F
Formosus
Guest
There is far more evidence that Paul existed then any of the OT prophets. Really there is more evidence for Paul’s existence then Alexander the Great.
- Status
K
Kouyate42
Guest
The premise I reject and which Christians take as being the basis for throwing out the ceremonial law is Jesus as Moshiach. Jesus neither fufilled the requirements for the Moshiach neither did he fufill many messianic prophecies according to Jewish law.So I may understand. What is the premise you believe to be false that Christians profess as you state.
From the Aish website:
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:
- Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
- Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
- Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
- Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9).
Jesus did NOT fufill a single one of these. And so the idea that you can ‘throw out’ any bit of the Law based on anything that either Jesus or a follower of him said, did or believed is wrong, because the basis on which their argument is based is false.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
It is English lesson time…
youtube.com/watch?v=rn6w255CGkk
If you believe that the temple is a physical structure then you may be correct. If you believe that the temple is other than that then you are wrong. If you believe that as Paul says that a Jew is one circumcised of the heart so that all can come to the Kingdom, the New Israel, for the land is not Israel…the earth is Israel then you are wrong. It is just a matter of perspective. Getting the peace thing going takes time. God is King of all the world even if people don’t recognize it. Keep preaching this and they will get it.
Amen:blush:
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
** The Catholic Church has always believed the Church of Jesus Christ is “the body of Christ”** **any other definition lacks the One holy Catholic and apostolic faith which both sacred scripture and sacred Tradition teach and practice **this in the body of Christ, since Paul revealed this doctrine from his epistles who met Jesus while persecuting Jesus body the “Church”.
In fact Paul comes to salvation by way of the Church by persecuting her before coming to Christ, whom Jesus revealed to Paul that the Church was His body Paul persecuted.
Since the first century both secular history and non catholic religious history always firmly records the Catholic Church existing in their histories including every pope the secular and non catholic religious martyred.
Today the Jewish religious community announced officially a decade or two ago that the Church Jesus founded was founded upon Peter and his successors in the Popes in the Catholic Church.
I believe this thread can be productive to those who don’t know who there founders of their faith began and what they teach today, compared to other founders of christian communities to educate and inform one another here.
Biblically speaking Church is defined as being the “Body of Christ”.
What is the body of Christ? Where is the body of Christ since apostolic times? who is the body of Christ? defines who and what the Church Jesus founded today.
Peace be with you
K
Kouyate42
Guest
I’m not sure what your point is here…I believe in the physical rebuilding of a physical building in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount to be exact.It is English lesson time…
youtube.com/watch?v=rn6w255CGkk
If you believe that the temple is a physical structure then you may be correct. If you believe that the temple is other than that then you are wrong. If you believe that as Paul says that a Jew is one circumcised of the heart so that all can come to the Kingdom, the New Israel, for the land is not Israel…the earth is Israel then you are wrong. It is just a matter of perspective. Getting the peace thing going takes time. God is King of all the world even if people don’t recognize it. Keep preaching this and they will get it.
Amen:blush:
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Here is a quote from a first century Jewish rabbi who speaks about the temple in Jerusalem before he prophecised its destruction in 70 a.d who still has a following today since he was condemned to death and arose from the dead and then witnessed ascended into heaven. You know something how Enoch and Elijah were taken up…But this Jewish prophet did it on His own power.
John 4:20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain;* but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.”h 21Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews
23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. 24God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.”*
C
CopticChristian
Guest
That would be a literal translation. I believe that the rabbi referred to in the prior post had another view.
K
Kouyate42
Guest
Keeping the quote short here…
The fact is that what you quote runs contrary to Torah
[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 37:26-28[/BIBLEDRB]
This parrticular passage makes it clear that the sanctuary (i.e. the Temple) will be rebuilt, and this shall serve as a permanent home to the Living G-d and as a place of worship for all the world.
