The historicity of the Church

[spina1953]

While the truth of Scripture is expressed in many ways, those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for literary forms. For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry or some type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

So what was Matthew saying and what did he mean and intend in his Gospel passage 16? it seems very clear that Matthew was addressing Jewish converts an they would have understood the meaning of the passage 16 concerning the keys and what those keys represent. It was very much understood by the readers of the passage of the time (1st. century) that Jesus is the authority and that He Jesus is giving that authority to Peter and that Peter is going to be the foundation on which Jesus is gong to build His Church on. The Jewish converts would have understood this from reading Isaiah 22 where the king gives his steward the keys of his authority to decide in his name in the kings absence. This is also the same case with Jesus as at some point Jesus is going to return to heaven and Jesus is going to pass on His authority on earth to Peter o decide in Jesus absence.

 

[Nicea325]

That is right, it ain’t easy to lay seeds of life,just as in digging for gold.

Adn yet the FACTS remain the same…and? All the talk and wishful thinking is not going to change historical facts.

 

[nmgauss]

While the truth of Scripture is expressed in many ways, those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for literary forms. For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry or some type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

So what was Matthew saying and what did he mean and intend in his Gospel passage 16? it seems very clear that Matthew was addressing Jewish converts an they would have understood the meaning of the passage 16 concerning the keys and what those keys represent. It was very much understood by the readers of the passage of the time (1st. century) that Jesus is the authority and that He Jesus is giving that authority to Peter and that Peter is going to be the foundation on which Jesus is gong to build His Church on. The Jewish converts would have understood this from reading Isaiah 22 where the king gives his steward the keys of his authority to decide in his name in the kings absence. This is also the same case with Jesus as at some point Jesus is going to return to heaven and Jesus is going to pass on His authority on earth to Peter o decide in Jesus absence.

There is a broad disagreement over chronology between Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and John on the other: all four agree that Jesus’ public ministry began with an encounter with John the Baptist, but Matthew, Mark and Luke follow this with an account of teaching and healing in Galilee, then a trip to Jerusalem where there is an incident in the Temple, climaxing with the crucifixion on the day of the Passover holiday. John, by contrast, puts the Temple incident very early in Jesus’ ministry, has several trips to Jerusalem, and puts the crucifixion immediately before the Passover holiday, on the day when the lambs for the Passover meal were being sacrificed in Temple.[54] Matthew, unlike Paul and like Luke, believed that the Law was still in force, which meant that Jews within the church had to keep it.[55]
books.google.com.au/books?id=m_OShrBh0I0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Allison+Matthew:+a+shorter+commentary#v=onepage&q&f=false

Who is right? Mark, Matthew, Luke or John?

 

[benhur]

While the truth of Scripture is expressed in many ways, those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for literary forms. For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry or some type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

So what was Matthew saying and what did he mean and intend in his Gospel passage 16? it seems very clear that Matthew was addressing Jewish converts an they would have understood the meaning of the passage 16 concerning the keys and what those keys represent. It was very much understood by the readers of the passage of the time (1st. century) that Jesus is the authority and that He Jesus is giving that authority to Peter and that Peter is going to be the foundation on which Jesus is gong to build His Church on. The Jewish converts would have understood this from reading Isaiah 22 where the king gives his steward the keys of his authority to decide in his name in the kings absence. This is also the same case with Jesus as at some point Jesus is going to return to heaven and Jesus is going to pass on His authority on earth to Peter o decide in Jesus absence.

Yes, but what was the authority for, to rule over others, over all powers spiritual ? Or was it to continue The Lord’s proclamation of salvation ?

 

[edkw55]

I found myself powerfully drawn to Roman Catholicism for a variety of reasons. After spending the last two years researching history, Roman Catholic theology, and the writings of the Pre-Nicene/Post-Nicene fathers through the fifth century(Augustine, Jerome, etc.) I have come to believe that, at the end of the day, Apostolic Succession is a matter of faith. Therefore…Protestant I shall remain…Sola Srciptura.

