the bible

[Rolltide]

see, the way i interpret that is, jesus was using the word build to imply an ongoing process. jesus himself did not physically start (founding) any church. And any churches started back then certainly didn’t have the catholic name on them, they were just believers gathering for a common cause

Are you sure? Let’s take a look at a good solid historical document, the Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans. This letter was written between 107-110 AD, just 7-10 years after the death of the last surviving Apostle, St. John. As a professional historian, I can tell you that this is one of the most verifiable and reliable historical documents about Christianity we have surviving from the early church.

earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-smyrnaeans-hoole.html

The Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans
CHAPTER 8

8:1 But avoid divisions, as being the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the presbyters as the apostles; and have respect unto the deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it.

8:2 Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful either to baptize, or to hold a love-feast without the consent of the bishop; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that also is well pleasing unto God, to the end that whatever is done may be safe and sure.

Ok, maybe that’s just one source. Well, how about another early source? This one comes from The Martyrdom of Polycarp, which dates to 155 AD and gives the account of one of the earliest recorded martyrdoms in Christian history.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.iv.xvi.html

Chapter VIII.—Polycarp is brought into the city.

**Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an a, and conducted him into the city, the day being that of the great Sabbath. And the Irenarch Herod, accompanied by his father Nicetes (both riding in a chariot, met him, and taking him up into the chariot, they seated themselves beside him, and endeavoured to persuade him, saying, “What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?” But he at first gave them no answer; and when they continued to urge him, he said, “I shall not do as you advise me.” So they, having no hope of persuading him, began to speak bitter words unto him, and cast him with violence out of the chariot, insomuch that, in getting down from the carriage, he dislocated his leg [by the fall]. But without being disturbed, and as if suffering nothing, he went eagerly forward with all haste, and was conducted to the stadium, where the tumult was so great, that there was no possibility of being heard.

**
Chapter XVI.—Polycarp is pierced by a dagger.**

At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.

It’s especially interesting that this is a translation from a Calvinist Christian school, which would have NO interest in supporting any early claim for the Catholic Church as an institution. It’s also interesting that given the historical context of these quotes that the term, even in the time of Ignatius, seems to have been in use long enough to be widely known, which means that the origin of the term is probably substantially earlier than 110 AD. That would, of course, firmly place it within the Apostolic age.

 

[Windfish]

Wow, Rollitide. Impressive. Mind if I ever PM you with questions?

 

[Rolltide]

Wow, Rollitide. Impressive. Mind if I ever PM you with questions?

Of course, you’re more than welcome, although my knowledge varies greatly depending on the subject.

 

[JohnCS]

some call it arguing, some call it discussing. either way it’s a great way to learn

“Mathew 16 “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (founding)”

see, the way i interpret that is, jesus was using the word build to imply an ongoing process. jesus himself did not physically start (founding) any church. And any churches started back then certainly didn’t have the catholic name on them, they were just believers gathering for a common cause

Wow, It takes a lot of pride to think that you know how to better interpret the Bible than the people who put it together and studied it for 2000 years. You have a better idea of what the Bible says than all of the greatest theologians of all time? That is beyond proud considering it would mean that you are smarter than the Holy Spirit because he is the One that guided the Church in it’s interpretation.

 

[FightingFat]

really this is a ridiculous disscusion to begin with. people that believe the bible to be the truth will find any reason to make it so. faith they say. can someone remind me what the definition of faith is again? the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen maybe? myself, i like a little hard evidence to go with my beliefs and i have yet to see any convincing enough to sway me.

The classic Deist position, as reasoned to by such as the cosmologist Stephen Hawking author of A Brief History of Time seems to have come to the conclusion, through their understanding of the evidence that surrounds us all, that God must exist. Interestingly, it seems to me that the reason that Hawking’s book has sold 10 million copies, (that is, the reason for Hawking’s success as a populariser of science), is that he addresses the problems of meaning and purpose that concern all thinking people.