Also, a Isaiah passage for you:
4 For this is what the LORD says:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant—
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD
to minister to him,
to love the name of the LORD,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Sovereign LORD declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
**“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.” **
Bolding is mine. This makes it clear there’s a physical temple to give offerings in, a physicaln altar to make a sacrifice and that ALL people shall come to Torah.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
We do use incense on the altar…The tabernacle contains the Eucharist…don’t that get all…
K
Kouyate42
Guest
I’m talking about the altar described in the Torah, the one commanded by G-d to be built in the Temple to offer sacrifices and offerings.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
And the Torah’s Tabernacle referred to the portable temple which the wandering Israelites built and used to honor G-d.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Why does that scene remind me of the Mormon Baptismal fount?
K
Kouyate42
Guest
It’s likely where they got the idea…
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
This all came to pass because God dwells with the human race in the new and everlasting covenant when the Word of God made flesh, not in a cold building. And yes the temple is physical and eternal because the Spirit of God is revealed in Truth physically in body Jesus Christ.
Ohh, but you think God dwells within brick walls? How is this an eternal convenant and is to remain forever? I don’t think God wants to be left in a cold brick building outside of his creation. For He is a loving and merciful Father and dwells in the hearts and minds of men who have been “Sprinkled with water” and brought in into the everlasting covenant.
K
Kouyate42
Guest
God is very much present in the Temple and will be present in the Third Temple. But you seem to think that God can’t be in more place than one- read the Old Testament and there is plenty of references to the highly personal relationships the Jews had with G-d, as well as the formal requirements of the Tabernacle and Temple rituals. Even when in Babylon, Daniel was still able to confidently believe that G-d was with him (and He was!).
Judaism isn’t just about rituals, it’s about a real relationship with G-d, a DIRECT relationship.
EDIT: Also, even when in a synagogue service or even when the Temple is rebuilt, even though the words are the same as always and the offerings exact, the people in that Temple are all very much different and have different relationships with G-d. And He responds to that in His many different ways. You see, HaShem is a personal God- He gives each of us our own individual needs and He has His individual plan for each and every one of us.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Ok I will be bite. You believe that a Jewish temple will be rebuilt on the same spot as the original one was? Because if your moving it somewhere on the same mountain, then you have not a third temple but a first new temple.
Will you be offering blood sacrifices in this new temple? Don’t you think you might be contending with animal activists rights here and public health? I heard that the red cow has been in breeding for sometime now by Jews. Did you maintain a valid levitical priesthood since the last two temples that survived up to today?
You do know that the second century Jews along with the support of the Roman Empire tried to rebuild the temple to discredit Jesus and His Church and fire belowed from the ground and burned them and the rocks they turned. Are you aware of this divine intervention that took place?
In summary I don’t see any reason to debate the existance of God or His presence, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. How God has revealed Himself becomes a form of discussion.
A
afiala2
Guest
Catholic FAQ #10: Do Catholics believe they are the only ones who will go to Heaven?
youtube.com/watch?v=5cTr8OoGMA0
Only Catholics in Heaven!
youtube.com/watch?v=2Dcfj0PU_JQ&feature=related
Read #816 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
*added emphasis to definitions
CCC defines Pride as one of the seven capital sins. Pride is undue self-esteem or self-love, which seeks attention and honor and sets oneself in competition with God.
CCC defines salvation as the forgiveness of sins and restoration of friendship with God, which can be done by God alone.
So if salvation comes from God alone and you don’t belong to the Church Jesus started, why DOESN’T that concern you?
The **simple logic **of a child (Matthew 18:3) brings you to God; you just need to be open-minded. All I am saying is explaining Christ started the Catholic Church and men started others. I am saying people are saying their teachings are superior to God’s when they teach in opposition to the Church Christ started.
This is a question born of both concern and the inner desire of wanting what Jesus wants which is unity. Until visible unity happens, which is the only way true spiritual unity can occur, my question will remain WHO FOUNDED YOUR CHURCH?
Sometimes you must examine yourself and ask yourself why DON’T I want unity among Christians and why DON’T I recognize the authority Jesus left in place. The question why DON’T I want what Jesus wants is a good question to start with.
