SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[TobyLue]

I mentioned this back in post 716 --Infant Baptism-- and it was left untouched and no reply given. We know that the Gospels were written down that shows many of the things that Jesus taught. We know too that not everything that Jesus taught was written down as has been proven time and time again. We know that Jesus taught the Apostles, and the apostles passed down those teachings to their disciples, and they to theirs so on down the line.
St. Augustine writes that Infant Baptism is non other than from Apostolic origin. Do we see the words “Jesus commanded infants to be baptized”? No. (Of course another part of the post that was left untouched is where did Jesus ever command anything to be written down.)
St. Augustine wrote the following “”**What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. **Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

N2 since you wont believe anything that is not scripture, please give us book, chapter, and verse were Jesus commands that only what He has authorized to be written down should be believed and nothing else.
Where in the Bible does Jesus say that some 1500 years after He founded His Church that the Christian faith was to be based only on the Bible?

 

[guanophore]

Why do you all think the apostles were Catholic?

They were Jews, they became Catholic on Pentecost.

Christ never forced anyone to follow Him,yet the Catholic Church persecuted all that did not believe as they did.

This is a topic for another thread.

“For over a thousand years, the Roman Catholic Church hunted down “heretics” and killed them. Some of these “heretics” were people with strange beliefs. However, many of them were Bible-believing Christians.”

When you start your new thread for this, be sure to include the source of your quote.

How do you all explain these killings?

Mankind has a very evil heart, and because of it, thinks and does wickedly. This cannot be laid at the feet of the Church, any more than those who rejected Jesus can be laid at his fault.

John 16:2
“Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.”

Was this not the case? Did you know that Pagan Rome killed Catholics by the hundreds of thousands before Christianity was de-crimminalized by Constantine?

All grist for another thread.

 

[guanophore]

I do look at what they preached and taught,however I do so based on scripture not tradition which make void the word of God,so to me it is the Catholics who teach a different gospel.

That is silly… Jesus and His Apostles followed plenty of Sacred Tradtition. Lumping Holy Traditions in with the traditions of man that make void the word of God is ignorant. Furthremore, not all traditions make void the Word of God, even when they are man made. For example, having tent revivals is a tradition of men, and they mostwise honor the Word.

I understand how it would seem that Catholics teach the “different gospel” since you never got the real one in the first place.

I never claimed catholics were the bad guys for I don’t nor will I judge.I am a Bible believing Christain so I really don’t care who you are,if you teach that which is not scriptual then you are wrong period,and that goes for whatever denomination one happens to be.So don’t keep playing that anti catholic card.

You have said a great many insulting, ignorant, and anti-catholic things since you got here.

What you don’t seem to realize is that “unscriptural” is really how you perceive it. Others perceive it differently. Basically you are using your own opinion about what it means to judge others.

Not propaganda historical fact,I don’t agree with anyone being persecuted for what they believe,even those who believe nothing,Im sorry about your catholic ancestors for there deaths were wrong also.

Yes, but it was not the Body of Christ that killed them but evil.

What exactly is being anti catholic?

Start a new thread, and I will go there and put a collection of your best postings.

 

[JLongoria]

Mass, purgatory, the priesthood, Transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, the worship of Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, the celibacy of priests and nuns, the papacy, and many others are based totally upon tradition and are without the slightest shred of Scriptural support to substantiate them.

The Mass is anti-scriptural? Have you ever been a Catholic Mass?

Transubstantiation and the Celebration of the Mass in Scripture

Once again, for your benefit:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the **Lord Jesus on the night when He was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” **In the same way also the chalice, after supper, saying, “This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you drink this bread and drink the chalice, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

1 Corinthians 11:23-30

The words in **red ** are almost the exact words spoken during Mass; and they show that St. Paul believed in the transubstantiation. He believed, and wrote, that you will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. He didn’t say it figuratively either, because you will be judged on it.

The only reason I know of salvation has nothing to do with the Carholic Church.

Sure it does. If it hadn’t carried on the traditions for thousands of years before you - or the Protestant Reformation - ever came to be, your Protestant pastors would have absolutely nothing to be goofing up; oh yes, they are definitely getting it wrong.

 

[BerenCamlost]

The Catholic church did not “give” anyone the Scriptures. Rather God used the church to define what the canon of the NT was to be for the edification of believers.

That’s weird! It is amazing that they were the only Christians around (since the beginning) and they are the ones who God used to define the NT canon AND they were wrong. You are obviously right.

