where is the historical church founded by Jesus Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tertullian wrote extensively about Christianity, labeled the concept of Trinity and then left the Church to join Montanism?

Many that the Catholic Church labeled heretics weren’t.

The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church over traditions! Luther was forced to split over** tradtions**.
Again you continue to contradict scripture left and right. Luther was never forced to do anything. According to SS and ST we are given FREE WILL from God. No one can force anyone to do anything. Luther choose on his free will to leave the CC because he would not submit to the Authority given to it by God. NO one can take away your free will. Jesus promised us that.
 
**Yes, I *certainly ***see that you are valued and useful. Just come home.
Agreed:D All are useful to our Dear Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing makes him happier then to see his sheep return home to the flock:thumbsup:
 
Many that the Catholic Church labeled heretics weren’t.
And how does one make that determination, and by who’s authority?

In your opinion, are there others that were labeled heretics that were indeed heretics, and how do you determine that?
 
Not only does the CC disagree with you. Scripture itself does.

The true rule of faith as expressed in the bible itself is Scripture plus Apostloic Tradition as manifested in the living teaching authority of the CC to which were entrusted oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

The bible denies that it is sufficent as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in Tradition which is handed down by WORD OF MOUTH. (2 Tim 2:2)

So how can written scripture be enough when all is not written. And how can the RCC keep it all to themself.

Secondly Read John. It does not say the bible is all we need for salvation, much less the bible is all we need for theology,nor does it say the bible is even necessary to believe in Christ.

The Early Christians never even had scripture, are you going to say they were not saved. They were saved the same way we are by the Catholic Church.

Further it is clear that the oral teaching of CHrist would last until the end of time. 1 Peter 1:25 THe wrod is the good news which has been PREACHED to you.

Paul was quite clear when he told Timothy to pass down oral teachings (TRADITION) he had received from the Apostle. He was to give these to MEN who would be able to teach other perpetuating the chain. Paul was quite clear on this before his death. Read it don’t take my word for it. 2 tim 4:6-8
Yes what was preached [oral tradtition] has been written down. The Word of GOD stands forever, and we have the Holy Bible. Even today we can hand down what we know of Jesus [oral tradition] to our children, they can read the information for themselves as they learn to read.

Of course early Christians had Scripture-the Gospel was referenced by Paul and the different Churchs had the Epistles being sent to them by Paul.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

It is the Holy Bible that tells us what we need to know. You are misunderstanding what I am saying- the** information **we need for our salvation is in the Bible. The Bible does not grant our salvation.
 
Yes what was preached [oral tradtition] has been written down. The Word of GOD stands forever, and we have the Holy Bible. Even today we can hand down what we know of Jesus [oral tradition] to our children, they can read the information for themselves as they learn to read.

Of course early Christians had Scripture-the Gospel was referenced by Paul and the different Churchs had the Epistles being sent to them by Paul.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

It is the Holy Bible that tells us what we need to know. You are misunderstanding what I am saying- the** information **we need for our salvation is in the Bible. The Bible does not grant our salvation.
👍
 
Just a quick thought I had while I was reading through this thread. At one point RevKevin said “hands were laid on me” in reply to another post and it quickly made think of this:

The difference between “pretend” and “the real deal”

Children making mudpies (pretending of the laying of hands) and Adults making a real pie that you can actually eat (the real laying of hands).

Ok that’s all I wanted to say because I really don’t have the mental fortitude to participate fully in this discussion other than the odd thought here and there.
 
Tertullian wrote extensively about Christianity, labeled the concept of Trinity and then left the Church to join Montanism?

Many that the Catholic Church labeled heretics weren’t.

The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church over traditions! Luther was forced to split over** tradtions**.
here is what montanists did.

Montanism (Late 2nd Century)

Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit.

how do you see this is the CC?
 
Tertullian wrote extensively about Christianity, labeled the concept of Trinity and then left the Church to join Montanism?

Many that the Catholic Church labeled heretics weren’t.

