N
NonCatholic
Guest
- Status
N
NonCatholic
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Matt 18:17 : “If [your brother] refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector”
L
LilyM
Guest
NonCatholc, you cannot possibly be trying to tell me that Jesus gave Peter’s CONFESSION the Keys to the Kingdom, or that He gave Peter’s CONFESSION the power to bind and loose, or that He asked Peter’s CONFESSION to feed His lambs and sheep.
Those comments were to Peter, as I said two of them to Peter alone.
Those comments were to Peter, as I said two of them to Peter alone.
B
believers
Guest
Lily, You are not rightly dividing the Word of God. Did I trespass against you? Why would you even quote that verse to me? Do you see how that makes absolutely no sense in context. Take a look below.
Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Stephen168
New member
What were they calling your Church in 150AD?
L
LilyM
Guest
I’m instructing you on the church’s (right) teaching. By stubbornly ignoring it you are indeed trespassing against me, as you are against all members of His church.
B
believers
Guest
They were calling the church back then as they always have… “ekklesia”
- a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
R
ralphinal
Guest
Hey, you took away my fun…
So, why did Paul comdemn Peter? Was it a matter of DOCTRINE or a matter of ACTION?
Peter said that there was a certain doctrine and then he acted as if there was not one. Paul confronted him on it. And this doctrine WAS NOT TAUGHT BY JESUS but was put forth and decided by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.
So, those of you who hold that the Church cannot proclaim doctrine that is binding, you are not reading the Bible and you better all be following the Jewish Law.
B
believers
Guest
So… if you believe you’re in the TRUE church… did that also give you the right to call me an idiot? Don’t worry… I’m not all offended. But don’t you see how your walk doesn’t match your talk. Christianity isn’t in belief alone… it is backed up with the way you live and behave. In other words, your WORKS. Your works must be according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Just as Peter was blamed… so now are you. That certainly isn’t what Jesus taught. Jesus taught us to love one another.
Stephen168
New member
Can you prove the existence of the ekklesia church from a historical quote outside the New Testament? Maybe a quote from the second century? Who was the third century leader of the ekklesia church?
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
“Why should we be satisfied with the bare bones minimum the Bible provides” You insult the author of Scripture with that statement. You can spend a lifetime in “studying” the Scripture and never be filled because of the richness. Most, but not all of the time, this type of statement comes from a very superficial knowledge and study of the Bible.
LilyM:
Originally Posted by NonCatholic View Post
“Why should we be satisfied with the bare bones minimum the Bible provides” You insult the author of Scripture with that statement. You can spend a lifetime in “studying” the Scripture and never be filled because of the richness. Most, but not all of the time, this type of statement comes from a very superficial knowledge and study of the Bible.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
Christians!..and yours?
Stephen168
New member
Catholic
B
believers
Guest
Hey! Isn’t that what they first called the believers in Antioch?
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
L
LilyM
Guest
Non-C, many many Christians over the centuries have been illiterate. Their ability to study scripture in the manner that you or I might was seriously compromised as a result of being unable to read. But their ability to know God certainly wasn’t. Scripture, again, is NOT the be-all and end-all.
And I’m not insulting anyone by saying so - surely you don’t think the Author of scripture gave us nothing more than squiggles on a page? Of course not. He left us written AND unwritten teaching, and His own Holy Spirit, passed on from generation to generation, which needs no words at all to teach us.
Now since you’re the one who’s so big on knowing scripture, what gives with not being able to recognise an NT quote (from one of Paul’s letters to Timothy) when you see one? If your knowledge of scripture has gaps then you are the one who needs to address them by consulting the Good Book. I’m not going to do your homework for you.
THis, from Acts 17, is what the Bereans did after their supposedly enlightening consultation of scripture - do you really want to be like them?
" 13But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people …
14And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. "
You really want to be like these persecutors of Paul?
So much good their scripture reading did them. Like Peter says, they are among the ignorant who twist the scriptures to their own destruction, obviously.
And I’m not insulting anyone by saying so - surely you don’t think the Author of scripture gave us nothing more than squiggles on a page? Of course not. He left us written AND unwritten teaching, and His own Holy Spirit, passed on from generation to generation, which needs no words at all to teach us.
Now since you’re the one who’s so big on knowing scripture, what gives with not being able to recognise an NT quote (from one of Paul’s letters to Timothy) when you see one? If your knowledge of scripture has gaps then you are the one who needs to address them by consulting the Good Book. I’m not going to do your homework for you.
THis, from Acts 17, is what the Bereans did after their supposedly enlightening consultation of scripture - do you really want to be like them?
" 13But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people …
14And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still. "
You really want to be like these persecutors of Paul?
So much good their scripture reading did them. Like Peter says, they are among the ignorant who twist the scriptures to their own destruction, obviously.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I don’t normally get into this part of the discussion, but those of you who are non-Catholic and non-Orthodox, please show historical proof that your particular denomination existed prior to the Reformation.
V
vocatio
Guest
Let’s make this even more confusing:
Originally Posted by Stephen168
The following passage is for you and me to savor.
