Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[MDK]

If you believe that the “Church” - an institutional organization - is the only method whereby man can follow God - that man cannot rely upon the Holy Ghost or Light of Christ to guide him with priests and clergy to intercede and command him - then I guess you have a point.

I, however, do not think that organized religion is necessary to understand right and wrong, to pray to God, to be influenced by the Light of Christ.

That’s not true or at the very least cannot be demonstrated as true. In 323 CE, in his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius quoted a statement by Papias that Matthew wrote his “logia” in Aramaic. No Aramaic gospel of Matthew has ever been found. Scholars say that it is evident that the Matthew we have is not a translation but is a Greek original. Therefore some believe that the author of Matthew may have written an abbreviated version of the book in Aramaic before writing the larger work in Greek for a larger circle of readers. New Open Bible, Nelson, p. 1366

That’s all an opinion. I do not begrudge you your opinion. I mentioned that I also believe that Christ founded a church but that such cannot be explicitly proven from the evidence and lots of people disagree.

Every early Church father who speaks on the subject has told us that Matthew was originally written not in Greek, but Aramaic. It’s true that there are no surviving copies. However, there is surviving witness to what happened, in the words of the early Church fathers.

That lots of people disagree won’t change what Christ did. When one examines, it is quite obvious. It’s those who seek their own way, who will attempt to distort and deceive.

 

[MDK]

Thank you for responding. I will review your citations.

This verse instructs in whose name to baptize. It says nothing of the relationship between the three.

Agreed - Christ is God. This verse, however, says nothing of consubstantiality.

Does not address consubstantiality.

Does not address consubstantiality.

Does not address the Trinity.

Does not address consubstantiality.

The verse does not om(name removed by moderator)resence or consubstantiality.

Does not address consubstantiality.

Nothing here either.

Doesn’t speak to the Trinity

Equal does not mean consubstantial - of the same substance

I am going to guess that you put your best scriptures first.

None of them addresses the issue of homoousious.

Note below scholarly opinion on the matter. You will also not that a number of the quotes below are from Catholic scholars:

“The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” P Achtemeier, editor, Harper’s Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 1099.

Like I said, I don’t think you really seek the truth. There are those who desire to tear apart, rather than build up. If you seek to not find something, then you’ll tear is apart. The texts given were meant to work together, creating a picture. We’re limited here in how much we can post here, although you seem not to mind excessively quoting others, and there are more Scripture passages and early Church fathers who speak on the issue. It was meant to give a person something to work from, if they intend to find the truth. I can see, that you do not. I have also shown that your “church” is built on falsities, from a false prophet. You seem to still seek those out.

 

[Snow]

I obviously disagree with the false conclusions you’ve proposed, and so does the authoritative Church established by Christ. It’s not laid out in Scriptures so simple that even a child can understand, so deceivers will try to do their dirty work.

It does describe the Trinity.

Fine - take one or two specfic scriptures and show exactly how they describe homoousious. Don’t just cite the verse. Do the exegesis.

That you refuse to understand, or desire to twist it is another issue altogether.

Please demonstrate exactly what I have twisted and how.

You’ve shown your willingness to believe in false prophets, by following Joe Smith…

I assume you are a grown-up. Let’s leave the childish taunting out of this.

Your question was regarding same essence as opposed to similar essence.

No, not exactly. I have never addressed homoiousios - unless I made a typo.

Your argument (or rather the argument you borrowed) is a bit misleading. I really don’t think you understand what it means to be of the same essence.

Of course you saying I don’t understand is a completely different thing that me actually misunderstanding. Can you demonstrate in any way that I misunderstand the Trinity?

The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God.

That’s only partially correct. As it turns out - that described the Church of Jesus Christ’s understanding of the Godhead.

The modern concept of the Trinity as determined in the creeds and councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is also that the three separate persons who together comprise one God are also of the the same ontological substance and are co-equal, not subordinate (which is in contradiction to the pre-Nicene orthodoxy). I am still waiting for you to demonstrate from the scriptures one ontological being.

Are you arguing that there are three separate gods?

No. God is one.

 

[Snow]

If you’re looking for something even a child could not misunderstand, then you won’t find it. Once again, nothing but distortion and deceit. You seem to have an affinity for false prophets.

There you go with the childish taunting again. Just focus on the debate and try not to resort to that kind of denigration and marginalization.

You quoted my citations. Care to refute them?

What about the Catholic scholarly citations? Did they misunderstand as well?

 

[Snow]

Every early Church father who speaks on the subject has told us that Matthew was originally written not in Greek, but Aramaic.

Proof please.

What did Polycarp have to say about it? Athanaisus? Gregory and Ambrose?

 

[mercygate]

As I recall, earlier you weren’t so offensive.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ is fully Christian and there’s nothing you can do to change it. Fortunately, it is up to God to decide, not bigots on the internet.
2. I could care less about what Christians have historically believed. We believe in the Christ of the Bible.
3. I don’t believe you are an apostate so drop the victim act.