Peace to all.

Ed

 

[benhur]

I found myself powerfully drawn to Roman Catholicism for a variety of reasons. After spending the last two years researching history, Roman Catholic theology, and the writings of the Pre-Nicene/Post-Nicene fathers through the fifth century(Augustine, Jerome, etc.) I have come to believe that, at the end of the day, Apostolic Succession is a matter of faith. Therefore…Protestant I shall remain…Sola Srciptura.

Peace to all.

Ed

Welcome. Cool, but are you still in RCIA ?

 

[edkw55]

Welcome. Cool, but are you still in RCIA ?

I was in RCIA for six months and right before I was to be Confirmed during the Easter Vigil I couldn’t go through with it.

God bless you.

Ed

 

[benhur]

I was in RCIA for six months and right before I was to be Confirmed during the Easter Vigil I couldn’t go through with it.

God bless you.

Ed

Are you satisfied, filled with the Spirit ?

 

[edkw55]

Are you satisfied, filled with the Spirit ?

I, like all of us…a work in progress. Trusting in God. Desiring to love Him more deeply, to always do what is pleasing in His sight. In my weakness and sinfulness knowing that He still loves me, never forsakes me, forgives me, always drawing me to Himself.

In His Grace.

Ed

 

[benhur]

I, like all of us…a work in progress. Trusting in God. Desiring to love Him more deeply, to always do what is pleasing in His sight. In my weakness and sinfulness knowing that He still loves me, never forsakes me, forgives me, always drawing me to Himself.

In His Grace.

Ed/QUOTE
Thanks but forgive me if this seems self righteous but I feel led to ask or am reminded that we are to be first a new creation,and that being a work in progress. Like in aa meetings they like you to say you are forever a recovering alcoholic,instead of saying that was the old me but I am a new person in Christ(of course I understand that the old man is with us to the grave only and will have that particular propensity of sin).
Blessings.

 

[edkw55]

Thanks but forgive me if this seems self righteous but I feel led to ask or am reminded that we are to be first a new creation,and that being a work in progress. Like in aa meetings they like you to say you are forever a recovering alcoholic,instead of saying that was the old me but I am a new person in Christ(of course I understand that the old man is with us to the grave only and will have that particular propensity of sin).
Blessings.

I agree with you benhur…not to confuse justification and sanctification. Saying that we are a work in progress is sanctification.

The Five Solas of the Reformation

Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (faith alone): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
Sola Gratia (grace alone): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
Solus Christus (Christ alone): By Christ’s Work Alone are We Saved.
Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone): “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.”~(from the Westminster Confession)

God bless you.

Ed

 

[edkw55]

…Like in aa meetings they like you to say you are forever a recovering alcoholic…

As for alcoholism I get it. I am 59 and have struggled with alcoholism and mental illness forever(sober 9 months).

My prayers are with you.

Ed

 

[benhur]

I agree with you benhur…not to confuse justification and sanctification. Saying that we are a work in progress is sanctification.

The Five Solas of the Reformation

Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
Sola Fide (faith alone): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
Sola Gratia (grace alone): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
Solus Christus (Christ alone): By Christ’s Work Alone are We Saved.
Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone): “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.”~(from the Westminster Confession)

God bless you.

Ed

amen

 

[benhur]

As for alcoholism I get it. I am 59 and have struggled with alcoholism and mental illness forever(sober 9 months).

My prayers are with you.

Ed

Yes but remember you are a new creation now buffeting that old man. The glorious miracle of faith in Christ far outshines the deeds of the flesh in any tense.
And may we all have the mind of Christ. Blessings.