 

[BerenCamlost]

Yet my original question has not been answered,what did Christ teach that was’nt written

Well, the Bible actually says that everything Jesus taught is not in the Bible (although it does not say that Scripture alone is sufficient or the only authority on his teachings) . So, I’m guessing that is true. And instead of writing a book he founded a Church (“I found my Church.”) to teach. The church that the people he taught (Peter & Co.) founded was the Catholic Church, and the things that were taught by the people that Peter & Co. taught were Catholic doctrines. So, I am guessing the answer is, everything else that the Church says?

 

[justasking4]

BerenCamlost;4185547]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The Catholic church did not “give” anyone the Scriptures. Rather God used the church to define what the canon of the NT was to be for the edification of believers.
BerenCamlost
That’s weird! It is amazing that they were the only Christians around (since the beginning) and they are the ones who God used to define the NT canon AND they were wrong. You are obviously right.

This is weird. How did you come up with this response?

 

[BerenCamlost]

This is weird. How did you come up with this response?

Ideas were turned into words and I typed them. I’m just that good.

 

[n2thelight]

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice, and attendance made obligatory in the 11th Century after Christ. The gospel teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11; Heb. 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).

The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 A.D. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The gospel condemns such absurdities, for the Holy Communion is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ (Luke 22:19, 20; John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26).

Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council, in the year 1215 A.D. The gospel commands us to confess our sins direct [sic] to God (Psalms 51; Isa. 1:18; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1 John 1:8, 9).

The Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Toledo in 1229 A.D. Jesus and the apostles commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all (John 5:39; 1 Tim. 3:15-17).

The doctrine of purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by the Council of Florence in 1439 A.D. There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins (1 John 1:7-9; 2:1, 2; John 5:24; Rom. 8:10; Rev. 1:5; Eph. 1:7).

What will be the next invention of the Roman Church? Catholics say their church never changes, yet it has done nothing but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and it has practiced rites and ceremonies taken wholly from paganism. At least 95% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

biblestudysite.com/qtarc3.htm#4

Call it what you will,I call it what it is

 

[ShemariahBeans]

The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 A.D. By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The gospel condemns such absurdities, for the Holy Communion is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ (Luke 22:19, 20; John 6:35; 1 Cor. 11:26).

Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council, in the year 1215 A.D. The gospel commands us to confess our sins direct [sic] to God (Psalms 51; Isa. 1:18; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1 John 1:8, 9).

Your sources are imperfect and flawed, leading you into error. And you cannot expect to come on a Catholic board, and propagate such things and expect not to receive correction.

The doctrine of transubstantiation was NOT promulgated in 1215. You need only have the courtesy to read the work of Justin Martyr in his writing in AD 150, where he clearly defines both the order of the mass, and the fact that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord and precious Saviour.

Have you not read John 6, and how this teaching caused disciples to leave Jesus?

May the Lord rebuke you for your vituperative attitude which permeates your every comment. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[n2thelight]

As I have stated,the whole premise of the Roman Catholic Church rests on the belief that Peter was the first Pope,which by the way is not true,so let me ask this.You all say that the Pope can forgive sins,again not true,but anyway my question is why can’t they heal the sick?

Let me illustrate what I mean with scripture

Mark 2:5 "When Jesus saw their faith, He said unto the sick of the palsy, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.”

Mark 2:6 “But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,”

Mark 2:7 “Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies: who can forgive sins but God only?”

Now pay attention to this next verse

Mark 2:9 "Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, ‘Thy sins be forgiven thee’; or to say; 'Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? ’ "

Mark 2:10 “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” (He saith to the sick of the palsy,)"

Mark 2:11 “I say unto you, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.”

So again,why can’t the Pope heal the sick,what happened to this ability?the aposles could heal the sick.So at what point in time did the Popes lose this ability.

Was it the second Pope third fourth or what,point being if he can forgive sins he should be able to heal the sick

 

[Gamera]

The Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Toledo in 1229 A.D. Jesus and the apostles commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all (John 5:39; 1 Tim. 3:15-17).

A few facts for you:

1. The Index of Forbidden Books didn’t exist yet in 1229. It wouldn’t be created until 1543.
2. The “Council of Toledo” was not an ecumencial (“whole church”) council. It was a local, regional council of bishops. It therefore lacked authority to make rules for the whole Catholic Church (and therefore couldn’t have placed a book on the Index even if the Index had existed at the time).
3. In Toledo, false versions of the Bible were being distributed to laypeople. These corrupted translations were not ‘real Bibles’ but tampered Bibles with text altered to promote heresies (like the Jehovah’s Witness’ New World Bible). The Council of Toledo banned these – not because they were Bibles, but because they were false Bibles. Would you complain if a modern day Protestant pastor told his flock not to read the Jehovah’s Witness’ false Bible translation?

