Trail of Blood and nowadays Baptists

  • Thread starter Thread starter beafedor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
James_Least said:
Does this seem confusing: If the Word of God does not stand alone as the only rule of faith and practice; and we add the traditions and commandments or unregenerated men, the whole thing becomes polluted-- there is no standard. There is no basis for discussion.

“Let God be found true, and every man a liar.”
“My Ways are not your ways, saith the Lord”

New Testament Churches are found throughout the NT–Pauline Epistles and Revelation. How they functioned is in the Book of Acts. The First New Testament Church was founded on the shores of Galilee by The Lord, Jesus Christ. He commissioned Her and sent Her out–preaching. This was the Church we find at Jerusalem, not Rome, in the Book of Acts. This book shows Paul going to Rome, not Peter. The Scripture and the Catholic Encyclopedia do not agree in many places. Who is right? Where does the Scripture say Peter ever went to Rome?

Peace,

James Least
Click to expand...
Ok. i am not quite sure what you are trying to say here. you say Jesus found a Church, am i correct? but you say is not the CC. can you tell me where is the Church Jesus found?

by the way Scriputers does say: Let God be the Truth and every be a liar. that is why we also find this: 3. Jesus Christ gave a higher authority for disputes between persons, even when there are two or more witnesses. He told them to appeal to the Church in Mt 18:17, “But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire).” Here, Christ gave full authority to His Church.

Now tell me, do you see here if there is a dispute among two believers we should take to the Bible?

**
“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **
 
wisdomseeker said:
Ok. so, should we all follow you and your enterpretation of the Scriptures then? are you the Church Jesus found?

This is not about my interpretation. The Truth is the Truth regardless of who believes or not. God said it–that settles it. Whether we believe or not is irrelevant. Jesus said He would build His Church. He said He would never leave Her nor forsake Her(His Bride). He said He would send another Comforter to lead in all Truth. These are not interpretations–they are plain Biblical statements. There are still churches in the world which practice like the churches described in the Book of Acts. They can be identified by what they practice–not by their names. They have not reformed anything. They have never bowed to Rome.

They have also been staunch advocates of freedom of conscience.

Selah,

James Least

:highprayer::byzsoc:
Click to expand...
 
James_Least said:
Does this seem confusing: If the Word of God does not stand alone as the only rule of faith and practice; and we add the traditions and commandments or unregenerated men, the whole thing becomes polluted-- there is no standard. There is no basis for discussion.

“Let God be found true, and every man a liar.”
“My Ways are not your ways, saith the Lord”
Click to expand...
2 Thessalonians 2:15

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Kinda kills your argument there.
James_Least said:
New Testament Churches are found throughout the NT–Pauline Epistles and Revelation. How they functioned is in the Book of Acts. The First New Testament Church was founded on the shores of Galilee by The Lord, Jesus Christ. He commissioned Her and sent Her out–preaching. This was the Church we find at Jerusalem, not Rome, in the Book of Acts. This book shows Paul going to Rome, not Peter. The Scripture and the Catholic Encyclopedia do not agree in many places. Who is right? Where does the Scripture say Peter ever went to Rome?
Click to expand...
The Bible is pretty unspecific on a lot of things here. Modern non-Catholic church practices are vastly different than what Christian churches in the ante-Nicene era practiced. For evidence, read the writings of Justin Martyr or the Didache.

No, none of the letters in the Bible state that Peter went to Rome. However, this is hardly evidence that he didn’t. There is a strong element of tradition carried through in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers that state that he did go to Rome and was martyered there. So much so that even most secular scholars agree.

But really, your whole argument carries on with saying “if it’s not found in the Bible, then it must not be true!” This is extremely faulty logic at best, and blatant dishonesty at worst. I find it extremely difficult to believe that shortly after 100 AD the Christian church broke away from the teachings of the Apostles, especially when the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers base most of what they say quite heavily on Apostolic tradition. I simply can’t follow a belief that has no historical basis to go on. We have way too much historical research here in 2009 to base our beliefs on blind faith.
 
OHCAC said:
Hi Rory - would you please expound a little on 1) how you as a Baptist would wiggle out of John 6 and 2) how now as a Catholic (congratulations BTW!) you would respond to the Baptist having wiggled.

Would you also please provide a few verses and any explanation that speaks to what you’re thinking about in reference to the gosple will not exist among merely a handful and the notion and need of sacrifice.

I’m also a former Baptist and have ongoing conversations with my Evangelical friends about a variety of topics. The more I can help them be aware of another way to view what they think they already know and why us crazy RCC’s actually know a little about the Bible, the better.
Click to expand...
Hi there!

I just saw your questions. No time at the moment…but I’ll be thinking about how to answer and try to get something up this weekend.

An Holy Advent to you.