1. Chuckling here. In no way am I playing a “victim” act. Nor are mainstream Christians victims of the LDS.
2. Since the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as historic Christianity has believed it was delineated some 70 years BEFORE the canon of the Bible was closed, the idea that one can believe in the Christ of the Bible but reject the doctrine of the Holy Trinity rather loses its power.
3. I apologize if you find the irrefutable logic of the case offensive. The LDS believes in an apostasy of the Church that predates all of the doctrines held by mainstream Christianity. Thus, those who hold the beliefs of mainstream Christianity are, by the LDS own definition, apostates.
   And by the definition of God in mainstream Christianity, the LDS are not Christian. It has nothing at all to do with offending anybody.

By the LDS standard we ARE apostates. By the definition Christ’s twofold nature discerned by the Church BEFORE the Bible was canonized, the LDS are NOT Christian. It’s not polemics. It’s logic.

The big leap is figuring out why anybody who believes the Church apostatized some time in the late first century could possibly accept the Bible as the Word of God, since it was not canonized until nearly 400 A.D.

 

[Matariel]

If I’m a member of the Catholic or Orthodox Church, I am a Protestant??? I am assuming a typo here…lol. I am a Christian, period. I am curious of the relevance of the question.

It was a typo. I was just trying to understand where you were coming from, and I think it’s only fair that everyone knows what “side” everyone is on.

I also want to correct what someone said on the last page. They said, “ekklesia” means “a local body”. This is simply incorrect. It means “assembly” or “congregation” or “group of people”, but most literally, it means “the (group of) called-out ones”.

 

[Snow]

Like I said, I don’t think you really seek the truth. There are those who desire to tear apart, rather than build up. If you seek to not find something, then you’ll tear is apart. The texts given were meant to work together, creating a picture. We’re limited here in how much we can post here, although you seem not to mind excessively quoting others, and there are more Scripture passages and early Church fathers who speak on the issue. It was meant to give a person something to work from, if they intend to find the truth. I can see, that you do not.

No need to get huffy - if you can’t / won’t post your evidence, that’s your problem.

I have also shown that your “church” is built on falsities, from a false prophet. You seem to still seek those out.

Oh boy - not falsities! Wow, how could I ever rebutt that.

 

[MDK]

There you go with the childish taunting again. Just focus on the debate and try not to resort to that kind of denigration and marginalization.

You quoted my citations. Care to refute them?

What about the Catholic scholarly citations? Did they misunderstand as well?

Far from it. It was a point that if one needs to see it as though it was as simple as a coloring book, then one will never get it. That seems to be what you’re asking for.

Your citations? I posted the support for these, and you can’t refute them, because you tend to try and separate what God gave us, rather than take it as a whole.

There are many people who call themselves Catholic, who are not necessarily so. You can call yourself anything you want. Among others, I find it a bit ludicrous that LDS calls themselves Christian.

If you understood the true Church, and how Christ really set things up, this conversation would be much smoother. For instance, it would indicate that you had proper footing and understanding for the background of the discussions. It would likely also mean that you had intent to seek the truth.

 

[MDK]

No need to get huffy - if you can’t / won’t post your evidence, that’s your problem.

Oh boy - not falsities! Wow, how could I ever rebutt that.

You could try the truth. It works wonders. There are more examples, but the one in post 201 that you have no solid answer for is one example. How is it that Christ’s Church became totally apostate? That doesn’t match scriptures nor history.

 

[MDK]

There you go with the childish taunting again. Just focus on the debate and try not to resort to that kind of denigration and marginalization.

I see from your other posts, that this seems to be a standard tactic of yours… won’t work here.

 

[MDK]

Fine - take one or two specfic scriptures and show exactly how they describe homoousious. Don’t just cite the verse. Do the exegesis.

Please demonstrate exactly what I have twisted and how.

I assume you are a grown-up. Let’s leave the childish taunting out of this.

No, not exactly. I have never addressed homoiousios - unless I made a typo.

Of course you saying I don’t understand is a completely different thing that me actually misunderstanding. Can you demonstrate in any way that I misunderstand the Trinity?

That’s only partially correct. As it turns out - that described the Church of Jesus Christ’s understanding of the Godhead.

The modern concept of the Trinity as determined in the creeds and councils of the 4th and 5th centuries is also that the three separate persons who together comprise one God are also of the the same ontological substance and are co-equal, not subordinate (which is in contradiction to the pre-Nicene orthodoxy). I am still waiting for you to demonstrate from the scriptures one ontological being.

No. God is one.

You’re trying to argue against a Church you don’t understand, and Tradition, development of Doctrine, and authority that you don’t understand. What’s more, this hasn’t fit the OP for some time now. Let’s please go over to another more appropriate thread, like forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=281159.