 

[Cube2]

I would like out that in Acts Chpt. 15, The Council of Jerusalem that Luke was conveying why the council was called in the first place. The converted Pharisees had come down to Antioch from Judea and had begun teaching that “Unless you are circumcised according to Mosaic practice you cannot be saved.” This created dissention and controversy between them and Paul and Barnabas and they decided that they needed to go to Jerusalem and see he Apostles to resolve the question.
After they told the Apostles what was going on and that these converted Pharisees are demanding that Gentiles be circumcised and be told to keep the Mosaic law. The Apostles and presbyters accordingly convened a council to look into the matter. After a lot of discussion It was Peter who stood up and decided that the converted Pharisees were in the wrong and was not the teaching of Jesus.

James spoke about an entirely different issue at the council which had nothing to do with what the converted Pharisees were demanding. James as more concerned wit converted Gentiles being once pagans that they may misunderstand and think it alright to eat meat offered to idols and wanted to make sure that they understood that the followers of Jesus did not do that.

What Luke was conveying to the reader that the followers of Jesus were breaking with Jewish customs and laws and practices because they were now following the teachings of Christ and not Mosaic laws. Peter was speaking for the whole of the Church while James was speaking about concerned customs that pagans used.
.

Here are the texts:
Acts:15:7: And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Acts:15:13-16: And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Acts:15:17: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.

Peter made a ruling based on an event he had experienced.
James reinforced the ruling with a scriptural basis on what had been prophesied about the Gentiles.

Whether the others in the council said anything to reinforce or disagree, we don’t know as it is not recorded.
However, of paramount importance is the soundness of the declaration from the Jerusalem council. To-date there is no dispute by either the Roman Catholics or the other Christians.

 

[Cube2]

Cube2;11998430]

Yes the council was made up of apostles and elders; only that its not documented of what the others said. The writer dint see their comments worth to be documented.

So. Isn’t that a good thing.

Its a very good thing I agree

If someone would have disputed the final decision of the council of Acts 15, i.e. no consensus could be reached, then that council would have been invalidated?

I don’t think so. The matter not very difficult to determine, and the members of the council had a uniform understanding of the teaching of Christ and the prophecies. In fact Apostle Paul had taught the same for a long time.
Gal:2:11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Gal:2:12: For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

There was a consensus. It sounds like you are saying: anytime there is not a complete consensus, then there is no way to arrive at the truth? So, if someone in Acts 15 continued to disagree, then what the council of Jerusalem had determined would have been invalidated?

Relative thinking would not settle a doctrinal dispute. Come to think of it, Jesus told the Devil, “it is written, man shall not live by bread alone…” James quoted the OT scriptures to authenticate the event experienced by Apostle Peter. So if anyone would have disagreed, he’d have been required to give his verdict on the matter based on scripture.
But we are not told of any disagreement from any of the council members.

Dogmas such as the trinity, which continued to be rejected by many, after it was defined, was etched in stone long before any protestant existed. If the CC cannot be trusted then no PCs can be trusted!

The Roman Empire had amalgamated religion & government so as to have a state religion… Cf. Islamic governments. Protestantism was a movement to reject some biblical teachings of the Roman Catholic. Its not about trusting the CC, its about trusting the the teaching of Christ and the first apostles. The dogmas & sacred traditions are the basis of the big divide between Catholics & other Christians. Catholics have borrowed so much while other Christians are focused to the teaching of Christ & Apostles.

The teachings around any Protestant dogmas are different from the teachings of the Apostles, because there is no consensus?

Mention one dogma of the protestants.
By the way doctrine dogmata is Catholic and not for the other Christians.

He does not use the word protestant, therefore they were not Protestant either. I have already shown you where the successors of the apostles were catholic. Show me where anyone was a protestant prior to the 16th century?

The word protestant was actually coined by the catholic to describe those who defected from CC. Please check the link below on how the CC decreed on the defectors.
newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
The protestant movement was a recourse to the original biblical teachings devoid of relativism and dogmas. The original reference to believers was Christians.

