Is Catholicism the Oldest Christian Religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter acilinoi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, not really. But I’ll leave it to those with much better Greek than mine (which doesn’t take much :D); discussing something in English which is rooted in the differences between Greek and Latin, by making use of translations which were meant for other purposes, is not my idea of “productive.” 🤷

It took a lot of effort following those who could competently explain and debate to figure it out; explaining is way past my pay grade on the issue. I’ll just sign off by noting that even after the translationss involved, “principle” and “origin”, while similar, are not synonymous–and that’s without translating them back to Greek.

The theologies are actually in violent agreement, with languishing differences in the way.
hawk
The very argument is not over the temporal relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit. It is, in fact, over what the nature of the eternal relationship of the Son is to the Spirit. You are mistaken on this point, which is what Ryan Black was pointing out.
 
The Spirit came from the Father because the Son returned to the Father and requested the Spirit be sent, see John 14:16. The Orthodox also process one spiration on the same basis, but omit the Son’s mediating role in the Creed; they do not mean thereby to contradict Scripture. The confusion arises because the essence of the Holy Spirit somehow gets left out of the discussion. The Holy Spirit is God, and therefore must have everything in common with BOTH the Father and Son except being Father and Son, respectively. Accordingly, the filioque did not cause a change in doctrine.
It seems to me as if you are confusing the temporal sending of the Spirit (which you reference in the first sentence), with the eternal procession of the Spirit as a subsistent being (spiration), which is the issue at hand. This of course, may not be the case at all, in which case, feel free to offer correction.
Speaking of changes in doctrine, I would like to see the Orthodox here address the issue of why some Orthodox Churches changed their position on contraception. The Catholic Church has always prohibited pharmikea just as the Bible, Didache, and Church Fathers did.
The problem is that, as that article points out, pharmikea had many meanings (sorcery, potions, etc.). In the context of the quotation from Didache which prohibits aborting babies, the meaning there is probably the use of abortifacient medications or poisons as contraception (an interpretation which the article hints at). The Orthodox do not allow for abortifacient contraception. The conference of Orthodox Bishops in North America (SCOBA), in fact released a statement expressing their disapproval of the Obama health-care mandate for this very reason, among others.

For the story, look here: prescottorthodox.org/2012/02/orthodox-bishops-speak-out-against-hhs-mandate/
 
It seems to me as if you are confusing the temporal sending of the Spirit (which you reference in the first sentence), with the eternal procession of the Spirit as a subsistent being (spiration), which is the issue at hand.
There is room for “and the Son” in either meaning. In the eternal sense, the Spirit shares the same substance (i.e. God) with BOTH of the other Persons, which is the point of the Council of Florence. In the temporal sense, it is as described in the Gospel of John.
The problem is that, as that article points out, pharmikea had many meanings (sorcery, potions, etc.)
But wouldn’t a non-abortifacient contraception be considered a form of onanism? That has always been prohibited, from Judaism to the Catholicism in the present.
The conference of Orthodox Bishops in North America (SCOBA), in fact released a statement expressing their disapproval of the Obama health-care mandate for this very reason, among others.
Excellent!
 
There is room for “and the Son” in either meaning. In the eternal sense, the Spirit shares the same substance (i.e. God) with BOTH of the other Persons, which is the point of the Council of Florence. In the temporal sense, it is as described in the Gospel of John.
The problem is that we seem to disagree with just what the nature of that eternal relationship is.
But wouldn’t a non-abortifacient contraception be considered a form of onanism? That has always been prohibited, from Judaism to the Catholicism in the present.
Well, I’m not so sure that would be the case. The specific sin of Onan, if we get down to it, was that he had intercourse with his brother’s wife, on the pretense that he was going to impregnate her (thus fulfilling his duty as her brother-in-law to provide offspring after the death of her husband). Instead, he spilled his seed, effectively using her for sexual intercourse without fulfilling his obligation to provide offspring. For this, he was struck dead.

In the case of a husband and wife, I suppose it is a more complicated issue. We, on one hand, are commanded to multiply. On the other hand, we are commanded not to defraud our spouses of sexual intercourse. A third factor is that we need to provide a proper upbringing for children. This is something that needs to be discussed with a priest (it is a pastoral issue). Orthodoxy does not at all condone marriages which result in no children (unless one of the partners is sterile, of course, in which case children are an impossibility without miraculous help). Also, the allowance for contraception does not at all dispense of the prescription that couples abstain from relations the night before receiving the Eucharist and on strict fast days (how many of the poorly catechized cradles are aware of this teaching on the other hand is… well, maybe not so great).
 