Hawking is assuming the role of a philosopher, but doing so from an empirically backed position which somehow seems to make philosophy more palatable to today’s sceptical society. It overlaps with Christian belief and it does so deliberately, but graciously and without rancour. But Hawking’s god is too small, he is uncertain about believing in a god of his own creation and states: -

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator [this is the cosmological argument]. But if the universe is really completely self- contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?” Hawking, S.W., A Brief History of Time, (Bantam, USA, 1995) p.140-141.

This is one of the most quoted passages in Hawking’s book and demonstrates that even today; St. Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument has tremendous value as reason arguing with reason. Hawking also states: -

“These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it” Ibid, p. 122.

It borders on melancholy that Hawking can find tangible scientific evidence for God in his objective postulations about creation, but he is unable to factor God’s reaching out to us into the equation. His evaluation is devoid of the love of the creator.

It is even more interesting and profitable to become aware of the reasons for which many scientists, past and present, see rigorously conducted scientific research as not only compatible, but even happily capable of integration with the sincere and joyous recognition of the existence of God.

From the considerations which often accompany their scientific endeavours in the manner of a spiritual diary, it is easy to see the intersection of two elements: the first is the way in which research itself, be it great or small, carried out with extreme rigour, always leaves an opening for further questions in an endless process which reveals in reality an immensity, a harmony, a finality which is not explainable in terms of causality or through scientific resources alone. To this is added the irrepressible question of meaning, of higher rationality -indeed, of something or of someone capable of satisfying interior needs- which refined scientific progress itself, far from suppressing, intensifies. (cf. Pope John Paul II, Scientists and God, (General Audience, Wednesday, 17 July, 1985)

The Christian faith is not anything (as philosophy is) born out of reflection. It is a thing conferred, a word spoken, the telling of a story. We can indeed see a place in today’s world for an ultimate cause called God. The desire for Him is at least as great as it has ever been in history and science draws confusing conclusions that seem to desperately disappoint the empiricists as they point to ultimate cause, to the unseen archer, to the one who has set all things in motion. But science can never lead us to the whole picture and belief is made of much more. As the Holy Father Benedict XVI defines it:

“Belief is a human way of taking up a stand in the totality of reality, a way that cannot be reduced to knowledge and is not incommensurable with knowledge; it is the bestowal of meaning without which the totality of man would remain homeless, on which man’s calculations and actions are based, and without which in the last resort he could not calculate and act, because he can only do this in the context of a meaning that bears him up.” Ratzinger, J., An Introduction to Christianity (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2004) p.72

Using philosophical proofs to argue from an objective position of reason are essential for theists in engaging secular society. But it is just a building block; a tool we can use to sketch an outline which must be filled in by the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, the fullness of truth requires an acceptance of Divine Revelation; the fact that as we all search for something greater than we are, God also seeks us, and has communicated that seeking in numerous different ways, but most conclusively, most fully, in the fullness of Revelation of God which is Jesus Christ His Son.

 

[Myqyl]

really this is a ridiculous disscusion to begin with. people that believe the bible to be the truth will find any reason to make it so. faith they say. can someone remind me what the definition of faith is again? the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen maybe? myself, i like a little hard evidence to go with my beliefs and i have yet to see any convincing enough to sway me.

Ummm… Ridiculous to begin with? But you began it, no?

Could you help us out with a little hard evidence that we are wrong?

 

[Isaiah_41]

how can you believe the bible when it is only sometimes suppored by history, written by man usually many years after the incident being written about happened, has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose and takes many of it’s core believes from pagan religions? most notably the virgin birth. christianity is not the only one that claims this and in fact, other religions that claim a virgin birth pre-date christianity by a few hundred years to a few thousand. How do you reconcile that?

Words are from the head, faith is from the heart. Words may help explain faith but it can never fully express it in human terms without faith of the heart. Inspired scripture talks to the heart and strengthens our faith.

 

[FightingFat]

Looks like smerritt08 has left the building!

 

[Ignatius]

Let’s take a look at another example using your logic. How do you reconcile the fact that H G Wells wrote about going to the moon, predatign the claims of NASA over 100 years later? By your logic, since there was a false claim or myth before, it couldn’t possibly have actually happened later because there was a myth that predated it.

Please don’t be offended, but I would suggest that you take a class informal logic.