W
Wesley7
Guest
Because it is the Church of Pentecost 33 A.D. . . .
- Status
T
Tocra
Guest
Correction, the pentecostal church was not in Rome. It was in Jerusalem.
A
autdrew
Guest
what is meant by
1 Corth 11-2 I praise you because you remember me & in everything & hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them to you.
2 Thess 2-15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by ORAL statement or by letter of ours.
2 Thess 3-6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way & not according to the traditions they received from us.
John 21-25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
2 Tim 1-13 Take as your norm the sound words you have heard from me, in the faith & love that are in Jesus Christ.
Tim 2-2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2Pet 1-20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation
2 Pet 3-15,16 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant & unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
1 Pet 1-25 …this is the word that has been preached to you (not written)
Romans 10-16-17 But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says “Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?” Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
1 Corin 15-1,2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I Preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand. Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I Preached to you, unless you believed in vain
Mark 16-15 He said to them “Go into the whole world & proclaim the gospel to every creature” (nothing would be written for several yrs, Im guessing Jesus mean preach & do as He told them to)
Acts 20-35 In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who Himself said “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (this saying of Jesus is Not found in the Gospels, what was quoting from?)
When I spent my childhood as a Baptist, I asked my teachers what they talked about. I was told it must not be important because it wasnt in the Bible. I said, if it isnt important, why do they mention it? I never got anything more than dont ask so many questions.
1 Corth 11-2 I praise you because you remember me & in everything & hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them to you.
2 Thess 2-15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by ORAL statement or by letter of ours.
2 Thess 3-6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way & not according to the traditions they received from us.
John 21-25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
2 Tim 1-13 Take as your norm the sound words you have heard from me, in the faith & love that are in Jesus Christ.
Tim 2-2 And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2Pet 1-20 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation
2 Pet 3-15,16 And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant & unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
1 Pet 1-25 …this is the word that has been preached to you (not written)
Romans 10-16-17 But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says “Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?” Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.
1 Corin 15-1,2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I Preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand. Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I Preached to you, unless you believed in vain
Mark 16-15 He said to them “Go into the whole world & proclaim the gospel to every creature” (nothing would be written for several yrs, Im guessing Jesus mean preach & do as He told them to)
Acts 20-35 In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort we must help the weak, and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who Himself said “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (this saying of Jesus is Not found in the Gospels, what was quoting from?)
When I spent my childhood as a Baptist, I asked my teachers what they talked about. I was told it must not be important because it wasnt in the Bible. I said, if it isnt important, why do they mention it? I never got anything more than dont ask so many questions.
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
Funny how your stance changes. First it’s, if it’s not in the Bible then God meant it to be not in the Bible. Then when confronted with the hard fact that what makes up the Canon is not in the Bible it is I who doubt
Again can you asnwer the question in regards to this statement by you:Should we not attempt to “implement” the Canon since it is an “element of truth outside the Bible”? Did God mean for us not to know what is Scripture?
This “compilation” and what it entails is not found in the Bible. Please answer my question in regards to this post by you:
God bless
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
W
Wesley7
Guest
**Just a few things ~ the Orthodox Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. There are several Orthodox Churches in Israel and Jerusalem. It is not only just you but a large of number of Protestants reading sacred scripture using a method of self-interpretation that isn’t very reliable because people come to different conclusions in their Protestant reading of scripture. Thats why there are so many divisions and denominations.
Anyhow, according to the teaching of Christ we are called to accept and love one another regardless of doctrinal differences we might have.
God bless**
J
justamoose89
Guest
I can only hope this statement was a result of something that was mistyped, not a serious lack of knowledge of history.
There was no “Pentecostal church”. Pentecost is the birthday of the Catholic Church. And yes it started in Jerusalem.
J
justamoose89
Guest
In the 1500’s Martin Luther, of his own authority, took out 7 books of the Bible. Lets just say, for arguments sake, that today somebody tried to take out some more books of the Bible. Lets say they claim to be influenced by the Holy Spirit. Would you believe him? I don’t think so. And why not? Because the books of the Bible have already been decided, and it is not our place to change it. That right there is an influence of Tradition. We don’t change the books of the Bible because they are part of our Tradition. And what Protestants did in the 1500’s is just that. They overstepped their authority and removed books from the Bible that had been there for over 1000 years.
Just a correction. When Martin Luther translated the Bible, he translated and included 74 books - the 73 books typically found in the Western Bible, and the Prayer of Manasses.
Luther did question the canonicity of the D-C books, as many did including St. Jerome, and Luther’s contemporary Cardinal Cajetan, but he did not remove them. In fact, even the 1611 KJV included the D-C’s. German Lutheran Bibles still contain them - I have one.