The problem is that we seem to disagree with just what the nature of that eternal relationship is.
I am still scratching my head trying to figure out where the disagreement is. As concerns the eternal relationship, everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Is there something else?
 
I am still scratching my head trying to figure out where the disagreement is. As concerns the eternal relationship, everyone agrees that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Is there something else?
The question is if the Son can appropriately be called (with the Father) cause of the Holy Spirit. The Eastern answer is no, the Western answer is yes.
 
I sense that it is time for a new thread.
Yeah, if anything, people could just take this to last week’s filioque these. Or we could just start a new one. It seems like the filioque has become a favorite discussion point lately.
 
The question is if the Son can appropriately be called (with the Father) cause of the Holy Spirit. The Eastern answer is no, the Western answer is yes.
Are we talking about causation in the eternal sense or the temporal sense? In the temporal I think there is agreement about yes. In the eternal, wouldn’t the conclusion that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son necessarily result from the fact that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) share the one substance of God? In other words, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the substance of God and that substance is the same in all three Persons, then wouldn’t each Person necessarily proceed from the same substance and therefore necessarily from the other Persons in the eternal sense?
 
Are we talking about causation in the eternal sense or the temporal sense? In the temporal I think there is agreement about yes. In the eternal, wouldn’t the conclusion that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son necessarily result from the fact that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) share the one substance of God? In other words, if the Holy Spirit proceeds from the substance of God and that substance is the same in all three Persons, then wouldn’t each Person necessarily proceed from the same substance and therefore necessarily from the other Persons in the eternal sense?
Whatever is the oldest Christian religion, the amount of time spent discussing the filioque is increasing by its faithful.

There is a distinction made between the Monarchy of the Father (“the principle without principle”) – the first origin of Spirit – and the “Father … with the Son” – the single principle: first origin and single principle are not the same.

CCC 248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father’s character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he “who proceeds from the Father”, it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. 77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, “legitimately and with good reason”, 78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as “the principle without principle”, 79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. 80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

77 Jn 15:26; cf. Ad Gentes 2.
78 Council of Florence (1439): DS 1302.
79 Council of Florence (1442): DS 1331.
80 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 850.

John 15:26 temporal procession: But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
 
I want to add discussion to the words of christ in relation to Peters succession:

(Mat 16:23 KJV) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

To me this clearly identifies that Peter is influenced by Satan. I’m not saying he is Satan but is influenced.

** Matthew 7:15-20
17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
**

To me this is quite simple a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit, That is the indicator.

Jesus clearly emphases his teaching in terms of a ‘seed’ which will grow. The parables contain stories on what the kingdom of heaven is like.

** Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
**

to expand the parable and the text in the chapter:

Luke 8:4-15
** 5 “A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. 6 And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it. 8 And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold.” As he said this, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” 9 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, 10 he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. 11 Now the parable is this:… 13 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.**

To subphrase:

** 6 And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. **

13 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

Further:
Matt. 16:13-20

*15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ,” .

It is quite obvious what Jesus termed as one of his followers. It is best expressed in this verse:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.


A self proclaimed Christian (follower of Christ) or Christian church if they call themselves a follower of Christ would of course if they knew god, sell their possessions and follow Christ to the cross, especially if they want to enter the kingdom of heaven…

Luke 22:54-62

** Peter sat among them. Then a servant-girl, seeing him in the firelight, stared at him and said, “This man also was with him.” But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” A little later someone else, on seeing him, said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” Then about an hour later still another kept insisting, “Surely this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean.” But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
**

Disciple he was, and his job to keep the word alive, but Christian he was not.

Matthew 22:14
"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

So in conclusion using Jesus own words, is you will know them by their fruits. A good tree only bears good fruit. Just have to look through history if this applies to the various popes to see where the Peter’ soil stands.

and we are reminded to this day of Jesus’s words to Peter

" for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men"

Even such things as trying to prove your church is first or better or universal above others are all things of men and not of those who dedicate themselves to the spiritual service of god.
 
Matt 16
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.
 
Again:

Luke 8:4-15
13 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away

Luke 22:54-62
But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
 
Sorry, where was the quote from the bible where Jesus forgave Peter?
 
Luke 14:27
And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
 
Sorry, where was the quote from the bible where Jesus forgave Peter?
When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
John 21:15-17
 
I want to add discussion to the words of christ in relation to Peters succession:

(Mat 16:23 KJV) But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

To me this clearly identifies that Peter is influenced by Satan. I’m not saying he is Satan but is influenced.

** Matthew 7:
To me this is quite simple a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit, That is the indicator.