Ok, a lot of people have false opinions on different things; they may simply not be educated (though a priest would/should be) or have too much pride to listen to the truth.
If there is silence on a subject, it should be assumed there is agreement, these are known teachings that an adult should know on their own, and aren’t really a question. This is why there are little to no homilies on the subject normally only an announcement at the end of mass to attend the Pro-Life activities in the area like life chain, walk for life, or pray a rosary for the unborn.
As far as ABC, abortion, and ordaining women, we KNOW we are to remain chaste and married couples are to lovingly accept children from God (in the vows), thou shall not kill, and that Jesus and the Apostles were all men, done that covers it, it is that simple. Also reading on your own time and/or simply just listening to the Bible readings at Mass will help you find the answer. Remember these 2 Bible verses Jeremiah 1:5 and 1 Timothy 2:12.
If a dissenting Priest as you are describing converts to another religion then I will assume they disagree, but if they are a Catholic Priest it is assumed there is agreement, people who say otherwise just sound like they are gossiping and trying to talk negative about the Church and their goal is dissention.
I am assuming you are married to a Catholic based on your Mass attendance. I would agree that it isn’t always preached about as a topic of a homily, but remember homilies aren’t our only source of education on our faith and homilies are normally more based on the scripture readings that day which only some of the time would directly relate to the topics you said. Remember regular Sunday homilies are intended for adults (Confirmed members of the Church) where it is assumed a certain level of catechesis has taken place and usually don’t spell out elementary things like chastity and killing-it’s the ten commandments and Moses. (Question one: are you supposed to kill others? Question two: are you supposed to be chaste?). It is expected of adults to self-educate on teachings, you stop being a child at Confirmation. Silence can’t be assumed as dissent; they need to change the name of the Church to non-catholic to get that message that they aren’t Catholic. There are 38,000+ others they can commune with if they don’t agree. They probably shouldn’t be receiving communion if they are that against the teaching and your spouse should say something to the Bishop (assuming your spouse is Catholic, otherwise why do you attend Catholic Mass as you are obviously opposed to it and don’t really pay attention?).
A
afiala2
Guest
Pointing out obedience and belief are different is just saying some people sin more than others; well ……I hope everyone understands that, not sure I know what you are trying to say here.
The people who openly disagree and want to in public are/become protestant/others or start their own church that is what I am saying here. If you aren’t a follower, you aren’t a follower. I am a sheep, Christ is My Shepherd; the Pope (Peter) is the head servant shepherd. No one is FULLY obedient, we all sin even the Pope. We are obedient on different levels. Belief and obedience are two completely different things. You are saying these people say the words and don’t believe, or are only obedient to themselves sounds like non-catholics. People who don’t obey the way you are describing don’t believe either.
Again your findings are mysteriously things that feed dissention and you AREN’T Catholic. Are you trying to make unity happen or is your goal division? This is what I am asking everyone? It is obvious even when not directly addressed, just like abortion.
Give me an example, if seeking the truth is the constant everyone would be united with Peter because they would know he was left with the keys. Seeking the truth is the remedy to dissention.
A
afiala2
Guest
You have falsely accused me so many times I stopped counting.
I never said the Bishop of Rome has always used the title and even said for sure it has not always been used as a distinguishing title nor did I claim the Bishop of Rome was the first to use it, I even said common priests in the east used the title. I explained father of the family and the meaning of the word Pope. The Successor of St. Peter is the Successor of St. Peter, is all I said. Pope is used interchangeably with Bishop of Rome, because **within the Church **it is now known Pope refers exclusively to the Successor of Peter.
Saints didn’t go by the title Saint while they were alive. We just refer to them as what they are. Use leader of the Church Jesus started or ROCK or Successor of Peter when you see the word Pope because that is what I mean when I use that title. Just like I use Saint for people the Church has declared are in heaven.
I never said Ephesus II “excommunicated” Pope Leo (who was the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter), I said Dioscorus did following the Robber Council not during/or an action of the Council. Dioscorus did after the Robber Council (him along with 10 other Bishops) and before the Council of Chalcedon.
