Jesus's claims to divinity?

[guanophore]

You speculate that I have not read writings of the early church. You could not be more wrong.

I was wrong before…I think it was 1968

It might help more if you could read them from the perspective of those who wrote them. Failing to do so is like reading Shakespeare without any context. It will have very little reading.

As for the CC being infallible, that is a bold statement considering her history.

Not at all! It is not her history that makes her infallible, but Christ. I will speak ever boldly about Christ.

Do you not know that even in the days of the apostles the falling away began spoken of in scripture?

Of course! However, if there is no pure, true church, then there is nothing to fall away from, is there? In fact, Jesus has preserved the Church He founded upon the Apostles.The falling away has helped to purify and define the Church.

When most cannot discern when and when not to view scripture as literal, it reveals just how far men have moved from the Word of God. There are so called believers who claim the creation story, Noah’s flood, David and Goliath, Jonah, and Lot as symbolic, not literal events that occurred.

Well, I agree, but the Word of God came first to the Church, and has been preserved as such. Some of that Word is reflected in the NT. Many do not read the NT from the point of view of the Word preserved in the Church, and therefore, misunderstand it.

I was invited here by a catholic who has read my writings on another site on the internet. This person seen the truth in what I wrote. He was of that spirit of truth known as the Holy Spirit and I came here not because I wanted to, but because the Lord wanted me to.

You are welcome, of course, but the goal of CAF is to provide Catholic Answers, which you do not. Neither are you here to look for Catholic answers, so your presence is disingenuous.

Anyone calling himself Catholic who believed what you write is “truth” has fallen away from the Catholic faith. He has become a Protetsant,a nd probably does not realize it.

It is time to put away the catholic, the methodist, the presbyterian titles and stand up for the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no denominations in the kingdom of God.

I agree with you that there are no denominations in the Kingdom of God. However, since the CC is not a denomination, it is not a concern for us.

Do you even know which pope started the doctrine of infallibliity? I do.

I know that the doctrine of infallibility was given by Christ. It is of God, and that is why it is immutable truth. It is not the invention of any man.

 

[guanophore]

First, let me say that if you really don’t believe that Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, uncreated and Eternal God…, then you are not a Christian.

He beieves Jesus is God. He just believes He was “begotten” by the Father before the beginning of time, and he does not believe the HS is a Person.

You bear false witness to us Catholics as well, by claiming that our Godly Tradition supercedes God’s word.

No, I think one has to intentially lie to be accused of bearing false witness. I think he really believes what he says.He does not recognize the Source of the Scriptures.

It is clear that you are not of the Holy Spirit, but contradict the Holy Spirit.

Oh! Don’t you realize that he believes he is under the 'unction of the Holy Spirit" (an “it”, not a “He”) and that what He says is from God? If we reject heiscominginthe speaks Truth from the annointing of the HS, and if we reject it, we reject God.

He has made this clear in many of his posts.

 

[MDK]

He beieves Jesus is God. He just believes He was “begotten” by the Father before the beginning of time, and he does not believe the HS is a Person.

The Trinity is important teaching, don’t you think? We Christians know it is a revealed truth of God by God. Heiscoming is not only an inauthentic Christian, but I can’t consider him as even a generic Christian.

No, I think one has to intentially lie to be accused of bearing false witness. I think he really believes what he says.He does not recognize the Source of the Scriptures.

No, simply to witness falsely against someone is to bear false witness, even if done of ignorance. I didn’t say I thought he was committing a mortal sin, as I don’t know whether he is doing this of ignorance or arrogance. That is for God to know and decide. The rest of the elements of a mortal sin are there, and I am showing how heis is standing on very poor ground to say the least.

Oh! Don’t you realize that he believes he is under the 'unction of the Holy Spirit" (an “it”, not a “He”) and that what He says is from God? If we reject heiscominginthe speaks Truth from the annointing of the HS, and if we reject it, we reject God.

He has made this clear in many of his posts.

Yes, it is quite clear that there is a disconnect heis is presenting. He opposes the teachings of the Holy Spirit, and then claims to be of the Holy Spirit. When one does claim such, it is sadly delusional.