Jesus clearly emphases his teaching in terms of a ‘seed’ which will grow. The parables contain stories on what the kingdom of heaven is like.

** Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

I
to expand the parable and the text in the chapter:

Luke 8:4-15
** 5 “A sower went out to sow his seed; and as he sowed, some fell along the path, and was trodden under foot, and the birds of the air devoured it. 6 And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. 7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew with it and choked it. 8 And some fell into good soil and grew, and yielded a hundredfold.” As he said this, he called out, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” 9 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, 10 he said, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand. 11 Now the parable is this:… 13 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.**

To subphrase:

** 6 And some fell on the rock; and as it grew up, it withered away, because it had no moisture. **

13 And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy; but these have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

Further:
Matt. 16:13-20

*15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ,” .

It is quite obvious what Jesus termed as one of his followers. It is best expressed in this verse:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. 20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. 21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.


A self proclaimed Christian (follower of Christ) or Christian church if they call themselves a follower of Christ would of course if they knew god, sell their possessions and follow Christ to the cross, especially if they want to enter the kingdom of heaven…

Luke 22:54-62

** Peter sat among them. Then a servant-girl, seeing him in the firelight, stared at him and said, “This man also was with him.” But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” A little later someone else, on seeing him, said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not!” Then about an hour later still another kept insisting, “Surely this man also Uwas with him; for he is a Galilean.” But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about!” At that moment, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.
**

Disciple he was, and his job to keep the word alive, but Christian he was not.

Matthew 22:14
"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

So in conclusion using Jesus own words, is you will know them by their fruits. A good tree only bears good fruit. Just have to look through history if this applies to the various popes to see where the Peter’ soil stands.

and we are reminded to this day of Jesus’s words to Peter

" for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men"

Even such things as trying to prove your church is first or better or universal above others are all things of men and not of those who dedicate themselves to the spiritual service of god.

This is typical Jonestown heretical interpretation of Holy Scripture. This is what happens when you try to stand a tripod on just one leg.

The catholic church is the one,true church that Christ intended to exist after His ascension into heaven and of whi h He left Eter as its first pope…264 poes later to Pope Benedict XVI. And the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against her. Much less your new age dribble.

My advice to whome er has the misfortune of falling prey to your interretations-dont drink the kool-aid.
 
Jesus clearly states in the parables, especially the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee that one must first love god with all ones heart before following religious doctrines and it is this act which will bring him to be one in heaven. The parable of the two brothers is another. Although Jesus said he did not come to break the Jewish laws but rather enrich them, he does for example allow his disciples to eat on the Sabbath, stating:

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread–which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?”

When asked what was the greatest commandment:

Matt 22:7

"‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

These are Jesus words, not mine. A Christian is compelled to follow those words more than the words of popes, bishops or other biblical characters that came after such as Paul or Constatine.

This is not interpretation as perro sarnoso would suggest, this is blatantly evident and clearly put by Jesus himself and is beyond interpretation.

And I have nothing to hide my intentions nor any need. As you can see in my religion I am a deist. I believe in God and a direct connection to god for all who is ready to receive it and this connection is higher than religion. I therefore do not belong to an organised religion. Further, I am not interested in membership to my ideas, following or anything else associated with religion so in that respect there is more a connection between Jim Jones and the Catholic Church than there is with me.

However, I do not disagree with organised religion and believe it has a strong purpose for those unable to have a direct relationship with god for whatever reason and need a Shepard so to speak- as long as the purpose is to harness a direct relationship with god above all things. I am talking about god the father, not the children. That is an individual decision for one to make and a god given right of every individual should he or she choose or not to choose it or more to the point be ready for it spiritually.

Of course, there are wolf in sheep’s clothing such as Jim Jones and the pedophilia which proliferates within the priesthood of the Catholic Church. It is not a perfect institution nor does it have perfect structure in a sense that it allows for deadly sin to occur within its confines, even historically popes having created sin at the seated head in direct contrast to Jesus teachings.

So what i am saying in direct correlation to the original question posted. Is Catholicism the oldest christian religion? I think it depends on a reference for the term religion. Structured surviving religion? or religion in terms as a set of beliefs?
 
Jesus clearly states in the parables, especially the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee that one must first love god with all ones heart before following religious doctrines and it is this act which will bring him to be one in heaven. The parable of the two brothers is another. Although Jesus said he did not come to break the Jewish laws but rather enrich them, he does for example allow his disciples to eat on the Sabbath, stating:

“Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread–which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?”

When asked what was the greatest commandment:

Matt 22:7

"‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

These are Jesus words, not mine. A Christian is compelled to follow those words more than the words of popes, bishops or other biblical characters that came after such as Paul or Constatine.