 

[MDK]

What’s wrong? I didn’t claim that doctrine establishes truth. What are you talking about?

If that is true, please demonstrate homoousias from the scriptures.

Doctrine can develop over time. That doesn’t mean the teaching was wrong in the first place. The Church has never taught error in faith and morals.

To simply say that it wasn’t taught then, like it is now is to act like one doesn’t understand the development of doctrine. The Church which is the pillar and bulwark of truth (not the Bible), has not taught error on the Trinity. In the face of heretics and controversy, it has been further defined as we went along.

Anyway, I have moved the conversation on the Trinity and LDS misunderstanding thereof to another thread, as I gave you the link in a recent post.

 

[Matariel]

Now, now, let’s deal with this respectfully. MDK, dealt with your questions efficiently and reasonably, without name-calling or unfair tactics, Snow. Can’t we all get along, bitte?

 

[MDK]

Proof please.

What did Polycarp have to say about it? Athanaisus? Gregory and Ambrose?

"Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies 3:1:1).

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325])"

credit: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304qq.asp

 

[Snow]

Far from it. It was a point that if one needs to see it as though it was as simple as a coloring book, then one will never get it. That seems to be what you’re asking for.

It’s very simple. You said that you could demonstrate the Trinity, specifically consubstantiality, from the scriptures. Then you posted a bunch of scriptures none of which addressed the issue.

I’ll challenge you again. Pick your couple strongest scripture that speak to consubstantiality and then through exegesis demonstrate how they prove consubstantiality. If you can do it, you would be the first person in history.

Your citations? I posted the support for these, and you can’t refute them, because you tend to try and separate what God gave us, rather than take it as a whole.

That doesn’t even make sense. I didn’t see you post support for my citations and if you did, why would I try to refute them.

Specifically what do you think that I can’t refute. Please be specific.

There are many people who call themselves Catholic, who are not necessarily so. You can call yourself anything you want. Among others, I find it a bit ludicrous that LDS calls themselves Christian.

Who cares what you find ludicrous. No one.

If you understood the true Church, and how Christ really set things up, this conversation would be much smoother. For instance, it would indicate that you had proper footing and understanding for the background of the discussions. It would likely also mean that you had intent to seek the truth.

That’s a nothing response. Address the facts here.

 

[Snow]

I see from your other posts, that this seems to be a standard tactic of yours… won’t work here.

Really? YOU, not me, YOU are the one through in extraneous taunts unrelated to the topci.

Focus on the facts. Leave the insults out of it.

 

[Snow]

Doctrine can develop over time. That doesn’t mean the teaching was wrong in the first place. The Church has never taught error in faith and morals.

Development means that the doctrine was there to begin with and then expanded.

Demonstrate where the doctrine of consubstantiality is found in the NT.

To simply say that it wasn’t taught then, like it is now is to act like one doesn’t understand the development of doctrine. The Church which is the pillar and bulwark of truth (not the Bible), has not taught error on the Trinity. In the face of heretics and controversy, it has been further defined as we went along.

Well that’s an interesting take - The RCC, not the Bible is the source or pillar, of truth, not the Bible.

If that’s what you believe then you don’t have to find support for your beliefs (consubstantiality) in the Bible. The RCC can simply “create” new beliefs as it see fit. That’s a consistent positioni and logical so if that’s what you are asserting - I have no complaint. If you will read my claims, I asserted that it wasn’t in the Bible but added later.

 

[MDK]

Really? YOU, not me, YOU are the one through in extraneous taunts unrelated to the topci.

Focus on the facts. Leave the insults out of it.

By coincidence, from another thread:

Has everyone noticed how Snow is unable to answer me so he says something stupid like “Just go away, I am not in the mood for childish taunting”

The reality is that he can not defend his faith because it is heretical. He is running away once again. Would any other mormon like to come to his rescue???

 

[MDK]

It’s very simple. You said that you could demonstrate the Trinity, specifically consubstantiality, from the scriptures. Then you posted a bunch of scriptures none of which addressed the issue.

I’ll challenge you again. Pick your couple strongest scripture that speak to consubstantiality and then through exegesis demonstrate how they prove consubstantiality. If you can do it, you would be the first person in history.

That doesn’t even make sense. I didn’t see you post support for my citations and if you did, why would I try to refute them.

Specifically what do you think that I can’t refute. Please be specific.

Who cares what you find ludicrous. No one.

That’s a nothing response. Address the facts here.

You’re wrong, but as I already posted, this is off-topic and has been moved. What problem do you have with that?

No, I believe I was to demonstrate the Trinity from the Scriptures. That’s what I did. If I recall correctly, the real issue you claimed was that the early church essentially believed falsely about the Trinity… This is not true, and you have yet to prove that.

What you don’t understand is development of Doctrine. The Catholic Church has never taught incorrectly about the Trinity. The Catholic Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not the Bible. There’s nothing in the Bible that contradicts this, but supports this.