Black by Prodigal Son; Blue original by Dokimas;Dk red new Doki:It seems that way to you because you see the Church as an organization; I see it as an organism of all believers, some more obedient than others. I’d have to admit I need to be much more obedient.
How do you know for sure that some of the traditions you hold are not the positive traditions of the verses you have cite but are the negative traditions of the verses I’ve cited?
I like to think it’s common sense. **As I look at passages in the Bible and think logically, it is common sense that Mary not only consumated her marriage but may have had children. ** What should we do, throw out all traditions?
A rethorical question? Of course not. They don’t have the same weight as the Bible, IMO.
That’s why I look to the 27 books of the NT.
Yes, but as we’re discussing, they don’t list everything point by point.
They may have all we need to serve our God and Savior.
You don’t think the teaching of the CC about Mary is important enough for the original apostles to have made comment about it? You don’t think the host actually being the real presence of Jesus is important enough for the original apostles to spell it out for us? If the church Jesus set up was called the Catholic Church, don’t you think the original apostles would have spelled it out for us?
Do you think anyone of those times said some of the things we see Protestants say about Mary today?
Could you be specific? I’ll apologize if I’ve said something about Mary not consistent with the Bible. Also, if something was widely believed, or widely known, it was widely accepted and didn’t require documentation then. **Sure it did. Our discussion today may prove it. ** Would it?
I think Paul spells out the real presence clearly in 1 Corinthians 11. People who argue against it, pick verse to cast against another verse, as opposed to trying to get the context of all the verses together, or so it seems to me.
The shoe fits both sides of all these issues, IMO.
I showed you the origin of the term ‘Catholic’ as it was used in scriptures. I also showed you where the term was used in 110AD, as an understood term and not an introduction to the term.
In the beginning, they called themselves ‘The Way’, **Why not keep the old name???
other places we see them referred too as the believers. The Church was ‘brand new’ and went through normal growing pains of distinction. The term Christians was not introduced by Christians, it was something they called the Apostles and is only used once in the New Testament.
** Ac 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Ac 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
1Pe 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.
It’s not sacred tradition?
Some is, but even those writings don’t hold all the details of Christianity, specifically detailed for ‘modern’ thinking. Modern is something that applied to each new generation and upto present day.
Not true; it’s just not taken as 100% accurate
The question one has to asked themself is, am I discarding accurate by comparing it to today’s beliefs? **Are you assuming I’m comparing it to today’s beliefs or am I wrestling the Scriptures for myself? **Which would be more accurate, practices relayed through those closest to the birth of the Church, or practices known today?
nor do I
If no Churches of today are similar to the Church Christ started, where is His Church today?
Universally among many Christian churches, as it was in the 1st century.
so do I and some great books have been written over the last century, too .
Who has more insight to the real truth, those men of the early Church, or modern day theologians trying to piece it all together and some seemingly to fit a theology of today?
early Church fathers
But not infallible, IMO
Are those writings you mentioned written in the last century by infallible men?
Another rhetorical question? ** Of course not. ** The Bible itself was written by fallible men. The definition of the canon was defined by fallible men. The men who preserved the Bible from it’s beginning to present day were fallible men. Translations were performed by fallible men. ** Thank God for the infallible Holy Spirit!!!** Christ knew who and what He was leaving His Church in the hands of.
