Protestant interpretations...

[rinnie]

For those who have not heard of the Roman Creed - the Oldest Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary;
crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;
the third day he rose from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and sits at the right hand of the Father,
from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit;
the holy church;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the flesh.

This is not like the creeds we say today.

Oh, my mistake Ginger, I think? So are you saying you agree with the Roman Creed but disagree with the Apostles Creed? Not sure what you are saying.

 

[Ginger2]

Can you show the traditions Paul spoke of that are not contained in the Biblical record

St. Victorinus (270AD): “In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens, that they are called seven, and that the Catholic Church is one. And first of all, indeed, that he himself also might maintain the type of seven churches, he did not exceed that number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the number of seven churches… Therefore in these seven churches, of one Catholic Church are believers, because it is one in seven by the quality of faith and election.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 1, 16)

          :rotfl:

This is better than cable TV!!
:popcorn:

 

[rinnie]

Oh, my mistake Ginger, I think? So are you saying you agree with the Roman Creed but disagree with the Apostles Creed? Not sure what you are saying.

Also Ginger you said they are different? What is different? What do you accuse the Church of Changing? The only thing the Church did, is what it always does, as time goes on it never changes a teaching it just goes on to explain it in better detail.

 

[teak421]

For those who have not heard of the Roman Creed - the Oldest Creed:

I believe in God the Father Almighty.
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary;
crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried;
the third day he rose from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and sits at the right hand of the Father,
from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit;
the holy church;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the flesh.

This is not like the creeds we say today.

Do you know who wrote this? Do we have any evidence one way or another? I heard our friend Tert (no disrespect, just can’t remember his spelling!) may have been the one. Do you know?

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

Also Ginger you said they are different? What is different? What do you accuse the Church of Changing? The only thing the Church did, is what it always does, as time goes on it never changes a teaching it just goes on to explain it in better detail.

I really didn’t know my comments were going to start such a stir or I wouldn’t have said anything…

1st, I’m not accusing the Catholic Church of anything here. As I remember someone suggested no one would know these tenets about God if the Apostle’s Creed had not been written by the church. He/she further suggested the Apostle’s wrote what we refer to as the “Apostle’s Creed”

• The Apostle’s Creed is not the source of these basic tenets. The Bible is. They are all written plainly in Scriptures. Therefore the Catholic Church cannot take credit citing the Apostle’s Creed. I gave example pointing out the RC didn’t exist when Genesis was written.
• The Apostles didn’t write the Apostles Creed. They weren’t even alive when the Apostles Creed was written, at least not in its current form.
• The oldest creed, which is believed by some to have actually been written by the Apostles, is called the Roman Creed. We don’t know for certain who wrote it, either.
• The Roman Creed did not contain the word “catholic” not did it mention communion of the saints, nor descending to hell. That is how they are different. These were added later and the revised creed was renamed “The Apostle’s Creed”.

I originally found this info from a Catholic source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, I believe.
I added asterisks because I don’t know how to use the bullet option. I just thought I should mention that, as awhile back a Catholic seemed to have a problem with seeing asterisks in my post. They are they on purpose!

2nd, I do not have a problem with the Roman Creed, nor the Apostle’s Creed. I agree they are both Biblically correct.
But if people would have looked at what I wrote in context to what I was responding to, everyone would know that

Perhaps we should all be looking for points of agreement before we posture to attack points we only think we disagree on. …

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I [SIGN]really didn’t know my comments were going to start such a stir or I wouldn’t have said anything…[/SIGN]
1st, I’m not accusing the Catholic Church of anything here. As I remember someone suggested no one would know these tenets about God if the Apostle’s Creed had not been written by the church. He/she further suggested the Apostle’s wrote what we refer to as the “Apostle’s Creed”

• The Apostle’s Creed is not the source of these basic tenets. The Bible is. They are all written plainly in Scriptures. Therefore the Catholic Church cannot take credit citing the Apostle’s Creed. I gave example pointing out the RC didn’t exist when Genesis was written.
• The Apostles didn’t write the Apostles Creed. They weren’t even alive when the Apostles Creed was written, at least not in its current form.
• The oldest creed, which is believed by some to have actually been written by the Apostles, is called the Roman Creed. We don’t know for certain who wrote it, either.
• The Roman Creed did not contain the word “catholic” not did it mention communion of the saints, nor descending to hell. That is how they are different. These were added later and the revised creed was renamed “The Apostle’s Creed”.