They were never called Protestant. I can show you where folks belonging to Jesus’ church, from the latter part of the 1st century - through each succeeding century - to today, were catholic. You cannot do the same for the word protestant. Therefore Jesus’ church was not a protestant church. Moreover, every PC has a founder and his name is never Jesus. If Jesus’ church is not the CC then His church no longer exists.

The word Catholic means universal actually its nowhere in the Bible. The only reference to the word Catholic is only in the writings of St. Ignatius. No other historical writing mentions the word catholic before Christianity was made a state religion of Rome.
The Edict of Thessaloniki of 380AD made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. State was united with religion, so Christianity which was not formally of Rome became the universal/catholic religion.
The word Protestant was coined by CC to refer to the defectors. So, it was not a 1st century term.

Such arrogance. I won’t say the same about Protestant churches, because the CCC embraces them as brothers in Christ.

Far from me! Please read the origin of the word Catholic & Protestant.
The word catholic is borrowed from Latin word catholicus or Greek katholikos.

 

[josie_L]

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (3rd century) spoke of the ONE faith in the ONE Church scattered throughout the world, i.e., it is universal or throughout the whole, so therefore, it is CATHOLIC as St. Ignatius declared:

“Indeed, the Church, though scattered throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, having received the faith from the apostles and their disciples. . . .guards [this preaching and faith] with care, as dwelling in but A SINGLE HOUSE, and similarly believes as if having but ONE soul and a single heart, and preaches, teaches, and hands on this faith with a UNANIMOUS voice, as if possessing only ONE mouth.”

"For though languages differ throughout the world, **the content of the TRADITION is ONE and the SAME. The Churches established in Germany have no other faith or Tradition, nor do those of the Iberians, not those of the Celt, nor those of the East, of Egypt, of Libya, nor those established at the center of the world. . . . **

 

[josie_L]

The Roman Empire had amalgamated religion & government so as to have a state religion… Cf. Islamic governments. Protestantism was a movement to reject some biblical teachings of the Roman Catholic. Its not about trusting the CC, its about trusting the the teaching of Christ and the first apostles. The dogmas & sacred traditions are the basis of the big divide between Catholics & other Christians. Catholics have borrowed so much while other Christians are focused to the teaching of Christ & Apostles.

And which TYPE of Christian would that be, i.e., since the 1500’s, we have seen an ARRAY of Christian denominations claiming to have the correct teachings/interpretations of the Bible (based on the rejection of CC dogmas and Traditions), i.e., Lutherans, Calvinism, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Puritans, Pentecostals, Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Dispensationalists, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Messianic Jews . . . .

Please pick the denomination that best fits the teachings of Christ and his apostles (and this list is not exhaustive).

Moreover, the divide between Catholic CHRISTIANS and Christians is that the former guarded the truth as was handed down by Christ to his apostles while the latter forsook it.

There was only ONE church with ONE faith expressed throughout the whole (as was so eloquently expressed by St. Irenaeus in my prior post), and that faith/Tradition was protected and guarded by the Catholic Church (prior to as well as after the edict of Milan).

 

[Nicea325]

Cube2:

The Roman Empire had amalgamated religion & government so as to have a state religion… Cf. Islamic governments. Protestantism was a movement to reject some biblical teachings of the Roman Catholic. Its not about trusting the CC, its about trusting the the teaching of Christ and the first apostles. The dogmas & sacred traditions are the basis of the big divide between Catholics & other Christians. Catholics have borrowed so much while other Christians are focused to the teaching of Christ & Apostles.

Really? Tell me, these “other” Christians you mention,which focus on the teaching of Christ and Apostles, care to name the denominations? How can you even resort to such a belief when your “other” Christians are exactly that: independent denominations with an array of teachings and at times in complete conflict.

BTW: May you please show us where Jesus teaches about denominations and with an array of conflictive teachings?

 

[edkw55]

The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”) comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general”, and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning “about” and όλος meaning “whole”.

As a Protestant I consider myself to be in full union with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church established by Jesus.

Peace be with all.

Ed