The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church over traditions! Luther was forced to split over** tradtions**.
Tertullian is not your friend.

TERTULLIAN

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians, and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

TERTULLIAN
“[T]the Church has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknowledge and adjudge” (ibid., 21).

TERTULLIAN

"The Great Pontiff—that is, the bishop of bishops —issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged penance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication" (Modesty 1 A.D. 220
 
Yes what was preached [oral tradtition] has been written down. The Word of GOD stands forever, and we have the Holy Bible. Even today we can hand down what we know of Jesus [oral tradition] to our children, they can read the information for themselves as they learn to read.

Of course early Christians had Scripture-the Gospel was referenced by Paul and the different Churchs had the Epistles being sent to them by Paul.

1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

It is the Holy Bible that tells us what we need to know. You are misunderstanding what I am saying- the** information **we need for our salvation is in the Bible. The Bible does not grant our salvation.
and just how would know this? just how? what do you know of those days?
 
Peter was martyred and was crucified upside down. Neither he and St. Peter had body guards. At that time, it was consider to be a crime to be a Christian. Have you ever considered that the culture, time, and rules back in those days were much different than today. For the most part, modern day Christians have not face the same type of persecution by a secular state except where the Christian faith has been oppressed such as communist countries and Muslim countries.
Thanks for trying to answer my questions. Good try.

Did we have a police dept. back then,Why do we have a police dept. now,are guards like police dept. SO WHY DO WE HAVE GUARDS,many Protestants preacher have private guards,Why not guards for the pope.
 
And how does one make that determination, and by who’s authority?

In your opinion, are there others that were labeled heretics that were indeed heretics, and how do you determine that?
All we have is Scripture. Simply read the Holy Bible and compare it.

Well I don’t know how the Catholic Church feels about these, but I who consider myself a Christian, do not consider them Christian. Sorry I don’t have the reference for these:

Apollinarianism - Belief that Christ had no soul, but rather was filled with logos, or the Word, and was neither fully human nor fully divine.

Arianism - Belief that the Father existed before the Son, the Son was created by the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.

Collyridians - A small fourth-century sect in Arabia, mainly composed of women, who worshipped the Blessed Virgin, offering cakes to her during a religious ceremony.

Docetism - Belief that Christ was wholly God, and his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real.

Dynamic Monarchianism -Claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God, and teaches that Christ “became” God.

Ebionitism -Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divin. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings.

Eutychianism - belief that Christ had only a divine nature, not a human one.

Monophysitism - This heresy denies the humanity of Christ. It removes the value of Christ’s redemptive work, because it denies that Christ suffered as a man. It declares that Christ had a single (mono), divine, nature. This doctrine is still taught by the Oriental Orthodox churches: Coptic Church of Egypt; Ethiopian Orthodox; Syrian Orthodox; Armenian Orthodox; and Malankara (Indian) Orthodox.

Monothelitism -Belief that Jesus posessed one divine-human energia, not two cooperating (divine and human) wills. Still held by the Maronite Church in Syria.

Nestorianism - Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.

Noeticism - Belief that God moved as a single spirit into Mary, and was transferred into Christ at birth. God himself was crucified and raised himself from the dead.
 
Tertullian wrote extensively about Christianity, labeled the concept of Trinity and then left the Church to join Montanism?

Many that the Catholic Church labeled heretics weren’t.

The Orthodox Church split from the Catholic Church over traditions! Luther was forced to split over** tradtions**.
i asked for Church Fathers, Tertullian is not a Church father, although he was great defender of the Faith, later he became a montanist. so, he is not a Church Father. give me the Church Fathers who dissagree with the CC.

luther is not a Church Father. Luther fostered heresies. he was condemned for his heretical teachings. he was an angry man. i dont know if he ever repented, we will never know since the Church will not say it.

the EO is another issue.
 
Tertullian is not your friend.

TERTULLIAN

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians, and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

TERTULLIAN
“[T]the Church has the power of forgiving sins. This I acknowledge and adjudge” (ibid., 21).