 

[MDK]

guanophore,
While it is true that you can see something as Catholic from an isolated statement out of context, it was not meant that way by the non-Christian as used in this thread, and therefore the way it was stated is actually not Catholic. There was a denial of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and an attempt to confuse it with something else. See below the two attempts by the non-Christian.

heiscominginthe;5548622:

MDK;5536758:

… I was at God’s Sacrament of Reconciliation a couple of weeks ago, and so there’s really no much reason but since I am less than perfect, I appreciate God forgiving my imperfections. Unlike you, though, I don’t oppose His message and twist and distort it. Do you think to pray for yourself for these grave offenses against God?

How about showing me this Sacrament of Reconciliation in scripture…
Sure, in John 20:23 specifically. The two preceding verses are provided for a little context:

“21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

An explanation of verse 23 is: See here the commission, stamped by the broad seal of heaven, by virtue of which the pastors of Christ’s church absolve repenting sinners upon their confession.

heiscominginthe;5553313:

MDK;5536758:

… I was at God’s Sacrament of Reconciliation a couple of weeks ago, and so there’s really no much reason but since I am less than perfect, I appreciate God forgiving my imperfections. Unlike you, though, I don’t oppose His message and twist and distort it. Do you think to pray for yourself for these grave offenses against God?

The only acceptable offering is an offering of righteousness which comes from a born again believer who has Christ working through him.
Nope. God instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Either you missed reading this, can’t understand what Christ said and did, or reject God’s teaching in favor of your own.

heiscominginthe;5553313:

The only acceptable offering is an offering of righteousness which comes from a born again believer who has Christ working through him.

…It is very Catholic of you to say this!
The Apostles taught that this is the Eucharist.

You did turn it into a Catholic understanding of this phrase that the only acceptable offering being the Eucharist, but clearly outside of the context of the thread, but not as it had existed in the context of the conversation. I don’t think the non-Christian would understand this. It is not Catholic to deny the Sacrament of Reconciliation. It is not Catholic to pervert what it means to be born anew. It was not “very Catholic” of the non-Christian to say this given what it meant in the context of the thread. God asks us to repent, pray for sinners, and reconcile with Him through His Sacrament of Confession. The alternative is perfect contrition, which the arrogant non-Christians do not possess.

 

[guanophore]

"heiscominginthe:

The only acceptable offering is an offering of righteousness which comes from a born again believer who has Christ working through him.

While it is true that you can see something as Catholic from an isolated statement out of context, it was not meant that way by the non-Christian as used in this thread, and therefore the way it was stated is actually not Catholic. There was a denial of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and an attempt to confuse it with something else. See below the two attempts by the non-Christian.

You are right, and thank you for pointing this out. What I had on my mind at the time was miles from what is on his. I was thinking about participation in Divine Liturgy, and the activity of the layperson at the offering of the Eucharist!

I think I had my head in another thread.

I was thinking about worship in Spirit, and in Truth, that occurs when we offer ourselves along with the Mass.

You are right, heiscominginthe denies the docrine of the trinity, and all the sacraments, including baptism!

 

[heiscominginthe]

You are right, and thank you for pointing this out. What I had on my mind at the time was miles from what is on his. I was thinking about participation in Divine Liturgy, and the activity of the layperson at the offering of the Eucharist!

I think I had my head in another thread.

I was thinking about worship in Spirit, and in Truth, that occurs when we offer ourselves along with the Mass.

You are right, heiscominginthe denies the docrine of the trinity, and all the sacraments, including baptism!

Shall we go back into the past and discuss how the trinity doctrine came to be, in how the early church and early fathers did not believe in the trinity doctrine, but in time, the truth of God’s Word was changed, creating the trinity doctrine. To name a few, Justin and Terullian, along with Arius all believed that there was a time before creation when the Father generated, begat the Son.

The important thing here is the further time elapsed from the time of the death of the last apostle, the more the Word of God had interpretations and traditions added that conflicted with the written Word.

As for baptism, I deny it not. What I do deny is the CC interpretation of baptism that changed it from how the apostles preformed it to how it is today.