Now, I have a question for you. Why do you trust the source you link if they can’t get basic historical facts right?

 

[Gamera]

The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III in the year 1215 A.D.

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 A.D. 110]).

All Christians before the Reformation believed that the Eucharist is Christ’s flesh and blood. 1215 is the year that that this belief was defined by the use of the theological term “transubstantiation,” not the year that people suddenly started believing in the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[n2thelight]

The doctrine of transubstantiation was NOT promulgated in 1215. You need only have the courtesy to read the work of Justin Martyr in his writing in AD 150, where he clearly defines both the order of the mass, and the fact that the bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord and precious Saviour.

Who tell is Justin Martyr,and what makes him right and my sources wrong?

So lets do a different source,unbiased I might add

The term transubstantiation was adopted into the phraseology of the church in 1215, when it was employed by the Fourth Lateran Council. The dogma was reconfirmed (1551) by the Council of Trent, as follows: “If any one shall say that, in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema” (Session 13, Canon 2).

history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=224416

 

[Gamera]

Who tell is Justin Martyr,and what makes him right and my sources wrong?

So lets do a different source,unbiased I might add

The term transubstantiation was adopted into the phraseology of the church in 1215, when it was employed by the Fourth Lateran Council. The dogma was reconfirmed (1551) by the Council of Trent, as follows: “If any one shall say that, in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation, let him be anathema” (Session 13, Canon 2).

history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=224416

Yes, 1215 is the year that “transubstantiation,” as a theological term, became defined doctrine. You seem to think that means 1215 is the year people started believing that the Eucharist is Jesus’ flesh and blood. Christians always believed that the Eucharist is Jesus’ flesh and blood, in the 1st century, 2d century, 3d century, all the way until the Reformation. It is the term “transubstantiation,” not the fact of transubstantation, that was definiteively adopted in 1215.

 

[Church_Militant]

… What will be the next invention of the Roman Church? Catholics say their church never changes, yet it has done nothing but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and it has practiced rites and ceremonies taken wholly from paganism. At least 95% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

(

Removed this link to anti-Catholic propaganda website. CM)

Call it what you will,I call it what it isYeah, and you just got yourself reported to the Mods again for violating the rules you agreed to when you came on board here at CAF.

Banned Topics

1. Links to blatantly anti-Catholic sites, except as a valid reference point for discussion

This is just another effort on your part to use CAF as a pulpit for your anti-Catholic propaganda.

Note to all: Don’t bother refuting this. He’s running “The Boettner List” and I have that bad joke’s refutation on my blog.
The “Boettner List”: Fact or Fiction?

 

[Gamera]

Note to all: Don’t bother refuting this. He’s running “The Boettner List” …

I know, but it’s good practice. The more times I refute it, the easier it is to do it from memory.

 

[Gamera]

Who tell is Justin Martyr,and what makes him right and my sources wrong?

He was there. He lived in 150 A.D. That is the point – you don’t have to agree with him, all that matters is that he believed it and he lived in 150 A.D. You just finished telling us that belief in transubstantiation was ‘invented’ in 1215 A.D., a thousand years after Justin Martyr wrote about it. This isn’t a theological point, it’s a historical point. Your facts about transubstantiation being invented in 1215 are incorrect. It was believed by the earliest Christians.

 

[ShemariahBeans]

Who tell is Justin Martyr,and what makes him right and my sources wrong?
history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=224416

The First Apology was an early work of Christian apologetics addressed by Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. It is dated to the period 150-155.

It contains early mentions of matters concerning liturgy and the Eucharist, and Sunday worship (chapters 66, 67).

“On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” In chapter 65, Justin Martyr says that the kiss of peace was given before the bread and the wine mixed with water were brought to “the president of the brethren.” The language used was doubtless Greek, except in particular for the Hebrew word “Amen”, whose meaning Justin explains in Greek (γένοιτο), saying that by it “all the people present express their assent” when the president of the brethren “has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings.”

Also, in Chapter 66 of Justin Martyr’s First Apology, he describes the transubstantiation which occurs on the altar: **“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” **(First Apology 66:1-20 [A.D. 148]).

The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin’s.

 

[Church_Militant]

I know, but it’s good practice. The more times I refute it, the easier it is to do it from memory.

Just cop my link.