TERTULLIAN

“The Great Pontiff—that is, the bishop of bishops *—issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged penance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication” (Modesty 1 [A.D. 220
Why? Because he turned from the Church to Montanism?

tertullian.org/works/de_pudicitia.htm*
[/quote]
 
All we have is Scripture. Simply read the Holy Bible and compare it.

Well I don’t know how the Catholic Church feels about these, but I who consider myself a Christian, do not consider them Christian. Sorry I don’t have the reference for these:

Apollinarianism - Belief that Christ had no soul, but rather was filled with logos, or the Word, and was neither fully human nor fully divine.

Arianism - Belief that the Father existed before the Son, the Son was created by the Father, and there was a time when the Son did not exist.

Collyridians - A small fourth-century sect in Arabia, mainly composed of women, who worshipped the Blessed Virgin, offering cakes to her during a religious ceremony.

Docetism - Belief that Christ was wholly God, and his humanity and suffering only seemed to be real.

Dynamic Monarchianism -Claimed Jesus Christ was simply a man, whom God filled with an impersonal power, either at his conception, baptism, or resurrection. This denies Christ taking any personality from God, and teaches that Christ “became” God.

Ebionitism -Belief that Jesus was nothing more that a prophet: a man, but not divin. Named after the Ebionites, a first-century Jewish-Christian sect who emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul’s teachings.

Eutychianism - belief that Christ had only a divine nature, not a human one.

Monophysitism - This heresy denies the humanity of Christ. It removes the value of Christ’s redemptive work, because it denies that Christ suffered as a man. It declares that Christ had a single (mono), divine, nature. This doctrine is still taught by the Oriental Orthodox churches: Coptic Church of Egypt; Ethiopian Orthodox; Syrian Orthodox; Armenian Orthodox; and Malankara (Indian) Orthodox.

Monothelitism -Belief that Jesus posessed one divine-human energia, not two cooperating (divine and human) wills. Still held by the Maronite Church in Syria.

Nestorianism - Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was filled with the logos, that only the human part of Jesus suffered and died, and that man simply needs an infilling of logos for salvation.

Noeticism - Belief that God moved as a single spirit into Mary, and was transferred into Christ at birth. God himself was crucified and raised himself from the dead.
and what Church defended the Truth in all this? what Church determined that all these were false teachings?

did Scriptures alone determined?
 
You do seem to have a handle on the history you’ve been taught.
Thank you for a very good post,but i must say you will have a lot of people that just can not understand all they think is to be against the Cathloic Church, some do not even believe what Our Lord has to say when it is in black and white.
 
Why? Because he turned from the Church to Montanism?

tertullian.org/works/de_pudicitia.htm
tertullian is not a father of the Church. have you read what Tertullian said about confession? does it agree with what you believe?

and what is this?

A general comment from Barnes, ch 7, p83:

“Tertullian’s later writings receive abuse and condemnation in subsequent ages. Many of the charges are unmerited. Tertullian did not leave the church wholly or mainly of his own accord. In the age of the Severi, the church was changing. It was becoming an established institution in which enthusiasm or direct communion with God presented a threat to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Tertullian is the first great teacher of unimpeachable doctrinal orthodoxy who dared to enunciate an unpalatable truth: the church is not a conclave of bishops, but the manifestation of the Holy Spirit: (ch 21, 17): ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum.”
 
Thanks for trying to answer my questions. Good try.

Did we have a police dept. back then,Why do we have a police dept. now,are guards like police dept. SO WHY DO WE HAVE GUARDS,many Protestants preacher have private guards,Why not guards for the pope.​

I don’t think Christians should hire a body guard. Being a martyr is part of the deal.
 
Why? Because he turned from the Church to Montanism?

tertullian.org/works/de_pudicitia.htm
it is amazing how some people just decides to use a Catholic and distort what they believed and tought.

Tertullian answers to your comentary, whoever there is.

Tertullian

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top