As I stated before, show me one place in scripture that says a man is baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Show me one place where it says in the bible that water baptism saves us. Show me one scripture that says it is water, not the blood of the lamb that destroys sin.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5555726]

It might help more if you could read them from the perspective of those who wrote them. Failing to do so is like reading Shakespeare without any context. It will have very little reading.

When I read letters written by men who affected the faith after the apostles, I do as what is written in scripture and prove, and reprove to discern if of God or of man. So how can this be accomplished if not comparing the interpretation of these me with the Holy Writ.

Not at all! It is not her history that makes her infallible, but Christ. I will speak ever boldly about Christ.

All who are born again, covered by the blood of the lamb are of the spotless bride,

Of course! However, if there is no pure, true church, then there is nothing to fall away from, is there? In fact, Jesus has preserved the Church He founded upon the Apostles.The falling away has helped to purify and define the Church.

What makes the church pure is does not come by way of men but by grace.

Well, I agree, but the Word of God came first to the Church, and has been preserved as such. Some of that Word is reflected in the NT. Many do not read the NT from the point of view of the Word preserved in the Church, and therefore, misunderstand it.

Just to go back over history and read of the many councils that were created forcing interpretion and naming any who disagreed as heritic is upsetting. To discuss how many natures Jesus had and to create a teaching that says God is one, but yet three personalities with very little support from scripture, and actually having more scripture that debunks it, then that which supports it reveals in itself men glorifying in his own intellect, ignoring what was written in the Word of God.

You are welcome, of course, but the goal of CAF is to provide Catholic Answers, which you do not. Neither are you here to look for Catholic answers, so your presence is disingenuous.

This is what is sad to say the least. Why does everything have to be catholic or presbyterian or methodist when it should be the Church PERIOD. Just as there is not denominations in heaven, there should be none of earth.

The problem has never changed. Men try to use earthly intellect in understanding God instead of just listening to God, being led of God and allowing him to reveal himself to us through his Holy Spirit.

Anyone calling himself Catholic who believed what you write is “truth” has fallen away from the Catholic faith. He has become a Protetsant,a nd probably does not realize it.

Or he is seeking God and not the doctrines of men. He realizes that we are to follow God, not men.

I agree with you that there are no denominations in the Kingdom of God. However, since the CC is not a denomination, it is not a concern for us.

I suggest you look up the word denomination. There is only one true church. It is not catholic, methodist, presbyterian, etc, etc, etc.

The one true church is all who have been born again, and 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

I know that the doctrine of infallibility was given by Christ. It is of God, and that is why it is immutable truth. It is not the invention of any man.

Jesus is the Word of God, is infallible. He is perfect, being the Word. All who hear his voice will recognize him though his Word, as the Word.

 

[heiscominginthe]

=MDK;5555882]The Trinity is important teaching, don’t you think? We Christians know it is a revealed truth of God by God. Heiscoming is not only an inauthentic Christian, but I can’t consider him as even a generic Christian.

I will ask the Lord to again forgive you, for you know not what you do. As for your sentence that says, we christians, I suggest you stick with saying we catholics.

As for your calling me non christian, how about telling me of your born again experience and we will compare it to what is written in the Word of God. My experience matches the written Word perfectly.

No, simply to witness falsely against someone is to bear false witness, even if done of ignorance. I didn’t say I thought he was committing a mortal sin, as I don’t know whether he is doing this of ignorance or arrogance. That is for God to know and decide. The rest of the elements of a mortal sin are there, and I am showing how heis is standing on very poor ground to say the least.

The ground I am standing upon is made of rock.

Yes, it is quite clear that there is a disconnect heis is presenting. He opposes the teachings of the Holy Spirit, and then claims to be of the Holy Spirit. When one does claim such, it is sadly delusional.

I oppose the teachings of any who create their own interpretation that adds or takes away from the Word of God, regardless of denomination or non denomination. As for saying things like I oppose the Holy Spirit, that puts you on very shakey ground mr. inauthentic Christian, but I can’t consider him as even a generic Christian.

To be a true christian, a man must be born again. When you can convince me you have been born again, by revealing your experience into salvation, then it would make it possible for me to call you brother. Yet, by what you have written and what you stand on makes me suspect of your even being born again at all.