I originally found this info from a Catholic source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, I believe.
I added asterisks because I don’t know how to use the bullet option. I just thought I should mention that, as awhile back a Catholic seemed to have a problem with seeing asterisks in my post. They are they on purpose!

2nd, I do not have a problem with the Roman Creed, nor the Apostle’s Creed. I agree they are both Biblically correct.
But if people would have looked at what I wrote in context to what I was responding to, everyone would know that

Perhaps we should all be looking for points of agreement before we posture to attack points we only think we disagree on. …

Not a problem Ginger, But the point in beings is they were all written by Tertullian. All 3 versions existed aroumd the late 2nd century.

But the point is although there were 3 versions the authos were still aware of the basic principles adopted by the Church.

So no problem. But the real point in being for me was the question I asked you. Thats what you either avoided or missed. That is what your response to the Church being Catholic. THats what I really wanted to hear.

In post 938 I thought I made that quite clear that I did not understand what you were saying, and asked you to make it more clear to me.

 

[Des]

One sure test is shown by your understanding of God’s word and the leaning of that understanding comes from the residential Spirit of Truth.

Your understanding of God’s word is wrong. You’ve no business to preach to us.
You threw down a few ‘the Spirit will lead you to all truths’ verses and force them to mean when you especially read your Bible only, the sprit will lead you to ‘All Truths’. Well Johnny, if this were so, then you, like the Apostles, are incapable of teaching error when you interpret. And if you seriously believe the Apostles ‘could’ teach error as they preached, which seemed you were hinting at before, then throw your Bible away since like you, they could have been wrong. Unless you believe everything you teach is without error which of course will give me a big laugh. It’s clear that the Spirit that will lead all into truth, isn’t working the same way with individuals such as us, as it did with the Apostles or the Visible Church. But nice try anyways.

Not a problem Ginger, But the point in beings is they were all written by Tertullian. All 3 versions existed around the late 2nd century.

Actually rinnie I think what Ginger is missing is the Authority of such a council’s decision was to bind on all of the faithful just like the ‘Mother of God’ proclamation. Anyone can take passages from the Bible and say 'it’s all Scriptural so it’s irrelevant really to say the Bible told them that.

 

[rinnie]

Your understanding of God’s word is wrong. You’ve no business to preach to us.
You threw down a few ‘the Spirit will lead you to all truths’ verses and force them to mean when you especially read your Bible only, the sprit will lead you to ‘All Truths’. Well Johnny, if this were so, then you, like the Apostles, are incapable of teaching error when you interpret. And if you seriously believe the Apostles ‘could’ teach error as they preached, which seemed you were hinting at before, then throw your Bible away since like you, they could have been wrong. Unless you believe everything you teach is without error which of course will give me a big laugh. It’s clear that the Spirit that will lead all into truth, isn’t working the same way with individuals such as us, as it did with the Apostles or the Visible Church. But nice try anyways.

Actually rinnie I think what Ginger is missing is the Authority of such a council’s decision was to bind on all of the faithful just like the ‘Mother of God’ proclamation. Anyone can take passages from the Bible and say 'it’s all Scriptural so it’s irrelevant really to say the Bible told them that.

Hi Des. Hey if you get time could you throw down 5 or 6 quotes from the bible to show JB that we cannot just go by what is written.

The bible is full of them, but I gotta run. If not I will post them tommorow.

You know what I mean how the Apostles we taught to PREACH the word not write it down etc. How there was not even a bible in those days, another proof that scripture was PREACHED not written and had to be read. The bible again is full of them, but I gotta roll. Today is my day off so running late,

Thanks Des.

And also, And I can’t believe I am saying this BUT Ginger. Oh yes Ginger, She is comming around. I have to give her that. She is starting to relate alot of scripture to the Church. So as shocked as I am to say this I have to say the Truth. High five to you Ginger you are finding a common ground. Which is our whole goal in spending our time here. To reunite us all into the one family of CHrist the way it started!

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Oh so then when Peter told them at Pentecost to repent it, it had no meaning to it at all?

When God told us to follow the ten commandments, He was Just kidding. Rather we follow them or not we are saved?

We Boast in our Church so much because it is the Living Jesus Christ thats why,

I do got a question for you though. What about the devil he knows the truth concerning God. He knows better than anyone. But he CHOOSES to reject that truth and follow his own truth. Are you saying that the devil does not know First hand may I add who God is?