From the USCCB website, New American Bible
Originally Posted by Stephen168
Your statements are typical of non-Catholic theology. They ignore the complete deposit of faith. In fact, if you were to ignore for a moment the oral deposit of faith, Sacrid Tradition, you…first wouldn’t have the bibile…second, assuming it doesn’t matter [reaching as it may be], your not even taking even just the New Testament in its entirety. That’s why I abandoned my non-Catholic faith. After actually taking the time to reading many of the ancient documents that exist even today and have finally been translated and published on the internet I find the Catholic Church’s compelling arguments as being the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” undeniable. The Orhtodox Christians, whether they like it or not, were part of us… They’d say we were part of them [tomato, Tomato argument]. Why are you assuming c verses C? St. Ignatius in the early Church on his way to Rome to be put to death as an early Christian Martyr wrote to in the letter to the Smyrneans [provided here "http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm] in chapter 8 very clearly states the “Catholic Church”…KATHOLIKOS. This letter was written in around 107 AD. This is clearly less than a century from Jesus death and resurrection. But that is only part of what he states. If you take some time to read not only the entire document but others you’ll find that he elevates the bishop quite high and he states that to not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist ECHARISTEO, is "Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. " to entice you to read Chapter 7. It’s a short document. But many of the “Patristic” Fathers say the same. It’s undeniable. We’re talking about the men that the Apostles passed on the Deposit of Faith…through the laying on of hands [aka Ordination]. If you study ancient languages, especially Greek…lets leave it at that for now. I’m not an ancient language expert, but neither are any of you guys. Some who love to act like we are - like I used to when I was a bible only believer. The more I learn the more I realize I don’t know, but the more it points clearly to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church with the seven sacraments within the Orhtodox and Catholic Church. I still believe the Orhtodox Church are really Catholics with justified anger at the Latin Catholics, but can’t get over or forgive us for something that some sinful men did in the past “Sack of Constantine” for example. But there is even some aknowlegement that some of it was their own fault. People are peolpe in all ages in all places…sinners.I’ve never understood protestants trying to undermined the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:18 with some kind of desire to prove Catholicism was not started by Christ.
Historically, they would have to show there was no Catholic Church catholic with a little “c” possibly, not a big “C”, and then prove their protestant (this is a denominatory term, not a church) [sounds church of christ to me] church was started by Christ. Attacking the Catholic position doesn’t do anything for their position. Where was their church in 150AD? The church I belong to was started on the “Day of Pentecost” [In your make believe world] …true of all Christians, regardless of the denomination [on some level that may be true, but not quite so. Protestants belong to a family or community of separated bretheren…an “ecclesial community”]; albeit there are few that find it.Matt 7:13-14
Now if I was talking to an Orthodox Christian in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople then we could have a reason to talk about it, because their historical claim is the same as ours.
If Jesus gave Peter the Keys = authority to preach the Word and by preaching the Word, bind the sins of those who reject and loose the ones who accept the gospel…not to difficult and we all have the same authority - Matt 18.. t [Sorry, but you obviously haven’t taken the time to learn actual Church history… this perspective has gradually replaced the true meaning since Martin Luthers split. In this situation, charitably I’ll give you Peter’s passage ]
The following passage is for you and me to savor.
From the USCCB website, New American Bible
usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/2peter1.htm
V
vocatio
Guest
earlychristianwritings.com/
reading the documents on this site after watching the Da Vinci Code and hearing a series lesson at our Protestant Church got me to thinking about how many documents were written during the early existance of Christianity. I was led to the obvious question: "How do we know for sure which collection of documents “books”] belong in the bible. It seems that many non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians believe that the word of God fell out of the sky. It is simply impossible to ignore the facts -historically documented - that the real Bishops of the Eastern and Western Church in communion with each other [if you can’t get past the papal primacy, that is the “Bishop of Rome” issue] decided which documents comprised the “bible”… sacred scripture. It takes Sacred Tradition to know and authority led by the Holy Spirit infallibly to make this happen. More to wrap your brain around. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around these obvious issues as I grow.
reading the documents on this site after watching the Da Vinci Code and hearing a series lesson at our Protestant Church got me to thinking about how many documents were written during the early existance of Christianity. I was led to the obvious question: "How do we know for sure which collection of documents “books”] belong in the bible. It seems that many non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christians believe that the word of God fell out of the sky. It is simply impossible to ignore the facts -historically documented - that the real Bishops of the Eastern and Western Church in communion with each other [if you can’t get past the papal primacy, that is the “Bishop of Rome” issue] decided which documents comprised the “bible”… sacred scripture. It takes Sacred Tradition to know and authority led by the Holy Spirit infallibly to make this happen. More to wrap your brain around. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around these obvious issues as I grow.
S
SteveGC
Guest
You know, for as much as non-Catholics support and argue their theology from scripture alone, and ask us to do the same…
I still have yet for any of them to satisfactorily explain why, if the Holy Spirit is their authority to privately interpret scripture, why is it that they don’t hold to be true what another non-Catholic who claims the Holy Spirit as his personal interpreter holds to be true.
I just want an explanation for that. I’m so ready to hear it.
They could only claim that the Holy Spirit allows them to believe something OTHER than their protestant brother believes, EVEN if it is a matter of salvific significance (i.e. baptism). By so claiming this, they admit that the Holy Spirit instills disunity among the faithful
Either that, or they must claim that THEIR interpretation is the ONLY right one, because THEY are serious when it comes to devotion and prayer to the Holy Spirit when they read. This is laughable, at best.
Really, now…what other explanation for this is there?
God Bless
I still have yet for any of them to satisfactorily explain why, if the Holy Spirit is their authority to privately interpret scripture, why is it that they don’t hold to be true what another non-Catholic who claims the Holy Spirit as his personal interpreter holds to be true.
I just want an explanation for that. I’m so ready to hear it.
They could only claim that the Holy Spirit allows them to believe something OTHER than their protestant brother believes, EVEN if it is a matter of salvific significance (i.e. baptism). By so claiming this, they admit that the Holy Spirit instills disunity among the faithful
Either that, or they must claim that THEIR interpretation is the ONLY right one, because THEY are serious when it comes to devotion and prayer to the Holy Spirit when they read. This is laughable, at best.
Really, now…what other explanation for this is there?
God Bless
- Status