Jon
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Um, perhaps then you would be so kind as to supply the unbiased books where you must have found the information that you give above?
I mean, I actually supplied book title, author, page and excerpt.
Where is your documentation?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Do you need me to cite a source for the bit where I said Orthodox believe that Catholics are the Schismatics? Check out ISBN-10: 0140146563, probably the most cited book on Orthodoxy in the English language. If you want a source where it says it is “madness” to belittle those one wishes to ally with, well I’ll cite common sense on that although I’m sure Sun Tzu or Machiavelli probably wrote something to the same effect.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I just noticed you asked for an unbiased source. You completely missed my point. You used as evidence that the Orthodox twice nearly rejoined Rome as proof that Catholicism is correct, my point was that from the Orthodox perspective Rome nearly rejoined Orthodoxy. Clearly by the logic you laid out this makes Orthodox the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith.
Obviously this is a bad argument, but it is exactly the argument you tried to put forth.
Obviously this is a bad argument, but it is exactly the argument you tried to put forth.
And this was precisely the point of my earlier post, dear Christian siblings, Tantum and Nine. Even with Sacred Tradition, human sin divides us.
It is my sincere prayer that Rome and Orthodoxy, and Lutherans and all manner of Christians with strive for the unity Christ calls us to.
Jon
It is my sincere prayer that Rome and Orthodoxy, and Lutherans and all manner of Christians with strive for the unity Christ calls us to.
Jon
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Of course, I only gave a sentence or two. The context of the ‘madness’ (whether it is ‘belittling’ or not I cannot presume to say) lies in the earlier chapters where the Eastern Church has difficulties with heresies. NOT that I say the Eastern Church is heretical by any means, but that in the early history of the Church (prior to AD 1000) it is the EASTERN church which is beset with heresies, Arianism, semi-Pelagianism, the iconoclastic issues, etc. whereas the WESTERN Church is not. By the Western perspective, the Eastern church has often had ‘bouts’ of "madness’ caused by SOME within her who briefly caused difficulties, from which the Eastern Church always emerged ‘back on track’. . .and of course, that’s what we in the West hope will happen. And indeed, briefly (as Mr. Crocker notes) the East DID ‘emerge’ and ‘rejoined’ the West. . .but then ‘sank back’ again and ‘left’ again. (Temporarily we still hope and believe).
Now while the Orthodox Church has its own ‘take’ on the subject, I’m specifically noting that the Western Church stood much more firmly and with much less internal fuss AND sliding into heresy than the Eastern Church did.
While it is always possible that the Western Church could have succumbed to heresy, if the ONLY position (as our Orthodox friend is positing) is that “of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, one is the ‘true’ Church and one succumbed to heresy” --and he naturally says it is the CATHOLICS and not the Orthodox who ‘fell’. . .well, then the problem becomes that the Orthodox were always (and documented proof abounds) the ones who had the 'heresy problems. So either we have a situation where the Orthodox firmly throw off all heresy and are part of a ‘united’ Christendom and then watch, sadly, while the Western Church ‘veers’ off. . .or we have a situation where the Orthodox have NOT thrown off the heresy problems, separate themselves from a united Christendom, and then complain that , no, they are really the ‘true’ ones and it’s the West that fell.
Personally (and I am not going on Crocker alone, having read also the Oxford History of Christendom which is emphatically not on the "Catholic side!’ so to speak), I really do feel that not only is there evidence that the Orthodox were ‘separatist’ and wrong to begin with (filioque) but that they actually did acknowledge the supremacy of Rome by **agreeing to the filioque among other points at a couple of given times, but then later ‘reneging’. **
**IF the Orthodox had NEVER ‘submitted’ on the point, it would have been a much more difficult decision as to whether or not the Catholics had ‘separated’ from the Orthodox or vice versa, because we would have had a situation where one group said, "filioque’ and the other said, "No, absolutely not’. **
**But we don’t. We have a situation where one group said "filioque’ and the other said, “No”, “Well, yes, all right”, "on second thought, no’, “well, yes, we can agree”, “on third thought, no”. **
IOW, we have group one (Catholic) making a consistent teaching, and group two (Orthodox) jumping back and forth between acceptance and rejection. That is not consistent. Furthermore, the acceptance and rejection are not tied to the actual teaching itself, but appear to be based only whether or not the Orthodox ‘get something’ from their acceptance (or rejection) OUTSIDE of the truth of the teaching itself.