If you cannot undertand John 3, which describes in part the born again experience, what proof do you have that you have been reborn into the kingdom of God?

 

[guanophore]

Shall we go back into the past and discuss how the trinity doctrine came to be, in how the early church and early fathers did not believe in the trinity doctrine, but in time, the truth of God's Word was changed, creating the trinity doctrine. To name a few, Justin and Terullian, along with Arius all believed that there was a time before creation when the Father generated, begat the Son.

No, heis, let’s not go there. The Church founded by Christ already defeated this heresy. If you wish to ignore the triumph of the HS in this matter, that is your choice. You can side with all the other heretics, and take your consequences.

The important thing here is the further time elapsed from the time of the death of the last apostle, the more the Word of God had interpretations and traditions added that conflicted with the written Word.

This is true. This is why Jesus had to preserve the Truth of His Word in the Church by the infallible HS.

As for baptism, I deny it not. What I do deny is the CC interpretation of baptism that changed it from how the apostles preformed it to how it is today.

Yes, yes, we know all about that. What does it have to do with the topic?

As I stated before, show me one place in scripture that says a man is baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Show me one place where it says in the bible that water baptism saves us. Show me one scripture that says it is water, not the blood of the lamb that destroys sin.

You have already been shown this in scripture many times, heis. You have chosen to reject it. that is your perogative.

 

[guanophore]

What makes the church pure is does not come by way of men but by grace.

Indeed it does!

It is that grace that has preserved her infallible.

Just to go back over history and read of the many councils that were created forcing interpretion and naming any who disagreed as heritic is upsetting.

I am glad that this is upsetting to you,heis. It shows that you are aware that you have taken the side of heretics.

To discuss how many natures Jesus had and to create a teaching that says God is one, but yet three personalities with very little support from scripture, and actually having more scripture that debunks it, then that which supports it reveals in itself men glorifying in his own intellect, ignoring what was written in the Word of God.

Well, we read the scriptures differently, don’t we? However, all these councils met, and discussed the Teachings of the Apostles centuries before the Bible was created. The Church founded by Christ is not 'bible based", as are modern counterfeit ecclesial communities. The church founded by Christ is based upon His teachings, and is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. They committed that Teaching to their successors, the bishops, and the HS preserved the Truth of the Gospel in and among them.

This is what is sad to say the least. Why does everything have to be catholic or presbyterian or methodist when it should be the Church PERIOD. Just as there is not denominations in heaven, there should be none of earth.

You are correct, and Jesus wants unity among us. However, His plan for unity was the foundation of a Church. He said that those who do not listen to the Church were to be treated as tax collectors and sinners. He only founded One Church. All who choose to depart from it, or refuse to be part of it contribute to the separation and division in His Body.

The problem has never changed. Men try to use earthly intellect in understanding God instead of just listening to God, being led of God and allowing him to reveal himself to us through his Holy Spirit.

Yes. I think this sums up the reason there are so many fractures in the Body today.

The one true church is all who have been born again, and 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

I agree with you, but what does that have to do with the thread?

Jesus is the Word of God, is infallible. He is perfect, being the Word. All who hear his voice will recognize him though his Word, as the Word.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

 

[guanophore]

how about telling me of your born again experience and we will compare it to what is written in the Word of God. My experience matches the written Word perfectly.

I am sure it matches your perception of what the scriptures say. I am sure that all your theology is consistent with what you think the bible says.

However, how is someone else’s “born again” experience relevant to the thread topic?

Did you forget that it is one of the forum rules here to stay on topic?

I oppose the teachings of any who create their own interpretation that adds or takes away from the Word of God, regardless of denomination or non denomination.

heis, CAF was not created as a venue for you to oppose our faith. You are welcome here to ask questions about the Catholic faith, and to dialogue about our differences, but to come here and oppose our faith, or try to convince Catholics that they are not “true Christians” because they do not share your perceptions is not an appropriate use of the forum.

When you can convince me you have been born again, by revealing your experience into salvation, then it would make it possible for me to call you brother. Yet, by what you have written and what you stand on makes me suspect of your even being born again at all.

If you cannot undertand John 3, which describes in part the born again experience, what proof do you have that you have been reborn into the kingdom of God?

you are off topic, and out of order.