Are you saying that everyone who is shown the truth accepts it? Then how in the world can we have sin? Because I know the truth, but I still have sin? Now whats wrong here, are you trying to say that the HS has not found me? That my Baptism by the RCC was not the true pouring of the HS. What is your point?

And are you saying that you have no Sin? And if you admit you do, what do you do about it. Because according to you you cannot do anything?

I’ll repeat in a previous post where beyond any shadow of doubt that the Holy Spirit leads each individual, one at a time, to the truth concerning God? The ability to repent is a gift of God; for no one seeks after God because men love darkness.

We are also getting into an area of paradox, where two things that appear to oppose each other are both true. For example, who wrote the Bible, man or God, both. These things are limited in understanding by our human natures, which prevents the fullness of understanding. The work of salvation is all of God; yet man is condemned for rejecting God by his own choice, but has anyone ever given an ounce of credit to themselves for being saved or do we in our prayers thank God alone?

The sovereignty of God’s “will” always trumps or is better than mans will. People who cannot accept God’s divine election of some, but not of others, goes against their human nature of what is fair; therefore they reject the doctrine and will say I don’t believe in a God is unfair, yet they forget that God would be just if He let everyone who did not meet His perfect standard to perish without Him, which is hell, the eternal separation from God. The only exception would be the Jesus. People also do not recognize that creation is all about God displaying His glory and humans are secondary to the primary. God is glorified in displaying His mercy as well as His justice.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Yep. God (the Great I AM) knows every hair on my body. He also knew me in my mother’s womb… He knows me because he sent his only Begotten Son (The Messiah, as foretold in the Old Testament) who merited my salvation when he died on the Cross.

Oh yeah, he knows me…

• Michael

Then why do you not believe what He says?

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Sure, my brother, here’s one:

St. Victorinus (270AD): “In the whole world Paul taught that all the churches are arranged by sevens, that they are called seven, and that the Catholic Church is one. And first of all, indeed, that he himself also might maintain the type of seven churches, he did not exceed that number. But he wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the number of seven churches… Therefore in these seven churches, of one Catholic Church are believers, because it is one in seven by the quality of faith and election.” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 1, 16)

Where does it show Paul taught such nonsense; all one has to do is to look at Revelation chapters 2 and 3 to debunk that silliness. Keep trying; no one has ever been able to show these traditions that already existed much less prove they are not contained in Scripture and much less show they are divine in origin. Read some of your apologist on this subject and see what they say.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Also Ginger you said they are different? What is different? What do you accuse the Church of Changing? The only thing the Church did, is what it always does, as time goes on it never changes a teaching it just goes on to explain it in better detail.

You mean like those within the Catholic church are saved and those outside are damned, but explaining in more detail, the nonCatholics are separated brethern and can be saved by being in some union with the Chruch even if they do not know it.

You are damned if you read a Protestant Bible or one in your own language; only the Latin Vatican approved edition is allowed to be read even though most of you cannot read it because it is for your own good…but explaining in detail, you can read a Bible that is Vatican approved and is Catholic, but you may not read that Protestant edition and especially that 1611 King James Version else you are damned.

Most ecf’s did not recognize a “vicar of Christ”, for He needs not one, but the few that did said it was the “Holy Spirit”, but explaining in detail, it was any Bishop, then explaining further, we have a new and exclusive office and the “vicar of Christ” is really this man we will call Pope.

Discalimer: this is one Chrsitians view and does not reflect the belief of all Chrsitians and no Christian except said Christian is responsible for the content of this post…all rights reserved. copyright 2009

 

[JohnnyBeth]

Your understanding of God’s word is wrong. You’ve no business to preach to us.
You threw down a few ‘the Spirit will lead you to all truths’ verses and force them to mean when you especially read your Bible only, the sprit will lead you to ‘All Truths’. Well Johnny, if this were so, then you, like the Apostles, are incapable of teaching error when you interpret. And if you seriously believe the Apostles ‘could’ teach error as they preached, which seemed you were hinting at before, then throw your Bible away since like you, they could have been wrong. Unless you believe everything you teach is without error which of course will give me a big laugh. It’s clear that the Spirit that will lead all into truth, isn’t working the same way with individuals such as us, as it did with the Apostles or the Visible Church. But nice try anyways.