Rory
 
40.png
James_Least:
a lot of talk but no answer. i just need a simple answer. are you the Church Jesus found? if we have a dispute, did Jesus say: take to the Bible or to the Church? it is written in the Bible. did you read it? just give the answer, please.

:knight1::knight2:
 
OmegaSupreme said:
2 Thessalonians 2:15

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Kinda kills your argument there.

The Bible is pretty unspecific on a lot of things here. Modern non-Catholic church practices are vastly different than what Christian churches in the ante-Nicene era practiced. For evidence, read the writings of Justin Martyr or the Didache.

No, none of the letters in the Bible state that Peter went to Rome. However, this is hardly evidence that he didn’t. There is a strong element of tradition carried through in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers that state that he did go to Rome and was martyered there. So much so that even most secular scholars agree.

But really, your whole argument carries on with saying “if it’s not found in the Bible, then it must not be true!” This is extremely faulty logic at best, and blatant dishonesty at worst. I find it extremely difficult to believe that shortly after 100 AD the Christian church broke away from the teachings of the Apostles, especially when the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers base most of what they say quite heavily on Apostolic tradition. I simply can’t follow a belief that has no historical basis to go on. We have way too much historical research here in 2009 to base our beliefs on blind faith.
Click to expand...
Read Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. Read Revelation Ch. 2-3, the seven churches of Asia–the mystery of iniquity was already working. Then there is Peter who had a serious doctrinal problem–Paul rebuked him for it. This must have been before “ex officio infallibilito”.

It is the same biblical historical basis as the Holy See–Mt. 16:18, 28:20, Eph. 3:21. Someone is mistaken about who got the keys and who retains the keys. That makes all the difference in the world–also in heaven.

A faith and practice outside the commandments of God is in vain. The traditions of men put one in the ditch–blind leading blind. Read what Jesus said to the Pharisees–the religious leaders who had taken over His Father’s House.

It matters not how fast or long one churns garbage–it is still garbage.

Conclusions based on unnecessary inferences are usually wrong–not good foundation for doctrines.

Where will we be in 100 years?

Peace.

James Least
 
OmegaSupreme said:
2 Thessalonians 2:15

“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Kinda kills your argument there.

The Bible is pretty unspecific on a lot of things here. Modern non-Catholic church practices are vastly different than what Christian churches in the ante-Nicene era practiced. For evidence, read the writings of Justin Martyr or the Didache.

No, none of the letters in the Bible state that Peter went to Rome. However, this is hardly evidence that he didn’t. There is a strong element of tradition carried through in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers that state that he did go to Rome and was martyered there. So much so that even most secular scholars agree.

But really, your whole argument carries on with saying “if it’s not found in the Bible, then it must not be true!” This is extremely faulty logic at best, and blatant dishonesty at worst. I find it extremely difficult to believe that shortly after 100 AD the Christian church broke away from the teachings of the Apostles, especially when the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers base most of what they say quite heavily on Apostolic tradition. I simply can’t follow a belief that has no historical basis to go on. We have way too much historical research here in 2009 to base our beliefs on blind faith.
Click to expand...
Whilst we are into the writings of men, shall we compare the Didache to the latest Catechism? The Book of Acts is the pattern, not the writings of men.

There was a falling away even as the New Testament was being written. Some of the Jewish Christians were insisting that the Gentile Christian males had to be circumcised to be in the Kingdom. I guess the women were not eligible. This created quite a problem.
Can we apply the lessons of this situation to today. What must one do to get into the Kingdom of God today? This can be a rhetorical question if you like.

We have completely different paradigms of religion.

Where will we be in 100 years?

Peace.

James Least
 
James_Least said:
Read Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. Read Revelation Ch. 2-3, the seven churches of Asia–the mystery of iniquity was already working. Then there is Peter who had a serious doctrinal problem–Paul rebuked him for it. This must have been before “ex officio infallibilito”.

It is the same biblical historical basis as the Holy See–Mt. 16:18, 28:20, Eph. 3:21. Someone is mistaken about who got the keys and who retains the keys. That makes all the difference in the world–also in heaven.

A faith and practice outside the commandments of God is in vain. The traditions of men put one in the ditch–blind leading blind. Read what Jesus said to the Pharisees–the religious leaders who had taken over His Father’s House.

It matters not how fast or long one churns garbage–it is still garbage.

Conclusions based on unnecessary inferences are usually wrong–not good foundation for doctrines.
Click to expand...
Really? Would you mind pointing out what historical facts are relevant and which ones are not? You’re picking and choosing history here. You’re taking YOUR INTERPRETATION of scripture and using that as your sole basis for faith without using any reason or historical research to bolster it. That’s shaky ground to be standing on, my friend.