Again, Pope Leo annulled the Acts of the Robber Council, absolved all those who were excommunicated at the Robber Council and excommunicated the participating Bishops of that Council, after he found out of Dioscorus and other Bishops “excommunicating” him. Chalcedon wasn’t even necessary it was more of a formality of the final Bishops “signing off” on the Tome, not that they would be able to disagree with its orthodoxy, that wasn’t a question (it wasn’t unorthodox, **read the quote again **after it was read). Remember many Bishops had already signed Leo’s Tome before Chalcedon and it was originally intended for Ephesus II, which would have been a recognized Council had it taken place correctly which would have for sure made Chalcedon not take place.
Theodoret was deposed for siding with Nestorius in 431. He was also the first person who took actions that lead to why Eutyches was condemned by Patriarch Flavian.
I suggest reading about St. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople and how he was involved and particularly why and how he died. An examination of St. Flavian’s life and death reflects the Bishop of Rome’s authority of the time.
The dispute between Alexandria and Constantinople shows how Peter’s Authority is necessary to resolve differences and to stay united moving forward. Stopping heresy was everyone’s goal; Peter stepped in and made sure it happened in order to maintain unity. The only reason unity was lost, was because people stopped following the Pope’s (Chair of Peter’s) Authority.
It was already accepted by many before the Council, so most likely only comments were the dissenting (excommunicated) Bishops. ” Peter has uttered this through Leo”, is not referring to the dissenting Bishops and their comments, it is referring to St. Leo I who wasn’t even there. Again, Peter has spoken, Leo was Peter’s Successor. Peter has spoken was said after Leo’s letter was read and was referring to him, not people who were interrupting Leo’s letter being read. **YOU DON’T BECOME THE POPE BY DISAGREEING WITH HIM. **
A
afiala2
Guest
Again the quote is “Leo and Cyril taught the same.” I said the Tome condemned the heresy of Eutyches. Dioscorus apparently prevented the Tome from being read at Ephesus II, “Why was this not read out at Ephesus? Dioscorus concealed it”
Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.
Eutyches’ heresy was called Monophysitism.
I apologize I wasn’t trying to do anything but accurately learn history together and wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth (you are still saying you are tired of it). But you saying the very thing that proves the point is out of context, is the pot calling the kettle black. I wasn’t questioning motives, just defending what I am saying and explaining just how much it actually was in context. I am tired of people not looking at the unity of the Church and not realizing the REASON these councils were taking place was for the unity of the church and the wanting to stop heretical teachings. That was everyone’s goal, or at least I hope that was their motives.
This comment was made following a statement read made by a Pope during an ecumenical council that condemned another that didn’t have that same Pope’s approval. **Your accusation of me (others) taking “Peter has spoken” out of context is false. How can you ever take the phrase “Peter has spoken” referring to his successors out of context? ** It is the context. As I said Leo’s Tome was condemning the heresy of Eutyches and the Bishops that were with Dioscorus were “critiquing” Leo, because these Bishops were hung up on the Nestorian heresy and were supporting Eutyches while Theodoret was on the opposite side (and these Bishops simply saw Theodoret as a Nestorian heretic nothing more). And actually later during Chalcedon, Theodoret fully agreed with the condemnation of Nestorius (though he may not have been convinced Nestorius actually taught what was being charged against him). The Bishops were also against Leo because he annulled the 449 Council and excommunicated them as I already said and the obvious objection to Leo’s Tome’s condemnation of Eutyches.
What does Peter has spoken mean to you, then? You say it is out of context, what does it mean?
All I was doing was trying to explain my understanding of the council(s), that is all. Accepting both Ephesus II and Chalcedon doesn’t make sense; you seem to be doing that (sorry if I misunderstood you). Leo (his representatives) was ignored during and Leo was later “excommunicated” AFTER the council of Ephesus in 449 by Dioscorus who lead the 2nd Ephesus Council or “Robber Council”, and then Leo annulled Ephesus II. Leo’s letter was read at Chalcedon that was supposed to be read at Ephesus and Dioscorus was deposed.