 

[heiscominginthe]

I am sure it matches your perception of what the scriptures say. I am sure that all your theology is consistent with what you think the bible says.

However, how is someone else’s “born again” experience relevant to the thread topic?

Did you forget that it is one of the forum rules here to stay on topic?

heis, CAF was not created as a venue for you to oppose our faith. You are welcome here to ask questions about the Catholic faith, and to dialogue about our differences, but to come here and oppose our faith, or try to convince Catholics that they are not “true Christians” because they do not share your perceptions is not an appropriate use of the forum.

you are off topic, and out of order.

Yep, off topic. Oops. Yet, when faced with a question that is the very basis of the faith, you choose to cry foul.

So you don’ t need to talk about being born again. But does not all that is faithful and true, every topic fall under this very thing? Does not all stem from salvation??

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;

I am glad that this is upsetting to you,heis. It shows that you are aware that you have taken the side of heretics.

We will let God be the judge of that, not you.

Well, we read the scriptures differently, don’t we? However, all these councils met, and discussed the Teachings of the Apostles centuries before the Bible was created. The Church founded by Christ is not 'bible based", as are modern counterfeit ecclesial communities. The church founded by Christ is based upon His teachings, and is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. They committed that Teaching to their successors, the bishops, and the HS preserved the Truth of the Gospel in and among them.

That is rediculous. It tells us in scripture that the gospel was being published thoughout the regions.

Let me ask you this, when Jesus was tempted of the devil in the wilderness and he rebuked the devil saying, IT IS WRITTEN, were the words written on tablets on earth or in heaven?

You are correct, and Jesus wants unity among us. However, His plan for unity was the foundation of a Church. He said that those who do not listen to the Church were to be treated as tax collectors and sinners. He only founded One Church. All who choose to depart from it, or refuse to be part of it contribute to the separation and division in His Body.

Yet, the divisions were occuring even before one became dominant and called herself catholic. Just because one became dominant does not mean it was the one true church. That is your own preception.

 

[guanophore]

Yep, off topic. Oops. Yet, when faced with a question that is the very basis of the faith, you choose to cry foul.

Feel free to start a new thread! I think you will have a very difficult time convincing Catholics that their own perception of a “born again experience” is, or should be ‘the very basis of the faith’. You see, for us, it is the topic of this thread, Jesus’ claims to divinity that are the basis of our faith.

While we, in our own person al experience, were yet sinners, He died for us. This supreme sacrifice of love is the very basis of our faith

So you don’ t need to talk about being born again. But does not all that is faithful and true, every topic fall under this very thing? Does not all stem from salvation??

No.

Salvation stems from the shed blood of our saviour on the cross. He purchased us long before any of us were born again.

 

[guanophore]

We will let God be the judge of that, not you.

Indeed, as I cannot judge either. Jesus revealed everything to His Apostles, and they passed this on to their successors. He gave the HS to the Church to lead her into all Truth, and the HS has done so. The HS, along with the councils (just as occurred in the book of Acts) guided the Church away from such heresies. By rejecting this, you are saying that Jesus was a liar, and would not do as He promised, or that the HS was too weak to carry out the promise.

That is rediculous. It tells us in scripture that the gospel was being published thoughout the regions.

It was oral publishing, heis. Preaching. The gospels were not written for decades. The Church was fully functional and well on it’s way before the four gospels we now use were written and disseminated.

Let me ask you this, when Jesus was tempted of the devil in the wilderness and he rebuked the devil saying, IT IS WRITTEN, were the words written on tablets on earth or in heaven?

He was referring to the Holy Scriptures. They were written on parchments. However, the Jewish faith is not “bible based” either. God revealed Himself to the Jewish nation centuries before any of it was written. During these centuries, the Jews relied upon Sacred Oral Tradition, just as the Church has done.

 Yet, the divisions were occuring even before one became dominant and called herself catholic. Just because one became dominant does not mean it was the one true church. That is your own preception.