That may be fine for you, but for me it is not. I learned a long time ago that “feelings” cannot be trusted. I can’t trust anything that has little to no historical or factual evidence to support it. That’s what happens when you eventually learn that everything you were taught growing up was wrong. Blind faith leads to trusting and responding to emotions before coming to any logical or informed conclusion. And I don’t think I need to tell you what eventually happens when people do this. Not only is this intellectual dishonesty, it’s also dangerous.
 
James_Least said:
Whilst we are into the writings of men, shall we compare the Didache to the latest Catechism? The Book of Acts is the pattern, not the writings of men.

There was a falling away even as the New Testament was being written. Some of the Jewish Christians were insisting that the Gentile Christian males had to be circumcised to be in the Kingdom. I guess the women were not eligible. This created quite a problem.
Can we apply the lessons of this situation to today. What must one do to get into the Kingdom of God today? This can be a rhetorical question if you like.
Click to expand...
Feel free to do comparisons. Just remember that the Didache is a VERY early attempt at a catechism, whereas our current Catechism did not fall out of the sky.

There’s no debate on the “falling away” that you mentioned. The Church was plagued with factions and schisms almost from Day 1. Hence, why we even have most of the New Testament outside of the Gospels. Most of the epistles were written to keep the Church on the straight and narrow while outside influences threatened to rip it apart.

However, these actions of church authorities writing letters to other churches did not end in the 1st century. Most of the writings we have from the ante-Nicene fathers (particularly in the 2nd century) served the same purpose; to keep the faithful on the straight and narrow while exposing the heresies that threatened the Church.

Which, of course, brings up an interesting question. Considering IF the early church fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.) had fragmented away from what you claim to be the true church…why do we NOT see any writings condemning the doctrines that you claim are of the “true church”? Most of what we know about early heresies (Gnosticism, Docetism, etc.) was from these writings. Why is there not a single mention of beliefs even coming close to these? It’s a question that needs an answer.
James_Least said:
We have completely different paradigms of religion.
Click to expand...
Indeed we do. I can’t base my beliefs on blind faith.
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Feel free to do comparisons. Just remember that the Didache is a VERY early attempt at a catechism, whereas our current Catechism did not fall out of the sky.

There’s no debate on the “falling away” that you mentioned. The Church was plagued with factions and schisms almost from Day 1. Hence, why we even have most of the New Testament outside of the Gospels. Most of the epistles were written to keep the Church on the straight and narrow while outside influences threatened to rip it apart.

However, these actions of church authorities writing letters to other churches did not end in the 1st century. Most of the writings we have from the ante-Nicene fathers (particularly in the 2nd century) served the same purpose; to keep the faithful on the straight and narrow while exposing the heresies that threatened the Church.

Which, of course, brings up an interesting question. Considering IF the early church fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.) had fragmented away from what you claim to be the true church…why do we NOT see any writings condemning the doctrines that you claim are of the “true church”? Most of what we know about early heresies (Gnosticism, Docetism, etc.) was from these writings. Why is there not a single mention of beliefs even coming close to these? It’s a question that needs an answer.

Indeed we do. I can’t base my beliefs on blind faith.
Click to expand...
Do you believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God? Have you ever seen Him?

Sure seems like blind faith. Read the llth of Hebrews. Noah has never seen rain before. He believed God, preached a flood coming for 120 years while building a barge to preserve life on the earth while God destroyed every living thing. That sounds like blind faith. Heb. 11 is filled with examples of blind faith. Moses is another good example. Then Israel built a golden calf–so they could see God.

“It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Where will we be in 100 years?

James Least
 
OmegaSupreme said:
Really? Would you mind pointing out what historical facts are relevant and which ones are not? You’re picking and choosing history here. You’re taking YOUR INTERPRETATION of scripture and using that as your sole basis for faith without using any reason or historical research to bolster it. That’s shaky ground to be standing on, my friend.

That may be fine for you, but for me it is not. I learned a long time ago that “feelings” cannot be trusted. I can’t trust anything that has little to no historical or factual evidence to support it. That’s what happens when you eventually learn that everything you were taught growing up was wrong. Blind faith leads to trusting and responding to emotions before coming to any logical or informed conclusion. And I don’t think I need to tell you what eventually happens when people do this. Not only is this intellectual dishonesty, it’s also dangerous.
Click to expand...
“Faith comes by hearing–hearing the Word of God”.

Rome and Constantinople do not agree on who got the keys. Can both be right? Can both be wrong? There is no middle ground. The Scripture says the keys were given. Who has them? This is foundational–if one has not the key, the lock is still locked. If one has the wrong key, the lock is still locked. What is the final authority? The Word of God or the word of men?

Where will we be in 100 years?

James Least
 
James_Least said:
“Faith comes by hearing–hearing the Word of God”.

Rome and Constantinople do not agree on who got the keys. Can both be right? Can both be wrong? There is no middle ground. The Scripture says the keys were given. Who has them? This is foundational–if one has not the key, the lock is still locked. If one has the wrong key, the lock is still locked. What is the final authority? The Word of God or the word of men?