This is not interpretation as perro sarnoso would suggest, this is blatantly evident and clearly put by Jesus himself and is beyond interpretation.

And I have nothing to hide my intentions nor any need. As you can see in my religion I am a deist. I believe in God and a direct connection to god for all who is ready to receive it and this connection is higher than religion. I therefore do not belong to an organised religion. Further, I am not interested in membership to my ideas, following or anything else associated with religion so in that respect there is more a connection between Jim Jones and the Catholic Church than there is with me.

However, I do not disagree with organised religion and believe it has a strong purpose for those unable to have a direct relationship with god for whatever reason and need a Shepard so to speak- as long as the purpose is to harness a direct relationship with god above all things. I am talking about god the father, not the children. That is an individual decision for one to make and a god given right of every individual should he or she choose or not to choose it or more to the point be ready for it spiritually.

Of course, there are wolf in sheep’s clothing such as Jim Jones and the pedophilia which proliferates within the priesthood of the Catholic Church. It is not a perfect institution nor does it have perfect structure in a sense that it allows for deadly sin to occur within its confines, even historically popes having created sin at the seated head in direct contrast to Jesus teachings.

So what i am saying in direct correlation to the original question posted. Is Catholicism the oldest christian religion? I think it depends on a reference for the term religion. Structured surviving religion? or religion in terms as a set of beliefs?
It is good to follow what the Church teaches, even when members of that Church are not sinless. We love God and mankind through charity and this requires humility and obedience to the law.

The parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector is that we need humility:
Luke 18:13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Jesus did not say “doctrines”. The Pharisees taught but did not practice, as Jesus pointed out in Matt 23 1-7, they should follow what they taught:Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, greetings in marketplaces, and the salutation ‘Rabbi.’

Jesus gave the two commandments and also said in Matt 22:40"All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
 
It is good to follow what the Church teaches, even when members of that Church are not sinless. We love God and mankind through charity and this requires humility and obedience to the law.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you here but can I ask you if the following is a better way of expressing what you have said.

I say this because it comes across as being hypocritical that a person would say it “is good to follow what the church teaches” when we are specifically talking and quoting about the jewish tradition from a Christian perspective which does not endorse the Jewish “church”. From that perspective the Christian church has no endorsement. In fact it could be stated that the Christian church in fact was born (through Paul at least) from the complete separation of the Jewish church which completely defeats your own argumentation. If it was otherwise then it could be said that Judaism is the oldest Christian religion… Which is a worthwhile argument and maybe one we should also look at later.

I think rather than the word Church you are trying to say is…

It is good to follow the word of god which is passed down into law. ie. the commandments, the most notable being, love god with all your heart.

I would argue strongly and with good reference that the “word” so often spoken of in the bible is the word of god and that word is supreme above all commandments, which is exactly what Jesus says and also say when Abraham is tested to kill Isaac.

Here the word of god is supreme, a living entity which can speak directly to the hearts of man.

Secondly, the commandments are to be followed.

Thirdly, the prophets or spokespersons in whatever form, like moses, david, jesus etc… Jesus says quite clearly “why call me good? Only the father in heaven is good”

Fourth is to take from the scriptures. Among them are the words of god as espoused by leaders but also we know especially in the New testament that the Chapters chose were of men such as various bishops at councils but not directly by God. (we assume each bishop used his own prayers to come to his conclusion but we have also concluded that members of the church are also corruptible)

Fifth and last is to obey church leaders, or in respect to how we are defining it here (because it has many definitions), “The Church” as a political representation and authoritative spokesperson for it’s own set of values working within a system that is not perfect, can be penetrated by “evil” and can be corruptible. This is why Jesus threw down the money changers table in the temple.

It is also the reason Catholics should refuse to accept the words of any member that “The Church” is higher than the word of god. The main reason i say this is you can inadvertently support the wolfs in sheep’s clothing which can infiltrate or be infiltrated.

And we see this problem continually occurring within the Church. If we to accept the notion that a child who is a victim of sexual abuse by a priest have their voice of retribution squashed because they should obey the Church leaders then of course serious damage is going to be done in the name of evil. It doesn’t just stop there and i’m sure all members see other forms of this problematic dilemma, but it is an example of the most horrid outcomes.

The institution of the church is therefore imperfect because it does not have a system whereby evil cannot penetrate its ranks, and as we have seen it can in fact harbor evil.

The church has a value, that is not in disagreement, but that value should be set in its proper perspective lest you be a supporter of evil itself of which no man on earth or man made system can redeem you.

Have i got this right in a holistic approach to both the new and old testaments, or am i missing something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top