And God’s choice.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5579302]Indeed, as I cannot judge either. Jesus revealed everything to His Apostles, and they passed this on to their successors. He gave the HS to the Church to lead her into all Truth, and the HS has done so. The HS, along with the councils (just as occurred in the book of Acts) guided the Church away from such heresies. By rejecting this, you are saying that Jesus was a liar, and would not do as He promised, or that the HS was too weak to carry out the promise.

Sorry, but I have no confidence in your councils, especially when orders were given by ths church called catholic that hunted down and persecuted all who refused to accept their interpretation. This alone goes against all that Christ stands for.

It was oral publishing, heis. Preaching. The gospels were not written for decades. The Church was fully functional and well on it’s way before the four gospels we now use were written and disseminated.

Acts 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Acts 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Psalms 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

You say the gospels were not written for decades. Yet, it had to be in the lifetime of the apostles. So if the apostles were here today, would the letters written by Paul, would the gospels still not exist? Do you not realize that when scripture came into existance through the unction of the Holy Spirit, it was written as well as conveyed orally? The apostles paid special care to make sure each church had the same interpretation, same understanding so that they would remain in one accord.

Until Jesus has established his kingdom of earth, we are in need of the written Word. Yet, when Jesus is with us, what need would there be of the written Word, but I would say it would still be written. For if you read scripture, it talks of books that are written that record all this occurs on this earth, both good and bad. Yet, this is not important. What is important is that a man is born again and enters into God’s rest, Christ Jesus.

He was referring to the Holy Scriptures. They were written on parchments. However, the Jewish faith is not “bible based” either. God revealed Himself to the Jewish nation centuries before any of it was written. During these centuries, the Jews relied upon Sacred Oral Tradition, just as the Church has done.

Jesus is the Word of God, do you not believe that the written Word is the living Christ? For he lives in the hearts of the believers, and his Word is written on the fleshly tablets of the heart.

 

[Convert66]

Heis,

You should check out the Greek for"published" in the NT. There are several different words that are used and none of them mean what we mean today by “published.” In the broad sense they mean to make something known that is very important, and to proclaim it publicly, or of something coming to be (i.e. miracles, events, etc.). Here is a protestant resource.

All my best . . .

 

[guanophore]

Sorry, but I have no confidence in your councils, especially when orders were given by ths church called catholic that hunted down and persecuted all who refused to accept their interpretation. This alone goes against all that Christ stands for.

I think it might help, heis, if you were to look into the history of your faith. You see, most of these early heresies arose in the first 300 years of the Church. During that time, the Church was unable to " hunt down and persecute" anyone, because she was too busy dealing with being hunted and persecuted by the Roman Empire. It was illegal to be a Christian, and Christians had to practice their faith clandestinely and in secret to avoid being martyred.

After Christianity was decriminalized by the Edict of Milan, it was possible to conduct councils that could formalize the teaching of the Apostles against these heresies.

If you cannot accept the councils, then you have no basis for the Bible, since that emerged out of the same councils.

Acts 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

The word "published"used here is not found in the earliest manuscripts, which means it was added to the text to clarify the meaning. It is also translated “proclaimed”. It is an oral, not a written communication.

Acts 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

Acts 13:49-50
49 And the word of the Lord spread throughout all the region. RSV

The word translated "published " in this verse is

diaferoo;

1. to bear or carry through any place: Mark 11:16
2. to carry different ways,
   a. transitive, to carry in different directions, to different places: Acts 27:27
   b. intransitive to differ: Rom 2:18; Phil 1:10
   c. impersonally, it makes a difference, it matters, is of importance: Gal 2:6
   (from Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

It is a reference to oral preaching.

Psalms 68:11 The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it.

Ps 68:11

11 The Lord gives the command;
great is the host of those who bore the tidings:
RSV

This is translation from the Hebrew word:
basar —

to bear news, to bear tidings, to publish, to preach, to show forth

a) (Piel)

1. to gladden with good news
2. to bear news
3. to announce (salvation) as good news, to preach
   b) (Hithpael) to receive good news
   (from The Online Bible Thayer’s Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright © 1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)

This is also a reference to oral preaching.

You say the gospels were not written for decades. Yet, it had to be in the lifetime of the apostles. Do you not realize that when scripture came into existance through the unction of the Holy Spirit, it was written as well as conveyed orally? The apostles paid special care to make sure each church had the same interpretation, same understanding so that they would remain in one accord.