Where will we be in 100 years?

James Least
Click to expand...
you make no sense. i am still waiting on my answer.
 
James,

Can you define any doctrines??? Do you know what they are?? ?

Do you have any college education?

Do you know Martin Luther committed anathema when he omitted a word of Sacred Scripture? Do you know where he was? Do you know he had a scrupulous, obsessive personality?..and his own contradictions to the Gospels???

So your background is based on individualism without any church…???

What is the name of your community?

Blessings!
 
KathleenGee said:
James,

Can you define any doctrines??? Do you know what they are?? ?

Do you have any college education?

Do you know Martin Luther committed anathema when he omitted a word of Sacred Scripture? Do you know where he was? Do you know he had a scrupulous, obsessive personality?..and his own contradictions to the Gospels???

So your background is based on individualism without any church…???

What is the name of your community?

Blessings!
Click to expand...
Scripture defines doctrine. I know what they are. Yes, I have some college including seminary. I am not a protestant–never have been. I have never followed Martin Luther. The above psycoanalysis of Luther would probably describe Augustine and many others as well. Luther persecuted my spiritual forefathers as well as others. Persecution per se does not necessarily mean someone’s doctrines are correct. The scripture does say:“All those who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.”

“Wherever two or three of you are gathered together in my name, there I AM in the midst.” Jesus said that. “The disciples were called Christian first at Antioch”. We follow Jesus, and preach Him crucified–The Way, The Truth, The Life–no one gets to heaven except through Him.(Basic Bible Doctrine).

All the questions are answered. Now what?

Where will we be in 2109?

James Least
 
OK.

What is the big deal about 2019?

What is the name of your community?

So only they are the true Christians???

Christ didn’t do much for shepherds??? He left the most of us to wolves then???
 
James_Least said:
Do you believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God? Have you ever seen Him?

Sure seems like blind faith. Read the llth of Hebrews. Noah has never seen rain before. He believed God, preached a flood coming for 120 years while building a barge to preserve life on the earth while God destroyed every living thing. That sounds like blind faith. Heb. 11 is filled with examples of blind faith. Moses is another good example. Then Israel built a golden calf–so they could see God.
Click to expand...
Nay, it is hardly blind faith. They based their faith on actions that they had no other reasonable explanation for. But what you’re saying here is that all faith should be blind. I disagree. I haven’t ever stated that I needed to see Jesus in order to believe in him. However, what I do have to do is find some measure of proof that such a man existed and that he was who he claimed to be. This I find from the words and actions of his followers, starting from up to his death and resurrection and moving in a continuous stream throughout the last 2,000 years. My faith has to have facts to back it up.
 
And what are the doctrines??

I mean, if you have doctrines, who defined them? Name some.
 
KathleenGee said:
OK.

What is the big deal about 2019?

What is the name of your community?

So only they are the true Christians???

Christ didn’t do much for shepherds??? He left the most of us to wolves then???
Click to expand...
The point of 2109 is that most every person of accountabilty on this planet today will be somewhere in eternity in 100 years. The question is: where? There seem to be two possible answers: heaven or hell. Some say there is a third place: a sort of limbo for purging. Another question: are we sure? This is all rhetorical–you know if you know and God knows them that are His.

This is not about a name–it is a faith and practice. We are Christians–followers of Christ. We use the Book of Acts as the pattern; Matthew 16 and 28 as the authority, and the Holy Spirit given on the Day of Pentecost as the Truth and the Power to live it.

There are real Christians all over the world. There are many called Christian who are nominal–that is to say: in name only. They do not follow Christ. They follow some man or woman.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by “not doing much for shepherds”. The Lord does tell the undersheperds to “feed the lambs”. He tells all the sheep to beware of wolves dressed like sheep. The world is filled with religion–most of it false. True Christianity is not a religion–it is a way of life–preparing for the next world.

Peace.

James Least
 
KathleenGee said:
And what are the doctrines??

I mean, if you have doctrines, who defined them? Name some.
Click to expand...
Doctrines? Yes, these are the teachings of the Scripture given by The Holy Spirit leading in all Truth. Examples: Salvation of the soul. The Phillipian jailor put it: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? The reply: " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved–your family too!”
This is simple enough for a child to understand. Most religions would have us to work for salvation. i.e. do good works to earn a place in paradise.

**Sanctification of the soul]–comes after the salvation. This is the setting aside of a saved person’s life to the service of the Lord–not looking to be beatified but to serve the Lord Jesus. He said to put it all on the altar of sacrifice–a living sacrifice–our reasonable service.

There are more: Baptism, Communion, Bride of Christ, Resurrection, Rapture, Eternity, etal–all given in scripture.

Now what?

Peace

James Least**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top