Actually rinnie I think what Ginger is missing is the Authority of such a council’s decision was to bind on all of the faithful just like the ‘Mother of God’ proclamation. Anyone can take passages from the Bible and say 'it’s all Scriptural so it’s irrelevant really to say the Bible told them that.

Hey sorry you are offended and probably because you may have taken things completely out of context. I apologize if a gave any impression or hint an apostle would teach or write anything wrong since that would imply God is wrong by what He has said through the writers…right? I don’t qualify as a preacher - just an FYI

What do you mean by this statement? "It’s clear that the Spirit that will lead all into truth, isn’t working the same way with individuals such as us, as it did with the Apostles or the Visible Church." Is the Catholic Church the visable church according to the Bible?

 

[Ginger2]

Where does it show Paul taught such nonsense; …

I laughed very hard as I have been following this discourse and was anxiously awaiting your response. I am a little disappointed…

True, Luke 65 did not show you where Paul taught “such nonsense”,

but my first thought was what difference does it make? Is salvation wrought through building churches in sevens??? Is breaking a mirror seven years bad luck?

Shall I forgive my brother seventy X seven times? Or should I forgive him forever - even if it means I have to forgive him (70 X 7) + 1 times?

Luke65,

Do you really think that Paul ran his ministries according to the number 7???

Paul… wrote to …[seven churches]; afterwards he wrote to individual persons, so as not to exceed the number of seven churches

Who, exactly, was Paul trying to trick when he needed to write an eighth letter to a church by addressing that letter to an individual?

What about Paul’s second letter to Corinth? Does that make eight letters? And 2 Thess? Is that 9? Or is it permitted to write as many letters as you want as long as there are only seven recipients?

But JohnnyBeth asks a good question: Where is the proof Paul taught such nonsense?

St. Victorinus???
The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
All his works have disappeared save extracts from his commentaries on Genesis and the Apocalypse, if indeed these texts are really a remnant of his works, concerning which opinions differ.

 

[JohnnyBeth]

. I am a little disappointed…

St. Victorinus???
The Catholic Encyclopedia says:
***All his works have disappeared save extracts from his commentaries on Genesis and the Apocalypse, if indeed these texts are really a remnant of his works, concerning which opinions differ. ***

Sorry to disappoint you…LOL Now you really demonstrate the extent to which one can reach to provide a point. I usually check these things as well, but that was such a reach that just showing what Jesus addressed in Revelation was enough; it was the first thing that entered my mind.

 

[Ginger2]

Sorry to disappoint you…LOL Now you really demonstrate the extent to which one can reach to provide a point. I usually check these things as well, but that was such a reach that just showing what Jesus addressed in Revelation was enough; it was the first thing that entered my mind.

Well, I just can’t believe Paul was worrying about keeping straight the number of letters he was writing or intentionally neglected any church because he was at his quota of seven.

And since his letters addressed to particular people were suposedly the heads of churches he had already written to and it has been demonstrated he did write to the same church twice, :coolinoff:

Then there was no reason to address any letter to an individual as opposed to the church.

Boy! those run-on sentences are a real work-out!

 

[Ginger2]

So Luke65,

Do you understand the point I’m making?

If Paul could only write to seven churches, but he could write more than one letter to each church, why did he need to address any letters to these same churches to individuals?

I’m not sure what church he wrote to by addressing an individual other than those seven listed.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Here is an illustration to make my point:

1. Romans
2. 1 Cor
   . 2 Cor
3. Gal
4. Eph
   . 1 Timothy
   . 2 Ti
   . Timothy was supposedly the Bishop of Ephesus

ETC.,…

There was no need to address a letter to Timothy to keep holy the seven count as Paul wrote more than one epistle to the church at Corinth.

 

[teak421]

Then why do you not believe what He says?

Its nice to see that I am back with your graces…

To help me understand why you are right and other Protestants and Catholics are wrong, I need evidence. For starters, how about we start with Early Church Fathers. Please provide me evidence to support your doctrine. It should be easy enough to find supporting evidence from ECF’s if in fact that’s what they believed. If you can not provide evidence, please, just say so… its OK. I’ll then need to weight additional considerations…

Thanks!

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

How about communion?

Jesus commanded we take the bread and the wine until he returns.

Catholics decided the bread was sufficient and withheld the wine.

Yet , Hebrew 9:22 states: …without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.