It is very Catholic of you to say this! And you are right. The Scripture should never be separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced it. The Reformers separated themselves from this about 500 years ago, when they rejected the fullness of the Divine Deposit of Faith in the Catholic Church.

Until Jesus has established his kingdom of earth, we are in need of the written Word.

I agree. I don’t think God does things that are unnecessary. When He appointed His Apostles to shepherd the flock, and gave them His authority to teach (placing them on the Seat of Moses), He expected them to make sure that each church interpreted the Scritpures according to what He had taught them. This is what was lost during the Reformation.

Jesus is the Word of God, do you not believe that the written Word is the living Christ? For he lives in the hearts of the believers, and his Word is written on the fleshly tablets of the heart.

I do not make an idol out of my Holy Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Heis,

You should check out the Greek for"published" in the NT. There are several different words that are used and none of them mean what we mean today by “published.” In the broad sense they mean to make something known that is very important, and to proclaim it publicly, or of something coming to be (i.e. miracles, events, etc.). Here is a protestant resource.

All my best . . .

Thanks for the link. Heis has given us a good example of the errors that can occur when one reads his own modern perceptions of language and culture into historical documents.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5584631]I think it might help, heis, if you were to look into the history of your faith. You see, most of these early heresies arose in the first 300 years of the Church. During that time, the Church was unable to " hunt down and persecute" anyone, because she was too busy dealing with being hunted and persecuted by the Roman Empire. It was illegal to be a Christian, and Christians had to practice their faith clandestinely and in secret to avoid being martyred.

Why do you choose to believe I am unaware of this? You talk of heresies as if they ceased and all things were complete in the first 300 years of the church. Yet, debates waged on for generations, for years, even centuries.

You make claim that the church did not hunt down or persecute anyone in the first 300 years because she was hunted. Yet, I tell you this, the true church, the true bride of Christ has never hunted or persecuted anyone. Only false churches have done such things, torturing and murdering all who disagree with them.

Vengence is my sayeth the Lord. The church was never given premission from God to force others into the faith upon threat of torture or and murder.

Jesus said to love your enemies. To turn the other cheek.

And many of the true faith, many who stood upon and stand upon the gospel of Jesus Christ were, are, and will be put to death until the time Christ comes and destroys his enemies by the brightness of his coming.

After Christianity was decriminalized by the Edict of Milan, it was possible to conduct councils that could formalize the teaching of the Apostles against these heresies.

If you cannot accept the councils, then you have no basis for the Bible, since that emerged out of the same councils.

I believe that if the apostles would have accepted these interpretations decided upon by these councils they would have said so themselves.

The word "published"used here is not found in the earliest manuscripts, which means it was added to the text to clarify the meaning. It is also translated “proclaimed”. It is an oral, not a written communication.

You are adding to the Word of God by claiming it was oral, and not written. I believe it was both oral and written, with the apostles being moved through the unction of the Holy Spirit and it was written down for the church by the church for proof and reproof, for doctrine.

It is very Catholic of you to say this! And you are right. The Scripture should never be separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced it. The Reformers separated themselves from this about 500 years ago, when they rejected the fullness of the Divine Deposit of Faith in the Catholic Church.

Until Jesus has established his kingdom of earth, we are in need of the written Word.

I agree. I don’t think God does things that are unnecessary. When He appointed His Apostles to shepherd the flock, and gave them His authority to teach (placing them on the Seat of Moses), He expected them to make sure that each church interpreted the Scritpures according to what He had taught them. This is what was lost during the Reformation.

I believe the reformation period was like a new start for the church. You believe if a person breaks away from your belief system they are wrong.

Yet, what if they are right. How do you think God will judge you?

I do not make an idol out of my Holy Bible.

Do you pray to statues? Do you wear madalions of your saints on your person? Have you ever kissed a statue? Have you ever kneeled before another man?

Until you know what Idoltry truly is, I suggest you be careful on addressing the Word of God as an idol.

For it is written, that Jesus Christ is the Word of God. To deny the Word is to deny Christ himself.