel the same. What I am saying here is not that there are no protestant groups that espouse a 1500 year gap, whatever they might conceive that to be (I assume there are), but are you talking to any such protestants, here. That seems to be essential to answering the title of the thread.

I think one such has raised his hand.

GKC

Actually, there are Christians who believe in such a gap. Mormons, churches of Christ (I was a member of a church of Christ) and Seventh Day Adventists are all what is called “restorationist” churches.

They believe that the church ceased to exist due to apostacy and had to be restored back into being.

But no traditional Christian believes that, only a small number of sects and in the case of Mormons…cults think that way.

 

[GKC]

Actually, there are Christians who believe in such a gap. Mormons, churches of Christ (I was a member of a church of Christ) and Seventh Day Adventists are all what is called “restorationist” churches.

They believe that the church ceased to exist due to apostacy and had to be restored back into being.

But no traditional Christian believes that, only a small number of sects and in the case of Mormons…cults think that way.

Yep. Don’t doubt it for a minute. But to get into the details, how they explain a 1500 year gap, one needs a restorationist on hand, to engage. It isn’t going to help to engage Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc, and demand to know how they explain the gap.

Well, maybe Anglicans. I hate to over-generalize about Anglicans.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hi GKC: Yeas. If it is progress all to the good! Maybe something will come out of it all at least I hope so. its just sometimes its so hard to learn anything worthwhile.

Books. It’s about books. Books are good. I bought 19 yesterday. Of course, you have to find which books are needed and useful.

GKC