**I hasten to say that this is my ‘understanding’ (which obviously of course could be imperfect), that I am not in any way attempting to malign the Orthodox, etc. That obviously as a Catholic I certainly hold to the ‘rightness’ of my faith. That equally obviously if it differs from the Orthodox understanding, they are certainly going to uphold the ‘rightness’ of THEIR understanding. IOW, I understand that the Orthodox are going to disagree with various points or have a different interpretation. **
**Like Jon, too, I hope that whatever the truth may be that we can come to an understanding and an acceptance and to achieve the Unity of Christendom that we SHOULD have. As a Catholic, I also state that whatever is necessary for me ‘personally’ to ‘give up’ to achieve that understanding, I gladly do so. I can only ‘reserve’ what is essential to the Faith which obviously is not mine to ‘give up’. Anything else I would gladly sacrifice if in doing so it would enable others to come to the truth. And I daresay that Nine would be equally willing to sacrifice anything that he ‘personally’ could as well. I’m sure that Nine (and all Orthodox) are as sorrowful as Catholics are that we ARE separated, and would certainly rather that the two ‘lungs’ of the Church (Catholic and Orthodox) were breathing ‘as one’ instead of apart. **
B
Bonarges
Guest
Well, in all of these responses, there were only two Protestants who even made an attempt to address the questions I raised. For a purely human belief system (Protestantism) that claims so many adherents, I’m surprised at the dismally low turnout here. I figured on many responses, like so many red fire ants, spewing out ad hominems, irrelevancies, rhetorical questions…you know, the typical Protestant dodge that even an atheist child would pick up on.
I’m always stunned, yet not surprised, at the Protestant reaction to questions of this nature, a reaction that seems to undermine simple God-given human reason. It is as if the conception of such a question is utterly foreign to them, a question which should be the first question for a person with a working intellect.
(Edited to remove quote of banned member)
JonNC, the only other Protestant, offered the forum this answer, the only answer he gave among many which actually addressed the questions I raised, although missing the very simple point altogether:
“On this issue of Baptism, Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture. This is true of the Eucharist, as well.
It would not be “a Lutheran” who walks up to scripture, as that would imply individual interpretation, which Lutherans do not practice. When one reads the Lutheran Confessions, one will find often a positive reference to the ECF’s and the early councils.”
AlI I can say is that JonNC seems unfamiliar with sola scriptura, or actually, is pretending to be unfamiliar with it. Rather scandalous considering his own spiritual father (Luther) has much to say about it,ahem. The fact is, like every other Protestant denomination, the Lutherans have no objective standard by which they can know that their own interpretation of the Bible is correct. And not to get off track, why are there so many Lutheran synods? Just curious…
I’m always stunned, yet not surprised, at the Protestant reaction to questions of this nature, a reaction that seems to undermine simple God-given human reason. It is as if the conception of such a question is utterly foreign to them, a question which should be the first question for a person with a working intellect.
(Edited to remove quote of banned member)
JonNC, the only other Protestant, offered the forum this answer, the only answer he gave among many which actually addressed the questions I raised, although missing the very simple point altogether:
“On this issue of Baptism, Lutherans look to the ancient teachings of the Church, as they agree with scripture. This is true of the Eucharist, as well.
It would not be “a Lutheran” who walks up to scripture, as that would imply individual interpretation, which Lutherans do not practice. When one reads the Lutheran Confessions, one will find often a positive reference to the ECF’s and the early councils.”
AlI I can say is that JonNC seems unfamiliar with sola scriptura, or actually, is pretending to be unfamiliar with it. Rather scandalous considering his own spiritual father (Luther) has much to say about it,ahem. The fact is, like every other Protestant denomination, the Lutherans have no objective standard by which they can know that their own interpretation of the Bible is correct. And not to get off track, why are there so many Lutheran synods? Just curious…
R
Roman_Catholic_1
Guest
No JonNC is quite correct about Sola Scriptura. At least from the Lutheran perspective which is what he speaks about. What you are alluding to is better referred to as Solo Scriptura.
A good and enlightening read on the difference even if it is written by a Protestant
.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main
God bless you
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I’m not getting into a debate on this but the fact of the matter everything you’re saying is debatable. You’re simply stating one side, it isn’t so cut and dried as you like to portray it. My point still stands, using a source with bias doesn’t prove such a contentious point, and belittling those whom you wish to ally with is itself madness.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
(2 Thess 2: 14)
14 therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word of mouth, or by our epistle.
(1 Tim 3: 15)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
(Matt 18: 17-18)
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Actually this is where the difference arises.
Before the Bible was considered Scripture, there was first the Church and her Traditions. So when the canon was established, the books that made the cut were weighed against tradition. Some would say then that since the canonization of Scripture there is no longer a need for Tradition. But Tradition is always needed because any interpretation of scripture has be based on tradition. Scripture will not contradict tradition but its interpretation could do that so interpretation has to be checked against tradition.
And no we have never ever claimed that the Pope is absolutely infallible.
- Status