So if you recognize Ephesus II which was mostly lead by Dioscorus (a Bishop not recognizing the Pope’s authority) you wouldn’t recognize Chalcedon because Dioscorus was deposed.
If you recognize the Pope’s authority you don’t recognize 2nd Council of Ephesus because Leo annulled the council and recognize the Council of Chalcedon because it condemned the heresy of Eutyches.
The Council of Ephesus (431) lead by St. Cyril, addressed and condemned the heresy of Nestorius, the Council of Chalcedon addressed and condemned the heresy of Eutyches 20 years later.
A
afiala2
Guest
The only distinction I am making is Christians united to the Successor of Peter (Church Christ started) and those who are not. The Church, united with Peter, is in one column, while schismatics & heretics are in another column, not united to Peter. There is only one OHCAC and the door to the house is open; people have to come in to be a part of the Catholic family. Consider this your invitation. I am defending Christ’s Church, but you can’t force people to do anything they don’t want too. Usually my biggest problem is simply getting someone to listen, read Matthew Chapter 7.
This is error. If we were united there would be no denomination. Denomination is a Protestant phenomenon. If all Protestant thought united into one Denomination and then joined the the OHCAC the denomination would cease to exist.
I was using the word denomination in the sense of church/religion/system of belief/denomination as I have been in this thread or an entity that recognizes an authority even if that authority is just the Bible and whoever first said that the Bible was enough in some cases. So you are agreeing with me I meant it as one Church or we would all belong to the ONE and ONLY Church Jesus started/OHCAC/Catholic Church. But I agree with you it is better put by replacing, we would all be one denomination, with we would all be members of the universal society founded by Jesus Christ (be members of His Catholic Church) or all be a part of the OHCAC.
Post #44.The problem with the question, “Who founded your church?,” is that many Protestants (Calvary Chapel and Vineyard Chapel folks, in particular) will insist that Constantine founded the Catholic church, so it’s really not the best apologetics tactic. Constantine’s pretty much a non-starter to begin with (if not a thread killer), and not everyone’s prepared to refute the claim. Not sure why Constantine is such a non-starter in Catholic apologetics…
You seem to need to convince yourself FIRST. You seem like you are trying to kill the thread and you are SUPPOSEDLY Catholic. It is the ONLY apologetic question needed, what is more important than WHO STARTED YOUR CHURCH? Then if God didn’t found your Church why are you a member of your church? Then why is that reason(s) you have for belonging to another more important than obeying God and respecting His Authority on Earth? It is a ONE and DONE situation, **you have to be open-minded or unbiased **to see it.
Also note when Constantine was alive and when the books of the Bible were determined by the Catholic Church, they would be relying on “Constantine’s Church” for their NT if that was the case. But the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, it is in the Bible. Then remind them when their Church started, that is if anyone even takes credit for starting their Church.
When someone states a false claim like Constantine founding His own Church, you need to say show me your proof. Then, they need to be reminded the Church described in the Bible is the Catholic Church. Ask them why does your church not have THE successor to St. Peter? Why doesn’t your Church have the anointing of the Sick (James 5:14-15)? Who in their Church has the Power to forgiven sins (John 20:22-23)? Etc. Of course their answers to these questions are we are all our own pope, we can forgive our own sins, and we don’t get sick because we are godly. Then you say ooooooooooookay…….then please show me in the Bible where this is stated, and remind them even if they can magically distort a few verses to agree with what they are saying they have to look at the Bible in context and in its entirety, and then they still have to disprove 2,000 years of religious practices of the Church that have been in agreement with the Bible and are a historical fact. Then they will change the subject with another claim against the Church like saying we are idol worshippers, then you show them in the Bible……., etc. etc. etc. etc. Remind them there are plenty of false claims against the Church if you want to know the truth; you have to take an honest, unbiased look for yourself.
- Status